Vista Family Discount Keys Found Not Compatible

acousticiris writes "Many (if not all) users who took advantage of Microsoft's Vista Family Discount have been issued invalid installation keys and cannot install Windows Vista Home Premium. Microsoft says, 'There is no expected time period for a fix at this time.' According to the article, the keys are valid for something, just not Windows Vista. Perhaps it's just too simple to issue these folks new keys and send them on their way."

Comments

Paid customers getting the shaft?

[wesley96]

Ah, whodathunkit? :P Anyway, I have an itchy feeling some cracker might be able to put out a valid serial generator before MS could fix this problem.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you calling a cracker, nigger?

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[Nutty_Irishman]

Ah, whodathunkit? :P Anyway, I have an itchy feeling some cracker might be able to put out a valid serial generator before MS could fix this problem. Personally I believe in equal opportunity piracy. But, whatever floats your boat...

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[Hrodvitnir]

Ok, I laughed, but come on... That's kind of a step back for those of us trying to get everyone to stop using 'hacker' incorrectly.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[numbski]

Cracker what?!?

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Kay, this is from MacSlash, so obviously it has a bit of Mac slant to it. However, the story seems to check out and what's worse is the account how Microsoft handles the problem. What a horrible company.

MS has a Family Program, where if you buy a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate (the high end version), you can then also purchase up two two licenses of Windows Vista Home Premium at $50 each for additional machines in your home using a special web site. This is only offered for those who purchase their copy of Vista Ultimate through a retail channel.

I purchased the Ultimate copy via Amazon for my Macbook Pro at work ($400) and then when I got home, I purchased one additional license ($50) for Home Premium through the Microsoft web site for my iMac at home. That's $450 that I gave Microsoft.

The online sale went fine and I was issued a license key for my second machine. The problem was that the key didn't work. I re-entered and double-checked it at length with no luck. Time to go to support. In the email I received it had a web link to follow if you need help, so I clicked. It goes to a non-existant page at microsoft.com, and still does today.

So, next I called the toll-free number in the email. It turns out that this is a Microsoft number, but for a different project. The person who answered my call was unusually candid with me. The poor people working at that number were not equipped for the deluge of calls they were receiving. They were not even supposed to be getting these calls. They had not been trained themselves on how to use Vista yet and had no idea what to do to remedy the problem. He told me that they've been getting "thousands" of calls all day long for this very same issue and that he can confirm for me that the keys being generated by the web site are not working for anyone.

He said all he could do was to take my name and number, which he wrote down on physical paper to deliver to his supervisor (I thought Microsoft had email, silly me). He said they were trying to get the attention of someone "higher in the food chain" to do something about it - or at least shut down the offending web page that's issuing the invalid keys. He told me he hoped that someone would get back to me "within a few days" and that he's very sorry but has nothing more to offer.

Microsoft does not offer refunds for purchases made through their web site and they are sticking to that policy, leaving users like me who already paid them hundreds of dollars with no recourse and unable to affect the remedy to this horrible situation.

On the very day that an OS is released that's been in development for half a decade, the least I expect is that their ordering systems are working correctly and their staff is properly prepared.

This has one again reinforced my impression of Microsoft as being an unresponsive company that makes crap software.

and a follow up from another poster:

Last night, I received an email from MS Support. The person sending it was telling me that she is taking "ownership" of my case and provided me her direct email address. Finally, I thought, I'm getting somewhere.

Having heard nothing more, this morning I sent her an email asking for the status of my case. No response yet. I sent another around lunchtime, still no response. So, this afternoon, I phoned them back at the number given to me in the email last night.

I was horrifed to find out that MS claims my case is closed and resolved! They transferred me to someone who could open my case back up for me, and then back to Customer Service. Being unable to help me, Customer Service transferred me to Tech Support.

After explaining the whole story from scratch again, t

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[Ucklak]

I am dating my self but I remember seeing that skit when it was first aired.
Mod parent Funny.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[Anonymous Coward]

May I suggest that you fix your sig typo.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[chaosite]

Stop the nonsense.

'Hacker' always involved mischief. Show me a "hacker" who never did anything "blackhat", and I'll show you a bad hacker. As far as I'm concerned, crackers are things you eat with some cottage cheese.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[ady1]

Talk about self referential. Your first line applies on your own post.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[jrumney]

Microsoft does not offer refunds for purchases made through their web site and they are sticking to that policy, leaving users like me who already paid them hundreds of dollars with no recourse and unable to affect the remedy to this horrible situation.

Does the US really have no laws protecting consumers from this sort of crap? You were sold a product that is defective, and the supplier has no acceptable substitute to replace it with. If you paid with a credit card, the credit card company should at least come down on them even if the law won't.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[FirienFirien]

But pirates sink boats!

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[Iamthefallen]

It was a different time. Somehow I doubt that scene would do very well today.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[alanthenerd]

But pirates sink boats! Bad pirates sink boats, good pirates just steal the loot and let the boat go so that they can steal more stuff the next time.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[3vi1]

...Show me a "hacker" who never did anything "blackhat"...

Alexander Graham Bell.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[hackstraw]

Does the US really have no laws protecting consumers from this sort of crap?

Sure, antitrust laws. But all in all, no. The little guys here in the US are getting littler, and it will take a downright revolution to balance the scale.

I'm not trolling, I'm really asking a question to see if there is a good answer.

Is there anything positive to say about Vista? Granted, I'm not a Windows user, and I get my info from slashdot, digg, and standard media outlets, and I saw Gates on the Daily Show, but seriously, is this a bundle of software that has any merit?

I hear about licenses not working. I hear about it being beta quality. I hear about it having OS X like features that just aren't as good. I hear about it ambiently consuming 10-20% of the CPU. I hear about all of the real features like WinFS that were abandoned.

Are there any honest or real positive opinions of this product?

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[jaimz22]

hey atleast he didn't say "1337 script kiddy"

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[recursiv]

I am dating my self [...]

Sounds pretty auto-erotic.

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[vrai]

...Show me a "hacker" who never did anything "blackhat"... Alexander Graham Bell. The same Alexander Graham Bell who won his most famous patent by bribing a patent office employee? Clearly the very paragon of virtue!

Re:Paid customers getting the shaft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of how broken Micro$oft and Vista are. Reports are coming in of DVD drives and HD drives not working, Micro$oft's own software not running on Vista (you better BUY more new software), etc. Just keeps getting worse.

family values

[rigelstar]

Microsoft has begun its war against the american family. Grab your pitchforks and join the final battle!

Re:family values

[SEWilco]

Not to worry. Your Microsoft Vista-compatible Family will arrive tomorrow. All will be well. Just ask them.

Re:family values

[vought]

Thankfully for those of us with several Macs, Apple doesn't require activation or serialization of the Mac OS X family pack.

Just sayin'.

Re:family values

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Okay. Anything to kill the American family. Finally, Microsoft and I see eye to eye on something.

Re:family values

[clontzman]

They do, however, require that your hardware have a shiny Apple logo on the outside, so let's not get too excited.

Re:family values

[Mr2001]

Well, since you're spending an extra $500 for that logo, it'd better be shiny!

Re:family values

[mollymoo]

Where can I buy a $199 mini Windows PC?

Re:family values

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a fallacy.

Re:family values

[Mr2001]

The same place I can buy a 15" Mac notebook with a Core 2 Duo for under $1500.

Re:family values

[Mr2001]

You're right; logically, there's no implication that the logo has to be shiny. It could justify its cost some other way, for example by coming with a coupon for a free 20" HDTV.

Re:family values

[DeadChobi]

Fry's Electronics.

Re:family values

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. The barebones system is not a full, working computer. It is a shell which requires parts that cost more than $50 to make it comparable to a Mac Mini. Further, it does not carry a warranty with one vendor for a year.

It has been proven countless times the Apple is more expensive argument does not hold up in all cases. There are certain price points for certain products that Apple beats dell, hp and other vendors. Apple does not offer as many models or target as many markets as dell. Building your own PC is not even close to buying an Apple. My mother can not build a PC, but she could buy an Apple. Its a different segment.

I will agree that Apple is too expensive for the lowend market. Typically, Apple does not care about the lowend market.

Linux is not a real contender to Windows Vista or Mac OS 10.4 in many segments. I use Linux to mean a distribution of Linux and not merely a kernel which is a more accurate usage of the word. This does not mean that the cost or value of Linux should be ignored in all cases or that FUD should be spread about Linux. Likewise, Macs are not more expensive to everyone and the FUD must stop. My iBook has been much more valuable to me over the last few years than any PC laptop I could have purchased. It has been reliable. It has almost every feature I could want aside from a desktop capacity hard disk. At one point, I was able to dual boot Linux and OS X on it. At the time, it was cheaper than most other laptops with the same hardware. It had a radeon graphics card with a UNIX like operating system pre-installed.

There is nothing wrong with liking PCs. In fact, Macs are being more PC like everyday with their intel chips and standard system buses. Apple is just like HP, Dell or Lenovo. They sell IA-32 compatible hardware which happens to have a non-windows operating system. Linux users should rejoice that a vendor wishes to sell another OS. There is hope for you after all. Maybe someone will pick up Linux.

Re:family values

[JazzLad]

Ok, now find me a $50 Core Duo chip :)

I'll buy two ...

Re:family values

[balamw]

Not to mention RAM, an HDD, otpical drive, WiFi, etc... and a 10x shrink ray. All for that same $50.

B

Re:family values

[mollymoo]

You can't buy an HP or anything else I've found with the same spec for under $1500 either - I did find a slower, much heavier HP with a lower resolution screen and poorer battery life for $1560 or so. You can buy a Sony which is close, but has a lower resolution screen and weighs a pound more, for $1850 though. Gah, I ran the number here a couple of weeks back, but it's fallen off the bottom of my message list, it would be handy if subscriber could retreive it. You can certainly buy a laptop for much less, but I've not found one at all with all the same features and the closest models available (like the Sony, which is still inferior in significant ways) cost similar money. If you do go and look make sure you match everything: processor, RAM, screen, HD, optical drive, weight, battery life, included restore disks, all OS features (cf XP Pro, Vista Ultimate)... it's easy to find something cheaper with the same CPU and RAM which is noticeably inferior in other ways, but try and find something which is actually equivalent and see what it costs in Windows-land.

Re:family values

[nurb432]

And thats a problem, how?

Re:family values

[RESPAWN]

...it's easy to find something cheaper with the same CPU and RAM which is noticeably inferior in other ways, but try and find something which is actually equivalent and see what it costs in Windows-land. Maybe Apple is missing out then by not catering to those people who wish to purchase a lower end laptop. It seems to me that since everybody complains that Macs are too expensive, then Apple might be able to sell a few more units if they provide their own notebooks with inferior specs.

It's a thought, anyway.

Re:family values

[Mr2001]

You can't buy an HP or anything else I've found with the same spec for under $1500 either Oh, but you can. Check out the HP dv6000 series. You can get one with the same size screen as the low-end MBP (slightly lower res), same or larger hard drive, same or faster optical drive, CPU within about 133 MHz, weight within 1/2 lb, dimensions within 1/2 inch, built-in mic and camera, remote control, and more USB ports for $500 less than the MBP.

I know people here are in love with the myth that Apple products are cheaper than PCs, but it just isn't true. Please don't waste my time objecting that the HP isn't exactly the same; I'll point out right now that it's a different color and has a different logo, too. Point is, it's nearly identical, equivalent overall, and it's several hundred dollars cheaper.

Re:family values

[Mr2001]

Exactly. The problem with Apple's notebook lineup is it's feast or famine. MacBooks are expensive because if you want any of the MBP features, you have to pay for all of them. You can't get a 15" laptop for less than $2000 if there's a picture of an apple on it; one might argue that the other included features make it worth the price, but not everyone needs them.

Re:family values

[mollymoo]

I think it was a dv6000t I specced out last time and got pretty much that price - so kudos for honestly trying to match the specs, which is more than the guy was doing which promted me to check this out last time (who was claiming an $800-1000 differential). Even so, the HP is still noticably inferior in a few different ways - ways which aren't cheap to fix. That extra 160MHz may not seem much, but the price difference is $125 at NewEgg or $200 if you get it as an option on a Sony laptop. As for "dimensions within 1/2 inch" well, that certainly sounds better than saying it's 69% thicker, which it is at its thickest - the HP is 1.69" at its thickest compared to 1" for the MBP - and that's with the 6-cell pack, not the 12-cell you need to match the MBP's battery life (I did find some battery life specs for the HP last time, but I can't find them again, IIRC about 2.5h with the 6-cell and a similar configuration was quoted). The 12-cell weighs more too. Judging by the pics, it's around 2.5" thick at the back with the 12-cell pack. $375 extra ($500 - processor differential) for a laptop 60% or 40% of the maximum thickness aint too bad, especially when you also get Firewire, gigabit ethernet, the higher resolution screen and for an extra $2 802.11n WiFi. I can't be bothered to go and find the Sony which really was similar in dimensions and had the same processor as the MBP (but the same lower res screen as the HP, and no gig ethernet) and cost $1850, but I'm sure you can find it if you want.

I would never claim Apple computers are cheaper than PCs. They generally aren't. But the premium isn't $500 or 25%, it's more like 5-10% and for that you get niceties like the mag-safe power adapter, an illuminated keyboard and a DVI-VGA converter cable. Macs are premium products - expensive, but not hugley overpriced in the way people like to make them out to be. They cost a lot, but you do get a lot for your money. That HP is just no comparison. You drive your Hyundai, I'll drive my Benz and I'm sure we'll both be happy with what we've got.

Re:family values

[Mr2001]

Fair enough.. but the problem remains that you can get quite a good laptop elsewhere for $1200-$1500, with most of their specs about equivalent to the MBP's specs. Not identical, but close enough for most people. I've got a PowerBook G4, but there's no way I could justify replacing it with a pricey MBP when I can get all the features I need for far less elsewhere.

Apple's product line has a huge gap between the regular MacBook and the MacBook Pro, which means a feature comparison looks even worse if you do it the other way around: spec an HP laptop for $1500, then try to find a Mac that matches. You have to either spend an extra $500 for the MBP, or settle for the MB's tiny screen, cheap keyboard, and bargain-bin video chipset - the regular MacBook is a slap in the face to anyone who's comparison shopping.

Re:family values

[mollymoo]

I agree there are gaps in the Apple range and it bugs me too. What they do offer is very nice and the price, for what you get, isn't extortionate IMO. The mid-range laptop is one, but the one that bugs me is the lack of a ~$1000 desktop machine without a built-in monitor. I'd love a Mac desktop which I could dual-boot into Windows to play games, but the only things with decent GFX cards or the potential for upgrades are Mac Pros, which cost megabucks and are huge overkill for most people. I can't exactly stick a 20" iMac in a cupboard and use it as a Linux server in a few years either. I do wonder if Apple deliberately don't make directly comparable products to the mid-range latop and tower PC - it's got to be much harder to differentiate your stuff and sell premium products in those highly competetive segments, especially now the architecture is directly comparable.

Re:family values

[Mr2001]

Indeed. One possibility is to just get a Windows machine and load OSx86 on it. It runs fine on a Dell with a Radeon, although the short hardware compatibility list could be a problem for laptops (I went through three PCI wifi cards before finding one that was supported). Apple might not be happy with that, but IMO they have no room to complain when they're ignoring such a big segment of the market.

Well...

[Overzeetop]

that should keep the number of Vista zombie machines in check for a while.

Re:Well...

[cyphercell]

Hmm, and I thought all that talk about being more secure was just market speak.

Valid for...

[adpsimpson]

A fresh Ubuntu install? I hear those guys will accept it :)

Re:Valid for...

[SkoZombie]

They'll even take your word for it that you have it and not ask you to provide it!

Re:Valid for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to install Linux Genuine Advantage on that fresh new Linux install!

Re:Valid for...

[Anonymous Coward]

I installed that on my servers at work about a month ago and I can't log in!

Re:Valid for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try using 12345 as the root password. Works for me!

Re:Valid for...

[UncleTogie]

Thanks for the website! What amused me MOST about it wasn't the fact that you COULD install it, but the FAQ explaining how to remove it.... The source came a close second, though. ;)

Wait....

[Senes]

This was in beta and development for HOW long before it spawned a whirlwind of chaos on release? Looks like the MS priority of "Avoiding bad publicity" isn't working out for them.

Re:Wait....

[romland]

Oh come on, that half the western world's been waiting for Vista.

And half of those were waiting for a chance to say Vista sucks.

It wouldn't matter -what- Microsoft did.

Re:Wait....

[vought]

It's plain to us non-apologists that Microsoft is in need of new, more focussed management. By trying to address so many different markets at once, they're letting their core businesses suffer - and I predict that we will see the same with Apple within five years for the same reasons - although not to the same degree. It happened to HP and IBM.

"Stick to what you're good at" - something companies know they must do, but can't, because of growth pressure.

Re:Wait....

[am 2k]

I predict that we will see the same with Apple within five years for the same reasons - although not to the same degree.

Well, Apple has been heavily focusing lately. They pretty much dropped off the professional market (ever noticed how the switcher ads presents the PC as the "boring machine for business" and the Mac as the "fashionable machine for having fun"?). They're focusing on home user media applications with the iPod, iPhone and Apple TV, with the Mac as the hub between them -- that metaphor is a few years old already, actually.

Final Cut Pro, Motion, Logic and Shake are pretty much "also rans" right now. They're not supporting 3rd party development on the iPhone, which would be a must for power users.

I guess they've understood that they cannot beat Microsoft in the corporate environment, so they no longer even try.

Re:Wait....

[hackstraw]

I guess they've understood that they cannot beat Microsoft in the corporate environment, so they no longer even try.

Well, another big Apple environment is with the UNIX sysadmin, educational, and research environment.

Basically, smart people that just so happen to gravitate towards Macs and OS X.

Re:Wait....

[am 2k]

Well, another big Apple environment is with the UNIX sysadmin, educational, and research environment.

That's true (the MacBooks and PowerBooks are more common here at my university than all the other notebooks combined), but that's just because Mac OS X is the only OS that combines a usable GUI with a good command line (no X11-flame intended). Apple does not do anything to encourage this.

I think a simple thank you is in order

[codepunk]

The people this has happened to ought to call MS and thank them for saving them from a pointless
upgrade.

Unacceptable

[mfh]

'There is no expected time period for a fix at this time.'

This is an unacceptable response. As someone who sells PCs, I am looking at Apple wondering when they will get off their asses and start selling MacOS for PC machines, so I can simply stop selling Windows crap.

Re:Unacceptable

[DoofusOfDeath]

This is an unacceptable response.

Shouldn't that depend on how long MS has known about the problem? What would you have posted as a ./ comment if the story was, "MS just found out about the problem 15 hours ago, and doesn't know why the keys fail, but has promised a solution in two days." ?

Re:Unacceptable

[ad0gg]

I can cancel your order and issue you a refund

They offered to refund people's money. Is that not an acceptable response for a product that doesn't work?

Re:Unacceptable

[geekoid]

Not when the intall of said products isn't reversable.

Re:Unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called FreeBSD or you can use PC BSD.

Plus they're free, unlike Windows or OSX.

Re:Unacceptable

[TheLinuxSRC]

"They offered to refund people's money. Is that not an acceptable response for a product that doesn't work?

That depends. How far into the installation are these users before they discovered this? Is the former OS no longer bootable? IF that is the case a simple refund does nothing for the customer that was just left high and dry. As I recall, "upgrade" versions of Vista invalidate the key used for previously installed version of Windows (thus making a reinstall a moot point).

Re:Unacceptable

[AusIV]

You think Apple wouldn't require activation keys? Then it's only a matter of time until some activation key gets stuck in the wrong box and doesn't work for what it's shipped with. The only viable solution is to issue a correct activation key or offer a refund (Microsoft is doing the latter). They're not going to be able to fix the install DVD they've already given you. I'm not a Microsoft fan in the least - I've spent the last year shifting to Linux and have been running it exclusively for a few months - but anybody who is going to require an activation key has the potential of such a mistake, even Apple.

I might also note, that the article is based on a phone call to customer service, not a statement from a Microsoft official. The customer service rep at a call center isn't going to have the authority to issue new activation keys the first time someone calls in with this problem, and isn't going to be able to give a time frame.

There are plenty of things I don't like about Microsoft, but to suggest Apple would have handled this particular case better seems a bit absurd. The only surefire way to avoid problems with activation keys is to not have activation keys. Just one more reason I like Linux.

Re:Unacceptable

[dan828]

If you are doing an upgrade install that fails, it is reversable, or at least was with the beta. Also, Vista will let you install without a key, but will lock you out after three days with no-key. Not to say it wasn't a monumental screw-up, and I'm sure someone currently employed at MS is going to be looking for a new job on Monday.

Re:Unacceptable

[Tim_UWA]

I am looking at Apple wondering when they will get off their asses and start selling MacOS for PC machines

I wouldn't hold your breath. People buy a mac for the operating system more than the hardware. If Apple sold MacOS for any PC, what incentive is there to buy an expensive G5, MacBook or whatever instead of a cheap generic?

Re:Unacceptable

[kimvette]

Shouldn't that depend on how long MS has known about the problem?

Shouldn't they have discovered something this critical prior to shipping a release candidate?

Re:Unacceptable

[Zemran]

People buy a mac for the operating system more than the hardware.

and the OS works so well because it is tailor made for a know set of hardware. They could lose their wonderful reputation if people started trying to stick it on unknown boxes.

Re:Unacceptable

[mfh]

They could lose their wonderful reputation if people started trying to stick it on unknown boxes.

You are completely correct! This is the first valid response I have heard to the dilemma facing Apple. To solve the problem, Apple should still offer a beta version that works on PC as a way to undermine Microsoft. It wouldn't be perfectly stable, but it would work good enough that most people would want it.

Re:Unacceptable

[Myopic]

Because you have extra computers sitting around that you want to put X on? or because you don't want to pay for Apple hardware?

Either way, X on non-Apple hardware wouldn't be as compelling, because many things wouldn't "just work" the way they do now. One reason Windows is such a beast is that it supports, what, like 500 times as much hardware as OSX does.

Still, I've heard there are ways to shoehorn X onto non-Apple boxes; google for it.

Re:Unacceptable

[trogdor8667]

As someone who sells PCs, I am looking at Apple wondering when they will get off their asses and start selling MacOS for PC machines, so I can simply stop selling Why not just get a job at an Apple Store?

Re:Unacceptable

[mqduck]

Shouldn't they have discovered something this critical prior to shipping a release candidate?

Aren't you changing the subject?

Re:Unacceptable

[vijayiyer]

OS X requires no keys, not even a serial number.

Re:Unacceptable

[Handover Phist]

Us independants like being independant.

Re:Unacceptable

[phillymjs]

Apple should still offer a beta version that works on PC as a way to undermine Microsoft. It wouldn't be perfectly stable, but it would work good enough that most people would want it.

Except people are, for the most part, morons. No matter what Apple did, most non-techie people would not grok "OS X works MUCH better on genuine Apple hardware"-- they would try it on a generic machine, have problems, and say, "Hey, this isn't as great as everyone said it was, so I'm going to just keep using Windows."

The best you "I don't want to buy Apple hardware" people will ever be able to hope for is that Apple decides to support a small subset of generic hardware, like NeXT did back in the NeXTStep days. Build your PC with components on that list, and you're golden.

But don't hold your breath waiting for that, because Apple won't easily give up the income they make from hardware-- at least not until the revenue from the iPod and iPhone and other non-computer products is able to fill the gap.

~Philly

Re:Unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, Microsoft DOESN'T deactivate the Windows XP key. See http://preview.tinyurl.com/2az4lp for more information.

Re:Unacceptable

[AusIV]

That's because it only runs on Macs right now. Apple's already gotten paid for the hardware, which is their main goal. If Apple started selling OSX for regular PCs (as was suggested by the post I was responding to), they'd need to find some way to prevent people from installing one copy on every PC they can get their hands on.

Re:Unacceptable

[edflyerssn007]

Except that there are tons of people that have done just that, put OS X on non-vanilla boxes, and I'm pretty sure, a ton of those people ended up going out and buying a real mac because they enjoyed it so much.

-Ed

Re:Unacceptable

[tftp]

I'm sure someone currently employed at MS is going to be looking for a new job on Monday.

Wishful thinking. First of all, it would require a sense of personal and corporate responsibility - not something that is easy to find at Microsoft. Secondly, people make mistakes, even bad mistakes. It was not one person's mistake, though - it was a whole chain of errors - from the coder to the release manager to the web developer to the QA to the tech support - they all failed, not just Jim the Coder who mistyped a number. And they are still failing by doing nothing to help the people. At the very least, the bad web page should be removed, so that no more victims are created. But I guess at $450 per mouse click it's a legit racket in MS book.

Re:Unacceptable

[tftp]

But aren't OS/X upgrades sold? If so, there is definitely some p1racy potential if one Mac owner "shares" his upgrade of the OS with other Mac owners. Maybe Apple just depends on the fact that there is a 1,000 miles on average between any two Mac owners? ;-)

Re:Unacceptable

[mrchaotica]

No. His point was that it's unacceptable to have a bug this grievous to begin with, regardless of how quickly (or not) it gets fixed.

Re:Unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Besides, you can stop selling Windows crap today without waiting for a move Apple will never make.

Re:Unacceptable

[mike2R]

Except that there are tons of people that have done just that, put OS X on non-vanilla boxes, and I'm pretty sure, a ton of those people ended up going out and buying a real mac because they enjoyed it so much.

Lets see, average weight of a geek, say 150lb. 2 tons = 4000lb, so to make your statement literally true there would need to be around 26-27 people who've installed OS X on PC hardware, and 13-14 who've then gone out and bought a Mac.

That seems likely to be higher than the real figure to me, maybe they're all very fat?

Re:Unacceptable

[JustOK]

All you independents are the same...misspelling "independants" all the time.

Re:Unacceptable

[Debug0x2a]

I am looking at Apple wondering when they will get off their asses and start selling MacOS for PC machines And you can bet that we'll hear the same complaints about them too.

Re:Unacceptable

[Duds]

Except as soon as they make OSX run on PCs it'll get every problem windows has within a year.

Trying to support every hardware will make it much, much wobblier than windows because MS will have done it for longer.

And if it ever becomes the majority, all the malware writers will target OSX itself, just as effectively as they do windows.

Re:Unacceptable

[magicchex]

I was dropping off some art supplies for my fiancee in one of her classes today and out of 20 students sitting in the room, about 15 had Apples, 1 had a Dell XPS (the one with the lights on the outside?), and the other 4 had no laptops with them.

Re:Unacceptable

[Tim C]

am looking at Apple wondering when they will get off their asses and start selling MacOS for PC machines

They'll do that the day they become a software company, the day they can make as much money selling just OS X as they can selling OS X + their hardware, and the day they want to try to support the same huge number of possible combinations of hardware as MS has to.

OS X is so very stable mostly because it only has to support a tiny number of hardware configurations. The only stability problems I've had with XP have been due directly to third party drivers or flaky hardware. Now it helps that I know not to install any old crap on my machine, but if Apple made OS X generally available you'd see many of the same problems that Windows has.

Re:Unacceptable

[Tim C]

Right now though we don't know if it is a bug - it could simply be that some low-level employee mixed up some keys, and the families have received keys for Visual Studio. From the article:

Microsoft confirms that the keys are indeed valid, but not for Windows Vista. The CSR I spoke with was unable to tell what the key was for, but it did appear to be a valid key, for something.

Sounds like a process issue, not a software one. If that's true, then someone's generated or supplied keys to the wrong product; this is not a Vista issue (although I appreciate that that makes no difference at all to the affected families; it certainly is a Microsoft issue).

Re:Unacceptable

[Richard_at_work]

No, all retail copies of OSX are full versions at the same price.

Re:Unacceptable

[CowboyBob500]

It's a fallacy that Windows supports all the hardware. It doesn't. The third-party drivers supplied by the manufacturer do. There's only a small subset of hardware that's actually supported by MS out of the box. I see no reason why Apple couldn't go down this route as well if they wanted to.

Bob

Re:Unacceptable

[TheRaven64]

Yes, OS X upgrades are sold, but they are a tiny, tiny fraction of Apple's income. If they started selling large numbers of OS X boxes for generic PCs, this would cut into their Mac revenue. If it works, then they would get more profit from the OS X sales than they lost from the Mac sales, but the more OS X sales they had the more important it would be for them to protect their investment.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple started selling OS X for non-Apple machines, but I think they would have to do it as an OEM-only deal, at least at the start.

Re:Unacceptable

[Duds]

And that's just it. 95% of all your windows crashes? Those drivers.

Re:Unacceptable

[RMH101]

1) Never
2) If they did, your already thin margins would be squeezed to non-existent and you'd go out of business.
3) No profit

Re:Unacceptable

[Theaetetus]

But aren't OS/X upgrades sold? If so, there is definitely some p1racy potential if one Mac owner "shares" his upgrade of the OS with other Mac owners.

Most Mac owners (like most PC owners - all Slashdot posters excepted) upgrade their OS only when they buy a new machine, so it's a very small revenue source for Apple. Additionally, at $129 for a full version as opposed to $599 for the uncrippled Vista, there's a lot less incentive to pirate it. It's the same model as the $.99 song on iTunes - why bother pirating if it's so cheap?

Re:Unacceptable

[mqduck]

No. His point was that it's unacceptable to have a bug this grievous to begin with, regardless of how quickly (or not) it gets fixed.

Right, and that's changing the subject. The subject was Microsoft's response.

Re:Unacceptable

[ivan256]

Based on your post it sounds like these people will have a Vista machine for three days and then they'll be hosed.

class action lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems pretty open & shut to me.

Oh no...

[tktk]

The keys are valid for some other product. The four words I dread to hear:

Microsoft Bob for Vista.

Re:Oh no...

[OldManAndTheC]

Great, now all I can think of is a giant, 3-D, translucent, texture-mapped, 144dpi, yellow smiley face with glasses.

Thanks a lot.

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont laugh, Bob is the most rewarding project IT has ever seen. Leading the project
Melinda Ann French made her fortune.

Simple?

[Dark Kenshin]

Yes, it's simple, but maybe Microsoft just doesn't like families. Or it's a big conspiracy to lure all the people with false claims and hacked keys to come in and "get a new one".

Or maybe they just don't know how to handle problems like always. Either way, it sucks for all the people who got the keys. Hopefully they'll get some kind of compensation for the hassle.

Re:Simple?

[fireboy1919]

es, it's simple, but maybe Microsoft just doesn't like families. Or it's a big conspiracy to lure all the people with false claims and hacked keys to come in and "get a new one".

Or maybe they just don't know how to handle problems like always.

"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

Re:Simple?

[PornMaster]

No dude... Microsoft is doing this taking a stand on behalf of good Christian families.

You see, anyone who's buying Vista for home already is gay...

Re:Simple?

[spagetti_code]

Times like this I am reminded of Hanlons razor

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I just think these guys have messed up and can't figure out how to fix it yet.

Re:Simple?

[tftp]

One solution would be immediately apparent to any mentally challenged person ("stop doing that".) Normal people can easily come up with several good plans how to fix this mess. And here we are, with MS that has no solution for days! Are we supposed to believe that MS does not know how their keys are made and what bits enable what?

Re:I can already see it..

[dynamo52]

Vista was released on time?!? What calendar are you looking at?

Upgrading to vista

[Ractive]

Who the hell (with a quark of technical knowledge) even considers "upgrading" to vista... Just don't do it

Re:Upgrading to vista

[Keaster]

I agree. Seriously, when was the last time you saw an "NT - Anything" upgrade work.

Re:Upgrading to vista

[monktus]

Who the hell (with a quark of technical knowledge) even considers "upgrading" to vista... Just don't do it
I think you meant: "Who the hell (with technical knowledge of Quark) even considers "upgrading" to vista"

Now that's just not right

[Overzeetop]

You could have been a little kinder and linked to goatse. Now I have to go around with that image (Bob, not goatse) in my head all night.

Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to ask myself what sort of people would subject themselves to this sort of abuse. It has just been getting worse since the days of Windows 95. Every new release of Windows comes with some new anti-piracy hassle, and every time it seems to cause major problems.

I'd image such people at least somewhat competent when using a computer. Many non-technical computer users don't even know what Vista is, let alone that it has been released, and thus wouldn't be updating their systems so quickly. I'd expect such people would also be aware of how this sort of bullshit gets worse and worse with each release of Windows. Why do they accept being treated like criminals? Why do they accept being treated like nothing more than shit?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[fyngyrz]

Also...

Why would they accept an OS that gets slower with every release? Why would they accept an OS that requires more and more from their hardware investment, eventually requiring replacement (as may be very likely the case with Vista) instead of getting sleeker and slimmer and more efficient? Why would they accept an OS that carries with it the highest threat of adware, viruses, worms, trojans - for whatever reason? When terrible mistakes are made - like activex - why don't they expect the company to fix those mistakes?

Just wondering. I mean clearly, they do not hold Microsoft to a very high standard. I left the OS a couple of years ago, having had all I was willing to take. But most people around me stick with MS, regardless of what trouble they have.

Personally, I think part of the answer is application lock-in; people who use some app that they can't get away from, and where the developers force them to upgrade to the next OS because otherwise, the next version or revision of the locked-in app won't work.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[whoever57]

I have to ask myself what sort of people would subject themselves to this sort of abuse. It has just been getting worse since the days of Windows 95. Every new release of Windows comes with some new anti-piracy hassle, and every time it seems to cause major problems.

They just don't think there is an alternative. They are so used to Windows that they think a Mac would be difficult to use, and as for Linux: "it's just for hackers and geeks isn't it?"

To use an old truism: "the devil you know ...."

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[dutin]

"Why do they accept being treated like criminals? Why do they accept being treated like nothing more than shit?"

Don't know if you're in the US, but it's commonplace here now. For example, if you have a head cold and want some plain old Sudafed, you are treated as a possible criminal and have your license scanned or number tracked on paper and you have to sign for it.

Actually, I tend to feel like I'm being treated like a criminal unless I've been robbed.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Martin Blank]

Why would they accept an OS that gets slower with every release?

RH9 pretty much screamed on one of my home systems. FC1 was pretty snappy, too. FC3, not so much. FC5 was even a little slower. FC6 seemed to stabilize. In all cases, I was running a pretty basic desktop environment without anything flashy, not much in the way of extraneous services running (HTTP and FTP only), and only me accessing them.

All major OSes get some bloat as they grow. Vista's sheer size is inexcusable, but it's not terribly slower than XP, at least on a 1.6GHz P4 notebook.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fedora Core is a disgrace. I've tried every release so far, on a total of about 15 different desktop and laptop systems (ranging from home-built PCs to Dells to HPs to Acers and so on). It hasn't worked well any one of those times. Many times the installation CD images contained corrupt packages. I know it wasn't a problem with my CD burner, because I used images burned by friends, and I even ordered some from several of the Linux CD pressing services out there.

But I've gotten distributions like Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, SUSE and Mandriva to install just fine on those systems. I didn't run into any problems with corrupt packages on the installation CDs. If those other distributions can do it right, some without the backing of a successful company like Red Hat, why can't the Fedora Core project?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[ForestGrump]

NT4 was the best. Reg key was something like 123-9876543. why can't Microsoft stick with simplicity like that?

Grump.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Hott of the World]

The unknown is a scary place. People don't have time to mess with "solutions" that aren't widely used and developed for.

I say solutions because Macs are total computing solutions. Not some little box you can get and put on your PC.

That, and getting enough knowledge to be proficient in Linux would probably qualify you for college credit nowadays, Ubuntu or otherwise.

I think ignorance on most people's part is willful. There are those who choose the path less traveled, and are happier for it.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Martin Blank]

I have no idea what you're doing wrong, then.

I've done more than a dozen clean installs of Fedora on hardware ranging from a P200 to the Latitude D820 from which I type this, and never once had a corrupt package from an image or a CD. I've done numerous upgrades via yum, including an upgrade from 2.4 to 2.6 kernels, and only ran into issues on a few occasions, almost all of them dealing with the kernel transition.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[TropicalCoder]

I just posted this in the topic about Window's new DRM patents, and realized after that that discussion is already dead. Seems everyone jumped into the discussion about the guy who gave up on Linux after 10 years, and now there has been almost a dozen discussions since then. I just want to make a point I feel really strongly about. I don't think there is anything really wrong with this if you are up front about it. At the risk of being marked off topic, here I go with my little rant...

While many of you Linux user don't seem to be too worried about this, I think you should be. As pointed out by others, it will have a detrimental effect right across the board. No more dual boot with Windows and Linux. No Wine, no more popular drivers for Linux because of the DRM, no virtual machines that run Linux without paying a Windows tax, and in the end, it will get harder every day to find a computer that will even run Linux.

As a Window's programmer since 3.1, I am seeing a nightmare scenario staring me in the face. I can see the day coming when a person can no longer develop software on their own computer, because it will only run in some kind of sandbox, if at all, unless you buy a special developer's license. Of course I too will finally defect to Linux long before that happens, if that is still an option.

I'm am seriously disturbed by the vision I am seeing in all I have read tonight - but I am too tired to articulate it all - it's late at night where I am at the moment and it's been a long day. It's like someone said - the frog in the pot thing - the public has to wake up to this DRM business before it's too late.

Before I go - there is one more thing I want to get off my chest here. One might hope and pray that it will be stopped by anti-trust laws before it goes too far, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Why did the courts not press for a breakup of Microsoft? I think they were leaned on by the US government - for a reason I have not seen articulated before. The fact is that Microsoft is a US corporation, one of America's finest. It brings in big bucks to the good ol' US of A. So from a local perspective, among fellow Americans, Microsoft's monopolistic practices are scandalous, but if an American - especially a Congressman - looks at it from a nationalistic perspective, it's good for America. In fact, the worse it becomes (the monopolistic practices) the better it is for USA. Bill Gates' age old dream of world domination happens to coincide with America's dream of world domination. That's why we can't count on the US courts to put a stop to this.

Wow - I didn't think I was going to say all these things. It's like suddenly I see where all this is going now, and it's real scary.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[5ynic]

spot on mate. And sometimes this can take pretty ironic forms.... my partner is a web designer. She has used Macromedia Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver for 11 years. Over that time the MacOs version has slowly but surely diverged from the 'doze version.... And now, finally she has the chance to go freelance and stop working at BigCorp where they standardize on 'doze (even for designers, jeez...) so she goes into a shop and has a play with Fireworks on the Mac.... And, yes, it's just different enough so that if she switched over the learning curve would blow out the tight deadlines on her freelance project.... So we trudged out of the mac shop and lined up with the sheep to buy a Dell.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[iminplaya]

I have to ask myself what sort of people would subject themselves to this sort of abuse.

two words...

Whoops! So sorry. Let's try that again.

ask no more

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Robber Baron]

NT4 was the best. Reg key was something like 123-9876543. why can't Microsoft stick with simplicity like that? The one I knew was 456-1234567, but there were probably others.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[winnetoe]

Yeah!

Bring back CP/M

And my tapes!

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Simon Garlick]

Every version of Mac OS X has run faster, on the same hardware, than the version that preceded it.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[erroneus]

...these are the same people who think it's okay to be "inspected" prior to leaving Fry's

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[fyngyrz]

All major OSes get some bloat as they grow.

<RAMBLE>

Well, maybe that's a signal we're looking at things incorrectly, then. Why not build a stable core - multitasking, networking, application sandboxing, list management, basic graphics with user-settable bitmaps and/or polygonal models -- the rest of the usual suspects like disk io and USB -- and then let the user decide if they want, for instance, to add a 3d desktop with voice and haptic features, widgets, zooming, 400 language compatibility (OSX carries a crapload of language stuff to your drive it doesn't really need to, for instance) and drivers for every printer ever known to man?

That almost sounds like a linux release, but the key thing missing in all linux versions is a stable and always-there set of GUI tools so applications can run on the OS itself. linux (IMO) is crippled by that lack of a standard GUI layer. It has almost everything else, I'm perfectly ready to concede. Be nice if it had a little bit smarter permissions - like being able to say that "this dir is read/write, but nothing can execute here" without having to set the dir up on its own partition, etc., but at least there is a workaround.

In fact, that's how I ended up with Apple's OSX. It's almost linux from my user / developer point of view, but it has a solid GUI I am under the impression I can count on, and I don't have to pay fees to use or get the user to try to download.

I'd like to see something more basic, though. I know these marvelous machines we have today would run like raped apes if we actually tried to make them do so, instead of trying to make them do "everything for everybody." Vista's gone and collected 10% or so of a modern CPU for itself, if the rumors I hear are correct; is that really where we want to be? Damn, 10% of a modern CPU is what, 100% of one five years ago?

Sometimes I write software to run in a shell in OSX or linux and just enjoy the zappiness of it all. I am heavily involved in AI experimentation, particularly in the multiply-associative memory area, and I always write that stuff for a text shell. A real linux text shell actually runnning in text mode... man that's fast. :)

</RAMBLE>

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Don't dismiss what he's saying. I had the same problem and had to switch to a different server to download from. I was basically getting an image which was broken from an official mirror. It's not that he's a raving lunatic retard, although that's possible. It happened to me and I have an IQ of 90, so I'm not completely stupid.

Yum seems to work all the time though. Probably was just a single bad download mirror in my case.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[fyngyrz]

Bring back CP/M... And my tapes!

Y'know... (looks around shiftily) I actually missed my 6809 Flex system (a "brother" to CP/M, timewise and interface wise) so badly I wrote a complete emulator for it, and in the process, taught it how to use unconscionable amounts of disk space.

I used to work in the video games industry, so I also added an emulation of a graphics board I designed way back when that I particularly liked (it had vestigial hardware line drawing in an 8-color bitmap) so the emulation has a text mode interface like you'd expect (and like CP/M) and it also has graphics you can fiddle with if you are so inclined.

Sometimes there's a lot to be said for simply going back and writing some fun stuff in 6809 assembler, at least for me. Keeps one cognizant of how things work to some degree. Plus the emulator can outrun a 'real" 6809 by quite a bit, so it feels quite snappy.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[utlemming]

I think the overall answer to your question is that many, not all, of those who post on Slashdot lack maturity of thought and understanding of the complex questions. Many people have knee-jerk reactions and don't take the the time to critically evaluate their positions and to see the logical holes in their arguments. And many people are too blinded to see the reasons why things are the way they are. If they did, then I think that Slashdot would be a better forum.

But like you I am too tired to say much of anything else.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

Why would they accept an OS that gets slower with every release?

Because a) in many cases it isn't true (the higher end your hardware, the less true it is) and b) in the cases where it isn't, it's quite normal behaviour (eg: more recent versions of Linux are slower on low-end machines than older ones).

The only OS in recent memory that has improved in performance on low end machines with new releases is OS X, which has far, far more to do with how dismally slow it was at initial release and compiler improvements, than it does with Apple's OS development.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh... that's because the first version was so unbelievebly slow and unoptimised it was considered a Beta by everyone that used it!

It's taken 5 years for them to produce the OS that OSX SHOULD HAVE BEEN in the first place and you you know it :(

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see you're comparing a couple of point releases (10.0-10.4) of an operating system that dropped legacy hardware...um ok.

BTW, my non-gui Debian install runs superfast. Take that.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete and utter bullshit. Try installing Tiger on a G3 iBook some time, even on the G4 it's not great. I'm not saying it won't run, but it sure as hell doesn't run faster.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[adolf]

Where have you seen it reported that Vista eats 10% of the CPU? I'd been somewhat considering looking at Vista for my XP laptop, to get some advance exposure to it so that I might be a bit clued when I need to operate on it for customers, and because its flash-RAM disk caching promised to make things a bit faster while increasing runtime on battery (which I expect to pair nicely with my SD card slot).

However, if it consumes 10% of the CPU, then some of those advantages are for naught.

As an aside:

I'd been noticing high-ish CPU utilization on my XP laptop during periods when it should be idle. I decided today to find out what the culprits were.

Sure, Google Desktop was using a bit to keep its index up-to-date and generate flashy graphics, and every now and then the drivers for the touchpad would stir things up a bit, but neither of those two were significant contributors. The real culprit turned out to be intel's wireless drivers, which were using 10% (!) of that 1.83GHz 2m-cached P3-M's potential, all for themselves. What's more is that disabling those CPU-hogging portions of the intel drivers has not in any way affected wireless performance, but has made the machine quieter, cooler, faster, and live longer on batteries. For free.

Perhaps the perceived CPU penalty with Vista is caused by needlessly bloated third-party drivers?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Lehk228]

linux DOES have a standard GUI, you may or may not have heard of it--X11

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[maniac/dev/null]

What about Office 95 and Windows 95? If I recall, anything that gave a mod 7 result of 0 was accepted, so both all 0s and all 7s would work. Somehow, those values ended up on all my very offical and very real MS authencity certificates, which is why my installations had those as the serials.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[StarvingSE]

I totally agree. For a company as large as Microsoft, and as large of an install base as they have, this is a disgrace that they have some CD key issue on release of their newest operating system. If they can't get this right, how can they be trusted in designing an OS??? I'm not being mr. anti-microsoft either, I'm asking a serious question.

It can be debated whether MS has a monopoly or not, but the fact is that a majority of computer users use their OS. This gives them a responsibility to not make mistakes such as this.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

Well, maybe that's a signal we're looking at things incorrectly, then. Why not build a stable core - multitasking, networking, application sandboxing, list management, basic graphics with user-settable bitmaps and/or polygonal models -- the rest of the usual suspects like disk io and USB -- and then let the user decide if they want, for instance, to add a 3d desktop with voice and haptic features, widgets, zooming, 400 language compatibility (OSX carries a crapload of language stuff to your drive it doesn't really need to, for instance) and drivers for every printer ever known to man?

Primarily because the vast, vast majority of consumers lack the knowledge and, more importantly, the will, to do so.

Heck, *I* have zero interest in doing that sort of thing these days, and it wasn't that long ago I did the whole Linux-from-scratch thing, just for the hell of it. I'm more than happy to sacrifice some (dirt cheap) disk space and processor time, to save myself the effort of putting the whole thing together myself and subsequently having to keep it maintained. This is precisely the same reason I don't use Linux on my desktop - because it's more work to get everything going and keep it that way.

That almost sounds like a linux release, but the key thing missing in all linux versions is a stable and always-there set of GUI tools so applications can run on the OS itself.

Close. More important than the "set of GUI tools" is a standard, stable, "set of libraries" (I use the term "libraries", but I basically mean a stable, defined set of basic functionalities that will _always_ be present in a known form). This is a _huge_ feature than OS X (and Windows) has over Linux.

Hardware resources are _cheap_. My time - and developers' time - is _expensive_. Sacrificing hardware resources to get better software, quicker, is a more than reasonable tradeoff and, ultimately, the whole point of computers in the first place.

The point of software [like this] is not to use as little hardware resources as possible. The point of software is to make my life as easy as it possibly can and the hardware resources be damned.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Archangel Michael]

"Actually, I tend to feel like I'm being treated like a criminal unless I've been robbed."

Never been robbed, have you. The only people not treated like criminals are .... criminals, who are treated like victims.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[UnknownSoldier]

> All major OSes get some bloat as they grow

Nonsense. Just because you've been conditioned to think this, doesn't make it true.

Mac OS X, and Be OS got faster, not slower.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[mikek3332002]

Which no one uses as a standard GUI, they use qt and gtk and other libraries.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[dutin]

Yes, and not too awful long ago. And not as a victim either. More like someone who is SOL.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[dgatwood]

I run Tiger on a 900 MHz G3 iBook all the time. It's very usable. And my experience concurs with the GP's experience: it does seem significantly faster than Panther. However Tiger does require more RAM than Panther. If you don't have enough RAM, your computer will be paging to your hard drive pretty heavily, which could make Tiger appear slower than Panther. Add more RAM if you think Tiger is slower than Panther. Chances are, you just don't have enough.

That said, until you've booted Mac OS X public beta in 32 Megs of RAM, though, you don't know the definition of slow, and thus have no room to complain.... :-)

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[42forty-two42]

How is this relevant? Using X11 directly is horrible pain (= nobody will want to make any software for it), and the performance hit for using Qt/Gtk is nearly nil (and looks much nicer, at that).

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[networkBoy]

111-1111111 works ;)
-nB

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[jump.with.joy]

Vista's sheer size

I guess they still didn't get rid of "Soap Bubbles.bmp"...

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Brian Gordon]

Just got my copy today.. and they did do away with Soap Bubbles.bmp. But now they have a Bubbles screensaver. (No joke!)

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[kisanth88]

Adam Smith stated that specialization increases productivity. IMO this has been proved true.

Thusly, a laborer who builds a tool then uses it is less productive than a laborer that uses a premanufactured tool. This is due to the time it takes the laborer to manufacture and use the tool versus just learning to use the tool and producing labor. For this argument (computer use) it holds true. There are exceptions in various fields as noted by Adam Smith. There are also additional considerations involved in the laborer switching tasks reducing productivity.

There is a corollary here with the division of labor where, in this case, a developer/system administrator may be apt to understand the OS and applications; the user of said OS and applications has no interest outside of using them as a tool to accomplish his labor and receive his pay.

Thusly the person who is "ignorant" is probably more focused on using the tool than building it.

In the case of Linux/UNIX there is not a sufficiently wide "standardized tool" (read install/look) for multiple laborers to easily learn the functions of common labor (outside of an employer trained and maintained environment) for it to become a widespread tool amongst the average laboring public in learning this tool.

Thus the "ignorant" people are in fact working in their own interest in maximizing the usefulness and rewards of their time here on Earth.

This is why Linux is still not on my desktop.

-K (network monkey, not coder/SA monkey)

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[hcdejong]

Because a) in many cases it isn't true (the higher end your hardware, the less true it is)

I find that hard to believe. A new OS release that somehow makes old machines slower, and new machines faster? Maybe on new machines you don't notice the slowdown that much.

I can think of one exception: graphics operations being offloaded to the GPU (like Apple has been doing with e.g. Quartz Extreme). Older machines usually have older GPUs that don't support these operations, so they see increased CPU use.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Des Herriott]

No. X11 is not a GUI, any more than the GDI or DirectX are GUIs for Windows.

X11 is the device-independent driver upon which GUIs (KDE, GNOME, GnuSTEP, XFCE...) are built.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

I find that hard to believe. A new OS release that somehow makes old machines slower, and new machines faster?

Sure. Think things like better kernel locking and threading (good for multicpu systems, not so good for single CPU systems because of the extra overhead) or caching algorithms than can be tuned with the assumption of greater minimum measures of RAM.

On high-end (for the time) hardware, Windows 2000 was faster than NT 4.0. On low-end hardware, NT 4 was faster. The same pattern was repeated with XP and is being repeated with Vista (with the video, as you note).

It's relatively unusual for a newer OS to be faster than a prior release on low end hardware. It's not at all uncommon for the newer release to be faster on high-end hardware. A Linux 2.6 kernel, for example, runs vastly better on a 16 CPU machine than a 2.0 kernel would (if it runs at all) - but a 2.0.x kernel will run much faster on a 4MB RAM 386 than a 2.6.x will (assuming it would run at all ?).

As I said, OS X getting faster on lower-end hardware is very much an anomaly - and it's an anomaly that exists largely because when something's as slow as OS X was on release, there's not really anywhere to go but up. Today, still, OS X is sluggish even on relatively powerful hardware (which has led me to believe its problems are more fundamental than simple tuning can fix).

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[cheater512]

I run Gentoo on my old P4 (my main pc) and my P 166 laptop just fine.
While FC may have bloat, its not Linux.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[jlarocco]

Heck, *I* have zero interest in doing that sort of thing these days, and it wasn't that long ago I did the whole Linux-from-scratch thing, just for the hell of it. I'm more than happy to sacrifice some (dirt cheap) disk space and processor time, to save myself the effort of putting the whole thing together myself and subsequently having to keep it maintained. This is precisely the same reason I don't use Linux on my desktop - because it's more work to get everything going and keep it that way.

No shit? Linux From Scratch is hard to maintain? I'm shocked! Shocked! Did you really just say that Linux From Scatch was hard to maintain, so you stopped using Linux? Linux From Scratch is meant to teach the deep inner workings of Linux, it's not supposed to be easy to maintain. There are dozens of Linux distros meant to be "easy to use", but you went ahead and picked the one that's purposely difficult? I don't think Linux From Scratch is your problem here.

Debian's testing branch is more stable than your LFS, it's current within a week of new software releases, and you can get daily automatic updates with a click of a button. I'm sure you'll point out some reason the average user is too stupid to do that, but it's a hell of a lot easier than LFS.

Close. More important than the "set of GUI tools" is a standard, stable, "set of libraries" (I use the term "libraries", but I basically mean a stable, defined set of basic functionalities that will _always_ be present in a known form). This is a _huge_ feature than OS X (and Windows) has over Linux.

Why should I, as a user, have to worry about libraries? I shouldn't. And with a distro like Debian or SuSe, I don't. I open Synaptic, click on the application I want, click "Apply", and the application is installed along with any necessary libraries. Oh, and it'll automatically get updated along with the rest of the system. Try doing that on Mac or Windows.

As a developer, I still don't see your point. It makes very little difference to me if I'm using the API built into the OS, or a third party library. In one case I'll have to add a line to the build scripts. Big fuckin' deal.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[MicrosoftRepresentit]

If your partner really is freelance, and she's any good, she can afford to drop a couple of contracts to ride out the learning curve. Seriously, how long would it take? A week? The benefits would last for years.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[DrSkwid]

Building a kernel with just the drivers you want to use was one of the first post-installation jobs of FreeBSD.

You can't even boot Linux from a floppy no more :(

The main OSes are big balls of cruft bloated horribly by the 80/20 rule for general purpose computing but only the OSS ones allow you to do something about it.

Even then you still face the possible time penalty of recompiling userland. That's why I'm glad plan9 only takes 15 mins to make world.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[bazorg]

I'd image such people at least somewhat competent when using a computer. Many non-technical computer users don't even know what Vista is, let alone that it has been released, and thus wouldn't be updating their systems so quickly.

In my country this product launch has been on the news as a major breakthrough for the OS that the majority of computers use. The shiny boxes, the improved UI looks, the variety of versions... it all helps creating a certain feel that Vista is a fashionable product. And that's reason enough to queue to get it on the first day at 00h00...

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[RAMMS EIN]

``Many non-technical computer users don't even know what Vista is, let alone that it has been released''

You'd have to have been sleeping under a really large rock to have missed that. It's been all over the news, and not just on the release day. And I don't mean techie news, either.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[RemovableBait]

*sigh*

Why is it so difficult to understand the naming scheme of Mac OS X?

10.3 to 10.4 is not a "point release". In the Mac naming scheme, that is a major release, and upgrade.
10.4.5 to 10.4.6 is a "point release", a service pack or an update.

If it helps, why don't you just forget the '10.', then it becomes 3.0-4.0, or 4.5-4.6.

If you were to compare, side by side, 10.0 to 10.4, you'd see the big difference.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[RAMMS EIN]

``That almost sounds like a linux release, but the key thing missing in all linux versions is a stable and always-there set of GUI tools so applications can run on the OS itself. linux (IMO) is crippled by that lack of a standard GUI layer.''

I still fail to see how this makes sense. I think you have fallen into the trap of thinking that Linux is an operating system. It's not. Linux is the kernel. From there, you mix and match. Most distros use a GNU userland, but there are other options. Many distros use X.org, but there are other options. Some distros use GNOME. Others use KDE. Others use neither. If you think of Linux as an operating system, it's a big mess. But how can you think of something embedded in your WLAN router and something that runs your desktop with OpenGL and bells and whistles as the same OS?

Once you accept that there isn't a single Linux OS, but that there are multiple operating systems, each built on top of the Linux kernel, things will start to look very different. Now, for example, you have FREESCO, which doesn't have a GUI (I think), and Ubuntu, which uses GNOME for its GUI.

Now, back to your comment. You say:

``the key thing missing in all linux versions is a stable and always-there set of GUI tools''

Ubuntu has these, and so do many other distros.

``linux (IMO) is crippled by that lack of a standard GUI layer.''

I don't see how the fact that FREESCO does not incorporate GNOME cripples Ubuntu in any way.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Baricom]

I like Macs too, but to play devil's advocate, some say that's because the performance was so horrible to begin with, that subsequent versions could only get better.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[julesh]

While many of you Linux user don't seem to be too worried about this, I think you should be. As pointed out by others, it will have a detrimental effect right across the board. No more dual boot with Windows and Linux. No Wine, no more popular drivers for Linux because of the DRM, no virtual machines that run Linux without paying a Windows tax, and in the end, it will get harder every day to find a computer that will even run Linux.

As a Window's programmer since 3.1, I am seeing a nightmare scenario staring me in the face. I can see the day coming when a person can no longer develop software on their own computer, because it will only run in some kind of sandbox, if at all, unless you buy a special developer's license. Of course I too will finally defect to Linux long before that happens, if that is still an option.

I think you're being paranoid. Reasoning this out:

* There's no reason why computer manufacturers should go out of their way (and they would have to) in order to prevent the possibility of dual booting. Microsoft couldn't get away with it, it would be held to be an abuse of their monopoly position, probably by both US and EU courts. Media companies might want it, but they don't have that kind of power -- PC manufacturers know that their main customer is large business, which cares more about an open, upgradable platform than ability to play the latest format media file.

* Wine will be largely unaffected -- it will simply not implement the DRM mechanisms, which is unlikely to have a serious negative effect.

* I'm not even sure why you say "no virtual machines that run Linux without paying a Windows tax", that conclusion just doesn't make any sense to me.

* And PCs will continue to run Linux because nobody has proposed and nobody is likely to propose any kind of break in backwards compatibility like that. PCs that can't run Linux can't run Windows Vista either. A new windows version would have to be released for them, but backwards compatibility is a big issue in this business, and such PCs would be a market failure while the old-style compatible PCs are still available.

* MS know that a large reason for their market dominance is third party applications. They're not going to go out of their way to make it hard for developers.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[itlurksbeneath]

That almost sounds like a linux release, but the key thing missing in all linux versions is a stable and always-there set of GUI tools so applications can run on the OS itself. linux (IMO) is crippled by that lack of a standard GUI layer. It does have a standard GUI - three of them in fact. Don't think of them as "not a standard", think of them as options. In Windows, you get just one option - Microsoft's. In Linux, you get more than one. If you don't like GNOME, switch to KDE. If those are too heavyweight, switch to XFCE. It's still the same operating system with the same applications and tools, just a different front end. Plus, have you looked at all the extra add-on crap with Windows now? WindowBlinds and ObjectDesktop changes the Windows desktop in large ways - where's your standard GUI there?

Yes, I know I'm arguing both sides of the fence, but in Linux, it's not as "non-standard" as you think, and in Windows it's not as "standard" as you think.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[sjwest]

Thank heavens that the riaa, and mpiaa have 'control' of Vista, Vista users with this problem should ring up both organisations and ask for help

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Chatterton]

You can't even boot Linux from a floppy no more :(

Hum, I can boot linux on a single floppy and make it my firewall with all the needed utilities. For exemple with Coyote Linux...

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Lumpy]

Slackware didn't.

Just like normal, after install I customize the kernel to my machine and BOOM. Slackware 11 is as fast as Slackware 5.

You just chose a linux that has more modules loading at boot than you need and they add more every day. Add a hardware wizard, add a configuration wizard.... etc...

Choose your poison...

Slow and easy to use without knowlege.
Fast and requires knowlege to make it easy.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Fred_A]

linux DOES have a standard GUI, you may or may not have heard of it--X11

X11 isn't a GUI, merely a very low level framework, unless you mean X + Athena + twm (both usually come with X11 installations). However finding apps that rely on just that is *really* difficult nowadays.
If you're too young to have used any Athena based apps, an overview of it and derivatives is available online.

OTOH, one could argue that Linux has two standard GUIs, Gnome and KDE (standard as being de facto standard since they're used by the majority). Of course as is usually the case with all things Linuxy, there are countless alternatives to pick from if one doesn't care for the mainstream stuff :)

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

No shit? Linux From Scratch is hard to maintain? I'm shocked! Shocked! Did you really just say that Linux From Scatch was hard to maintain, so you stopped using Linux?

No.

I don't think Linux From Scratch is your problem here.

I never said it was.

I'm sure you'll point out some reason the average user is too stupid to do that, but it's a hell of a lot easier than LFS.

The issue is not that they are "too stupid" to do that, it is that they neither want to, nor should have to.

Why should I, as a user, have to worry about libraries?

You shouldn't. which was my whole point. "Package managers" are a massive kludge, not a solution.

I shouldn't. And with a distro like Debian or SuSe, I don't. I open Synaptic, click on the application I want, click "Apply", and the application is installed along with any necessary libraries. Oh, and it'll automatically get updated along with the rest of the system.

Yep, the kludge usually works fine if the software you want is maintained in the repositories. Tough luck if it isn't, though.

Try doing that on Mac or Windows.

I don't need to, because it's almost universally unnecessary. Typical Windows and Mac software either only uses the functionality built into the respective systems, or ship with all of it included.

As a developer, I still don't see your point. It makes very little difference to me if I'm using the API built into the OS, or a third party library. In one case I'll have to add a line to the build scripts. Big fuckin' deal.

If you're the poor end user who has to try and resolve the dependency hell that "third party library" usually produces, it *is* a "big fucking deal". Combined with the typical Linux developer's disinterest in maintaining any sort of decent binary compatibility or API stability ("because they can just grab the latest code from CVS and recompile") and you have one of the primary reasons Linux is having such difficulties penetrating past the tech-savvy userbase. Companies like Red Hat and SuSe have made heroic efforts to try and mitigate the problem, but most of the community simply isn't interested.

Having just wasted an entire day trying to configure a new RT server, this massive problem Linux has is fresh in my mind, since dealing with the typical clusterfuck of cascading dependencies inherent to any non-trivial perl program is something I've only just recently finished doing. However, I don't expect another idiotic "developer" like yourself[0] to understand why an entire day of lost productivity wasted on something that should be completely fucking trivial, without kludges like "package managers" isn't a "big deal".

[0] And I know exactly what you're like, because we've got a whole group of people like you here with much the same attitude, who think using some third-party library just for the hell of it is A-OK, since "it's just another line in a config file" - or, in our case, just another bit of software that needs to be rolled out to every desktop. No fucking concept whatsoever about actually _running_ an IT infrastructure.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[bokmann]

Simple...

Most people don't understand the issues.

For most people, this 'computer stuff' is just plain hard. They don't understand all the moving pieces of the puzzle and get easily frustrated. That is why they call on people like us to help them. People feel ignorant and stupid when dealing with computer hassles... If my Father-in-law ran into issues upgading Vista, he would lump it in the same category as having trouble putting in his color printer cartridge and give me a call. He has _no idea_ that these hassles are caused because Microsoft is not truly focusing on the user experience (as much as they would have you believe they are).

If his neighbor left a bag of trash or a pile of leaves in his driveway, he would understand and have something to say about that... but there are things in software literally and figuratively in his way as much as his neighbor's trash, but he just thinks "I just don't understand how to use the computer".

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[ElleyKitten]

If you're having problems installing a program on Linux, then the problem is the developer, not Linux. Most of the time installing things on Linux is at least as easy, if not easier, than installing on Windows. I've been using Linux (Ubuntu, to be specific) on my main computer for over a year and a half now, and I still have not found a need to learn how to recompile programs from CVS. The whole make/make install/whatever mantra is something I only hear on Slashdot; when I go to the Ubuntu forums to discuss how to do things on Linux with people who run it everyday the instructions for installing programs doesn't get any more difficult than "sudo apt-get install program" or double-click that .deb. If you're having problems installing something, go complain to the developer, because there's plenty of Linux programs that are perfectly easy to install (which means it's not Linux's fault) so I don't see why other programs can't do the same thing.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Weedlekin]

"They just don't think there is an alternative. They are so used to Windows that they think a Mac would be difficult to use, and as for Linux: "it's just for hackers and geeks isn't it?"

It's unlikely that most of them are even aware Macs or Linux exist, let alone what they are (Mac? Isn't that some sort of hamburger?). Lest we forget, a significant proportion of computer owners attribute the noticeable slowing down of Windows-based PCs that become progressively infested with more and more malware to the "chip" (i.e. CPU) wearing out, so they they trot off to one of the large emporia where a be-suited individual who knows little more than them will happily purvey a brand-new computer which he will assure them has special military-grade "chips" that are guaranteed not to wear out as fast as the ones in their old machine did. "Oh, and you get a free one month's AOL subscription in the box, by the way, did you hear about our special extended warranty service, which we recommend to avoid problems in the unlikely event that something goes wrong?"

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[hackstraw]

I think you have fallen into the trap of thinking that Linux is an operating system. It's not. Linux is the kernel.

Linux is as much of an operating system as Windows, FreeBSD, or OS X.

Yes, to be pedantic, it is a kernel, but nobody boots a kernel and stops there, not even embedded Linux people.

If you want to get really pedantic, Linux is not even a kernel, but a state of mind :) Open source, modular, flexible, runs on everything, fun, new, always new, picky about who its friends with, etc, etc.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[hackstraw]

WindowBlinds and ObjectDesktop changes the Windows desktop in large ways - where's your standard GUI there?

The standard GUI, like with OS X*, is the single choice you have when installing the system. In fact, to my knowledge, you don't even have a choice to not install that standard GUI.

There is no standard GUI with Linux or even the need to run a GUI at all.

* I'm unfamiliar with OS X server and what, if any, GUI options are available there.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What he's doing wrong is trying to use Fedora.

It's just not a usable system, sorry. In most circles, we'd just call it what it is: a pile of steaming, wet shit.

Yes, I've downloaded official Fedora ISOs with corrupt RPMs on them, too. It's a serious problem that has plagued the project from the onset. Frankly, Fedora Core is basically unusable for actual work.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Theaetetus]

I'd been noticing high-ish CPU utilization on my XP laptop during periods when it should be idle. I decided today to find out what the culprits were.

XP just plain handles some things strangely. Just had one last night, where my USB wireless mouse was acting slow, sluggishly jumping around, and occasionally registering mousedown events, but not the mouseup after a click. Nothing showing up in the CPU utilization, tried replacing the batteries in the mouse, even tried rebooting. No help... Finally, unplugged my Philips Pronto remote from the USB port - I had been programming it earlier, but wasn't running that program, particularly after the reboot - and everything returned to normal.

It seems Windows has some delay in scanning through its USB ports. I've also noticed when I had my PC and Mac on a USB KVM that the Mac would register the mouse and keyboard immediately upon switching, while the PC would take a second or two (and do that annoying bing-bong sound) before I could use them. My IT guys here at work recommend using PS/2, but is going back to an obsolete standard really a good answer?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[alva_edison]

Most non-techs miss this, but Windows is the same, if you check the version number, Windows 2000 is Windows N 5.0, XP is 5.1, and Server 2003 is 5.2. As for service packs, they tend to be (lately anyway) a four digit number, Windows Server 2003 is 5.2.0, but Windows Server 2003 SP1 is 5.2.3790.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[jlarocco]

The issue is not that they are "too stupid" to do that, it is that they neither want to, nor should have to.

And Windows is any better? I can think of at least two times in the past when Windows systems were hit *hard* by trojans, not because of average users, but because a large number of system admins didn't feel like updating. If paid system admins don't want to do it, the average home user is screwed.

If you're the poor end user who has to try and resolve the dependency hell that "third party library" usually produces, it *is* a "big fucking deal". Combined with the typical Linux developer's disinterest in maintaining any sort of decent binary compatibility or API stability ("because they can just grab the latest code from CVS and recompile") and you have one of the primary reasons Linux is having such difficulties penetrating past the tech-savvy userbase. Companies like Red Hat and SuSe have made heroic efforts to try and mitigate the problem, but most of the community simply isn't interested.

How many "average users" would need software outside of the 18,000+ packages in Debian's repository? I install a stunning amount of software, and I've only needed to go outside Debian's package system two or three times, and it was for software the "average user" almost certainly wouldn't be installing.

Hell, even when I compiled everything myself, the dependencies were nowhere near as bad as you make it out. Are you sure you're not confused with "DLL Hell" from Windows?

That being said, you'll hear no complaining from me that Linux is a geek only OS. I'll defend it when people like you spread obviously wrong information, but in general I'd prefer the average idiot stick with Windows.

Having just wasted an entire day trying to configure a new RT server, this massive problem Linux has is fresh in my mind, since dealing with the typical clusterfuck of cascading dependencies inherent to any non-trivial perl program is something I've only just recently finished doing. However, I don't expect another idiotic "developer" like yourself[0] to understand why an entire day of lost productivity wasted on something that should be completely fucking trivial, without kludges like "package managers" isn't a "big deal".

If your boss wants to hire somebody with a clue, who won't shit-can an entire day installing Linux and isn't baffled by Perl, can you have him call me? I've got a job, but I might be willing to $witch.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[UncleTogie]

It happened to me and I have an IQ of 90, so I'm not completely stupid.

Not completely, but why's someone in the dumbest 25% of the US trying to post on /. to begin wi....

Wait...I'm not THAT new here.

Carry on!

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[operagost]

It happened to me and I have an IQ of 90, so I'm not completely stupid.

But are you really smart enough to have political hyperbole in your sig, Forrest?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[dr00g911]

Bare metal install of Win Vista Home Premium:

9% baseline cpu utilization at idle on an Athlon X2 4200+ dual core, 663 mb used by kernel out of 2 gb. This is 2 days after the initial install (indexing isn't running), with no 3rd party drivers loaded as nVidia doesn't have RTM drivers for their "vista ready" nForce 4 chipsets yet. So no sound or gigabit lan for me just yet, and no the RC1/RC2/XP drivers won't load.

Windows desktop manager (dwm.exe) is responsible for 5-6% of the load by itself, explorer.exe generally eats up 2-3% even with no windows open.

It's more usable than RC1 was in terms of feeling sluggish, but resource utilization is still pretty darned high for gaming and rendering.

Don't think Vista's going to make it off of my sandbox machine until a service pack or three make it out the door. Just a hunch.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Brandee07]

What about the 5 years that went into Vista? =x

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[davper]

Well, maybe that's a signal we're looking at things incorrectly, then. Why not build a stable core - multitasking, networking, application sandboxing, list management, basic graphics with user-settable bitmaps and/or polygonal models -- the rest of the usual suspects like disk io and USB -- and then let the user decide if they want, for instance, to add a 3d desktop with voice and haptic features, widgets, zooming, 400 language compatibility (OSX carries a crapload of language stuff to your drive it doesn't really need to, for instance) and drivers for every printer ever known to man? Because MS would not be able to make billions on new releases. Once the code was stable, what incentive would users have to upgrade. BTW, I agree with you. I would rather have an OS do just that, operate the system. I don't need a built in webbrowser, media player, communication tools, etc. I would rather add the tools that I am going to use and trust to be the best it can be. Yes, I know this sounds like linux. I have used linux and I keep going back to windows. I equate it to having an old comfortable blanket that I have to keep sewing the holes closed compared to the new scratchy and stiff blanket that needs to get broken in. I am so comfortable with and have tweaked XP so much, that I have no intentions of upgrading until I am forced to to play my favorite games that will eventually be developed on DX10.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[MeNeXT]

I really don't understand your point here. In the Windows world you have no choice. If the software says it's for XP chances are it won't run on anything else but XP. If you stick with the same option on a Linux distrubution it's even less trouble.

When you compare, compare apples with apples....Windows is the only system where you have no control what the software does on your computer. From a users perspective. For me it's easy money...

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[NemosomeN]

90 is actually rather low. It's almost a standard deviation below the mean, and realize that the mean doesn't mean "smart." Realize that this means that if you look around you at any given moment, you are likely dumber than a large majority of those you see.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Gr8Apes]

So what's MS's excuse to continue dropping?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[fyngyrz]

Primarily because the vast, vast majority of consumers lack the knowledge and, more importantly, the will, to do so.

I don't think you quite got what I was proposing. I was trying (probably poorly) to say that this hypothetical OS would be 100% usable out of the box. You'd get apps for it, and they would work just fine. If, and only if, you wanted to, you could add things to the OS like 3D desktop, and the apps would *still* work, because the OS interface hadn't changed for the applications, just the OS code would do something else with window calls, menu calls, etc. while still returning the same reactions to the code - option selected, menu visible, button pressed, and so on.

So there's nothing that the end user has to do; only things they *can* do, if they like. This allows the idea of window managers and so forth, it would be configurable like linux is, only more so, and developers wouldn't have to navigate the shoals of all the various licenses and obligations they incur by adopting one of the linux widget sets, for instance.

Many developers have absolutely no interest in FOSS, many are the exact opposite. The machine would be friendly to both, because it would actually have GUI widgets right out of the gate. Like Windows and OSX in the sense that developing for them requires no third party stuff at all, everything you need is in the OS already. That's the developer view of this.

But this should also be simple; because we're seeing very large OS binaries, and some pretty slow ones, too. If the user wants that kind of features, and loading, let them pick an optional package. They'd quickly enough be known for how much they loaded the system... "oh, I use desktopZ, it's really pretty, but my machine is noticably slower." That kind of thing. "I added full time speech recognition, I didn't even notice a slowdown on my Pentium-Of-Borg-OctoCore-Mobile-Heat-Generator, but it took half my spare 40 gig disk!"

This opens the window for OS add-ons as well as applications, again like linux, but unlike linux, the basic OS is complete in the box. linux is more than complete, it is rich, in almost all areas, which also probably means bloated and slower than it has to be, although that is hand-waving, not based on measurements.

I was trying to say that in the area of a proper graphics layer, it falls short because you can't just write a GUI-based app to the OS, as it were, without picking up some 3rd party library and the associated license liabilities and obligations and possibly costs.

Also that the security has a bit of a hole in it as I described above - you can't prevent execution on a directory basis w/o creating a special partition, and that leaves a rather tricky security hole you have to plug some other way, usually many times over. Ask yourself, how many worms and other nasty things end up crowbarring themselves into /tmp or /var ? And why? It's because they can do so and then execute, of course. It's just that simple. There's no reason for this, other than the security isn't up to easily and conveniently preventing it, and so we have the basis for many hacks.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[fyngyrz]

Where have you seen it reported that Vista eats 10% of the CPU?

Here on /.; that's why I characterized it as "rumors." One of your other replies has a specific set of circumstances it's reporting on that agrees; I also read (again, here on /.) that the DRM stuff is resource intensive in the 10%-ish range. Not sure if you'd add those together, or what.

Perhaps the perceived CPU penalty with Vista is caused by needlessly bloated third-party drivers?

Well, it's possible, certainly. It'll take a while for the community to shake out just what is going on with Vista; the biggest warning has actually come from MS itself, with the repeated remarks about Vista "requiring" certain levels of CPU and graphics for 100% functionality. I have seen these repeatedly (and I think MS even has a tool to check your system to see if you "meaure up") but I can't place exactly where. Perhaps someone else will step up to the plate here. I'm not, after all, a MS windows user anymore. I just see this stuff out of the corner of my eye, as it were, and it sticks because it's interesting.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Good lord, look how many comments that IQ statement got. What would have happened if I'd also mentioned that my penis is an inch and a half long hard?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Do you remember that old cartoon from the New Yorker? "On the Internets nobody knows you're a dog." What would that imply about the reliability of a statement from an anonymous Slashdotter who has Stile Project as a home URL?

That's right. I'm throwing the half-gnawed chicken bones under the bed with the crusty kleenexes while I type this.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I tend to feel like I'm being treated like a criminal unless I've been robbed.

Obviously you haven't been robbed lately.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd probably be asked to put down and step away from the magnifying glass.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[adolf]

Interesting comment, but not for the reasons you think.

It's interesting because you noticed a problem (piggish USB), isolated the problem (removed offending remote from the USB bus), and then blamed it on something else entirely (the operating system).

USB sucks. It always has sucked. Especially in the 2.0 world where things like mice and remotes live. Just because the bus is broken, does not mean that the operating system wasn't doing the very best it could with the information available to it.

If in doubt of USB's suckiness, just have a look through the notes in the Linux kernel's configuration.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[NemosomeN]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Theaetetus]

It's interesting because you noticed a problem (piggish USB), isolated the problem (removed offending remote from the USB bus), and then blamed it on something else entirely (the operating system)

Hmm...
[look at Macbook, iMac, and Mini]

Uh, I don't think it's USB that's the problem.

Only the XP machine has this lag on polling USB. When I boot the same machine into Linux - I've tried Mandrake, Redhat, and Ubuntu on the same hardware - it has no problems. Yeah, I blame the OS.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[adolf]

You program your Pronto remote with Linux?

Fucking awesome!

Tell me: How do you do it?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

If you're having problems installing a program on Linux, then the problem is the developer, not Linux.

Technically true, but practically irrelevant.

Most of the time installing things on Linux is at least as easy, if not easier, than installing on Windows. I've been using Linux (Ubuntu, to be specific) on my main computer for over a year and a half now, and I still have not found a need to learn how to recompile programs from CVS.

You seemed to have missed my main point, which was: if something is taken care of by $DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGEMENT, then you're usually ok (unless one of the inevitable dependencies is broken in some way) - but if it isn't, you're frequently in for a world of hurt.

The big problem here is that the distros that actually demonstrate a certain amount of stability, and hence be attractive to enterprises (primarily Red Hat and derivatives, like CentOS, and SuSe) are frequently ignored by Linux developers, who like to target the latest and greatest like Ubuntu and Fedora (the affliction is markedly less prevalent in the *BSD world - it's a shame companies like Oracle won't support them). The end result being either a) no packages at all; b) packages that rely on library versions newer than the ones shipped with the distro (recursively leading on to another whole world of hurt); or c) the compile-it-from source option (which typically results in the same situation as (b), only with even less stability).

This particular example is a non-trivial perl program. As such, it depends on the obligatory 50-odd tiny little perl modules that need to be installed, either via your distro's package management system (if you're lucky enough for them to be present), CPAN (which basically does the same thing, only kludgier) or manual installation (the last, desparate hope).

The fundamental problem is that the Linux community is largely driven by Engineers, like Linus (those, at least, I can excuse) and immature brats who think that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with insisting on using the latest versions of libraries (which, by the way, commonly aren't even API-compatible, let alone binary-compatible, with older versions) to write their software. Perl developers, in particular, seem to make it their life's mission to track down the most obscure modules possible to make their software dependent on.

Linux is a _nightmare_ of cross-dependencies and ugly hacks to work around them, all in the name of "choice". It's astounding that the OSS community spent years watching and (quite justifiably) criticising Windows for "DLL hell" in the early-to-mid-90s, then promptly went out and did basically the same thing, only making it worse in the process.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

And Windows is any better? I can think of at least two times in the past when Windows systems were hit *hard* by trojans, not because of average users, but because a large number of system admins didn't feel like updating. If paid system admins don't want to do it, the average home user is screwed.

You're arguing the wrong discussion.

How many "average users" would need software outside of the 18,000+ packages in Debian's repository?

Thank you for reiterating my point. *IF* your application is in your distros package management system, then it's usually ok. It's when it isn't, that the nightmare starts.

I install a stunning amount of software, and I've only needed to go outside Debian's package system two or three times, and it was for software the "average user" almost certainly wouldn't be installing.

It shouldn't matter whether or not it's software "the "average user" almost certainly wouldn't be installing" - the problem is that "package managers" are an ugly hack to work around definciencies in the platform.

Hell, even when I compiled everything myself, the dependencies were nowhere near as bad as you make it out. Are you sure you're not confused with "DLL Hell" from Windows?

"DLL hell" hasn't been a problem on Windows for pushing a decade now. It's equal parts tragedy and irony, that the Linux community spent years criticising Windows about it, then reinvented and "improved" that wheel as well.

If your boss wants to hire somebody with a clue, who won't shit-can an entire day installing Linux and isn't baffled by Perl, can you have him call me? I've got a job, but I might be willing to $witch.

We've got more than enough cocksure developers ("and I've got a whole _network_ of Linux machines at home - I pulled most of them out of the dumpster for nothing !") here already, making my team's job harder than it needs to be, and wasting the company's money. We don't need any more.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

I don't think you quite got what I was proposing. I was trying (probably poorly) to say that this hypothetical OS would be 100% usable out of the box. You'd get apps for it, and they would work just fine. If, and only if, you wanted to, you could add things to the OS like 3D desktop, and the apps would *still* work, because the OS interface hadn't changed for the applications, just the OS code would do something else with window calls, menu calls, etc. while still returning the same reactions to the code - option selected, menu visible, button pressed, and so on.

Why wouldn't it include the 3D desktop by default ? Who decides what "usable" is ? If it's "usable" without the extras, why does it need them ? How are users going to decide what "extras" they need(/want) to buy ?

You seem to be missing the two primary reasons for having a stable platform to target in the first place. Firstly, so developers know what functionality is _always_ present and, hence, what they can write their software to work with and, secondly, so end users can sit down in front of any machine running your platform and be able to use it, because it's always the same.

For the vast, vast majority of consumers, their computer is an appliance like their microware, TV or fridge. Windows and OS X cater to these people. For those who _really_ want to be able to tinker, and built their platform from scratch, there's Linux.

I get what you're saying, I just can't see how the system you're proposing differs in any significant amount to Windows and OS X as they exist today. By significant, I mean that you're basically saying "I want a platform just like OS X or Windows, but without $FEATURE". Where $FEATURE is something like the 3D desktop, or the media player, or the web browser - the one thing (or maybe a few things) that you, personally, don't think should be there by default. It's just like the definition of "bloat" - "everything that comes with the system that I don't personally want, is bloat". It's entirely subjective and has little - if any - technical or functional basis.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[jlarocco]

How many "average users" would need software outside of the 18,000+ packages in Debian's repository?

Thank you for reiterating my point. *IF* your application is in your distros package management system, then it's usually ok. It's when it isn't, that the nightmare starts.

You didn't answer my question...

It shouldn't matter whether or not it's software "the "average user" almost certainly wouldn't be installing" - the problem is that "package managers" are an ugly hack to work around definciencies in the platform.

Last I checked, each Windows program handles its own installation, its own updates (or not), and its own removal. There's often no consistency between software from the same company, much less in general.

On Linux, installation with a package manager is identical for all software. Upgrades are handled automatically with the rest of the system. And all software removal is handled identically, from the same place.

One of those is a hack, and it's not the package manager. I'd love to hear why you think package managers are a hack. What are the deficiencies they're supposedly working around?

"DLL hell" hasn't been a problem on Windows for pushing a decade now. It's equal parts tragedy and irony, that the Linux community spent years criticising Windows about it, then reinvented and "improved" that wheel as well.

Package managers haven't been "an ugly hack" in quite a while either. If you want to be taken seriously, you should probably try a "modern" distro other than LFS before making comments about Linux in general.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[ElleyKitten]

If you're having problems installing a program on Linux, then the problem is the developer, not Linux.

Technically true, but practically irrelevant.

If you had a problem installing a program on Windows, would you blame Windows or the program?

You seemed to have missed my main point, which was: if something is taken care of by $DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGEMENT, then you're usually ok (unless one of the inevitable dependencies is broken in some way) - but if it isn't, you're frequently in for a world of hurt.

If it's not in the repository, then .deb is double-click to install (on Debian-based system; I assume .rpm is double-click to install on Red Hat-based systems, and there's probably tools to make both double-click to install) .jar is double click to install, and .bin is just "./program.bin" to install. Some .tar.gz programs (like Firefox) are just the program in zipped format, so you just extract it and run it. I've got plenty of programs on my system that are not in Ubuntu's repository, yet I haven't compiled any of them.

The big problem here is that the distros that actually demonstrate a certain amount of stability, and hence be attractive to enterprises (primarily Red Hat and derivatives, like CentOS, and SuSe) are frequently ignored by Linux developers, who like to target the latest and greatest like Ubuntu and Fedora (the affliction is markedly less prevalent in the *BSD world - it's a shame companies like Oracle won't support them). The end result being either a) no packages at all; b) packages that rely on library versions newer than the ones shipped with the distro (recursively leading on to another whole world of hurt); or c) the compile-it-from source option (which typically results in the same situation as (b), only with even less stability).

I'll concede that I don't really know a lot about running Linux in a business environment; I've only run it at home, so it might be more difficult to find and install programs that are more business oriented on more business oriented distros.

Linux is a _nightmare_ of cross-dependencies and ugly hacks to work around them, all in the name of "choice".

See, while I concede that I don't know every distro, I can say that Linux as a whole isn't a nightmare. There are plenty of programs that are easy to install on Linux (or at least the distros I've used). The programs you've installed were difficult, but not all programs are difficult to install, and I think on they are going to improve.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

You didn't answer my question...

That's because it's a straw man.

Last I checked, each Windows program handles its own installation, its own updates (or not), and its own removal. There's often no consistency between software from the same company, much less in general.

This is because Windows (and OS X) programs are, almost to a unit, distributed in a self-contained fashion - all you need to make them work is whatever they come with and whatever version of Windows they say they support.

On Linux, installation with a package manager is identical for all software. Upgrades are handled automatically with the rest of the system. And all software removal is handled identically, from the same place.

And when the software isn't handled by the PM the whole house of cards is exposed for the fragile hack that it is.

One of those is a hack, and it's not the package manager. I'd love to hear why you think package managers are a hack. What are the deficiencies they're supposedly working around?

Firstly, the lack of any sort of consitent, reasonable level of base functionality across a reasonable number of Linux distributions. Secondly, the significant lack of interest in the Linux developer community for maintaining backwards compatibility.

When I install Program A, I shouldn't need to go out and track down specific versions of programs B and C, and support libraries D, E, F and G - nor should a "package manager" have to do so on my behalf - to make it work.

Package managers haven't been "an ugly hack" in quite a while either.

The whole damn _concept_ is little more than an ugly hack. Doesn't matter how much you polish that turd, it still stinks. It's still just working around fundamental stability and feature definciencies in the platform itself.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should probably try a "modern" distro other than LFS before making comments about Linux in general.

Your reading comprehension needs to improve. We don't use LFS. I said I had "done the whole LFS thing" in the past, I never said anything about using it today, or even recently.

(You also inadvertently highlight another problem with the Linux community - in a textbook example of circular reasoning, you need a "modern distro" to install $SOME_APPLICATION via the package manager, but if it can't handle it, it's because your distro isn't "modern" enough.)

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[drsmithy]

If you had a problem installing a program on Windows, would you blame Windows or the program?

That would depend upon the nature of the error.

However, you're missing the point. I'm not criticising the installation of a specific application, per se, just using it as an example of how the whole "package management" system is a fragile house of cards, constructed to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

It's an example of one of those areas where the "Bazaar" fails.

If it's not in the repository, then .deb is double-click to install (on Debian-based system; I assume .rpm is double-click to install on Red Hat-based systems, and there's probably tools to make both double-click to install) .jar is double click to install, and .bin is just "./program.bin" to install. Some .tar.gz programs (like Firefox) are just the program in zipped format, so you just extract it and run it. I've got plenty of programs on my system that are not in Ubuntu's repository, yet I haven't compiled any of them.

Again, you are labouring under the assumption all applications and the various support libraries they depend (frequently, specific versions thereof) exist in an appropriately prepackaged form. My whole complaint is about the problems that ensure when they _aren't_.

I'll concede that I don't really know a lot about running Linux in a business environment; I've only run it at home, so it might be more difficult to find and install programs that are more business oriented on more business oriented distros.

This aspect of the problem is the Linux communities' tendency to forsake stability for the latest and greatest. So distros that remain stable for reasonable periods of time (3 - 5 years) tend to be ignored because they're not new enough.

The programs you've installed were difficult, but not all programs are difficult to install, and I think on they are going to improve.

I'm not holding out hope, I must admit. Largely because there's not a lot of people who even recognise it as a problem, let alone want to come up with a solution.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It means that on the Internet, you don't know if I have a 90 IQ, or if I'm just making that shit up because it's funny, or if I'm just making that shit up to see who believes me.

Searching google for "nobody internet dog" pulls up more than a hundred copies of this famous cartoon.
http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient -ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-33,GGGL:en&q=nobod y%20internet%20dog&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[NemosomeN]

I do not doubt your credibility. And that cartoon is fourteen years old, it's probably about time to stop making random references to it. I don't think it's as famous as you might think it is. Maybe it's a meme on a forum you visit.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

When I said my IQ was 90, you thought "what a dumbass", but there's an assumption you're making.

If I were a dog, your reaction would have been "that dog is a fucking GENIUS!"

Of course, nobody has pointed out so far how a guy with an IQ of 90 could be right about so many things. The truth is too painful I suspect.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[NemosomeN]

I think you've missed something. Reread the conversation. I understood the comic, I'm not sure you did. And nobody has pointed out how a person with 90 IQ could be right about so many things because the circumstances haven't warranted any need for an explanation.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The comic is obviously an allegory about the red queen. What do you think it's all about? A cute little doggy chatting on a computer? See? I'm a fricking smart poodle.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[NemosomeN]

You have convinced me that your IQ is not really 90.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Excellent mentat skillz. It's actually far far far lower.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[NemosomeN]

That's what I was hinting at.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

At last we agree. Let us be friends. I'll wag my tail. I'll offer my dog bones to you. I'll lick my ass and then lick your face. I'll lick my balls and make you jealous, because I can do that and you can't. We'll have great fun together.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[NemosomeN]

Oops, wrong button.

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[adolf]

Right, then.

So I went ahead and bought Vista Business, and did a clean install of it on the aforementioned laptop, an Inspiron 6000d. Pentium M 1.83, 2 gigs of DDR2 at 533, ATI X300 (using fresh drivers from ATI), Bluetooth mouse, 1 gig of ReadyBoost configured on the SD slot.

The sidebar was using 1-2% before I turned it off, but that's -all- I've turned off. Otherwise, I've been adding software left and right trying to get this machine ready for its typical use.

And guess what? Vista idles just fine. There is little or no background activity, as reported by Task Manager (though Task Manager itself likes to use a few percent, as typical for any Windows).

And, the box seems to be more responsive than it was with XP...and requires even less extra software in order to optimize the machine for my tastes. (I had been using third-party software to manipulate the CPU's clock and conserve battery, but Vista has such functionality built-in, for example.)

I'm impressed. I'm also not at all sure what it is that you're doing wrong; things seem to be running great, for me, Aero eye-candy included.

This is exactly the reason

[geekoid]

for not installing something as critical as an OS as soon as it comes out.

Your really have to be stupid to do that.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[honkycat]

Better hope not everyone is too smart to upgrade, or we'll be stuck forever. SOMEONE has to go first.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[edwardpickman]

I'm a long time PC user but isn't it funny how Mac users aren't afraid of upgrades but PC users will say what are you stupid upgrading early? If you listen close and read between the lines I think the best Mac salespeople are PC users.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

SOMEONE has to go first.

No, they don't.

Not with Vista.

This is the first release of Windows that actually does less than the previous one. The people in the article didn't need it, I don't need it, and you don't need it.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[6ULDV8]

Are you implying that Microsoft may just be saving those users from their own stupidity?

Re:This is exactly the reason

[Tim_UWA]

I installed Kubuntu Edgy the day it came out, and I have full intent to do the same with Feisty

Re:This is exactly the reason

[straponego]

Better hope not everyone is too smart to upgrade, or we'll be stuck forever.

Hmm, can you think of any case in which everyone has been too smart, and it caused a problem? Trust me, ubiquitous intelligence is not something we have to worry about. Well, not from humans.

What worried me is something I heard on NPR the other day. There were people standing in line, outside the store, for two hours to get Vista. In New York City. If Vista were that important to you, wouldn't you have grabbed a beta already? People like that scare me.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[Kris_J]

Uh-huh, because no Mac user has ever waited for a native port of their favourite application.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[honkycat]

Good point. Believe me, I'm not signing up to be a guinea pig...

Re:This is exactly the reason

[honkycat]

That's pretty terrifying.

Personally, I only grudgingly run Windows at all and really have no interest in Vista. I just think it's a funny thing to suggest that everyone should wait to be second in line, just as a matter of logic.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[be-fan]

No sane Mac user buys a .0 release of an Apple OS. Most are wary of being Rev A of any new Apple hardware.

The reason Mac users stay with Apple isn't because Apple never makes mistakes. It's because they try to offer a good user experience, they fix things pretty quickly when something breaks, and they have a reasonable progress schedule, timely but not overly aggressive. Each release of OS X is an incremental step. They have enough new features to get excited about, but aren't jarring breaks from previous releases. And of course, each new release is faster, and after the first maintainence release more stable, than the previous one.

A lot of this has to do with Apple's development methodology. It's very evolutionary, and very incremental. When Leopard comes out, there will have been six major OS X releases in six years (10.0 in Spring '01 to 10.5 in Spring '07). In-between major releases, Apple does a minor release on average about every month or every other month. Each major release of OS X improves the key subsystems in substantial, but easy-to-digest ways. They introduce a few new APIs and deprecate some old ones, all while giving developers a chance to incrementally keep up with changes to the OS.

Let's use Carbon as an example. Carbon descends from the Quicktime for Windows codebase, and in 10.0 looked a lot like the OS 9 toolbox APIs. In 10.0, Apple introduced Quartz, but Carbon still used Quickdraw for most things. Apple also introduced Carbon Event Manager, replacing the old polling-based event API in Carbon. In 10.2, Apple added the HIView framework, based on composited Quartz drawing. In 10.3, Apple moved most of the standard widgets and standard menu handling code in Carbon over to HIView. In 10.4, Apple introduced the resolution independence APIs, and officially deprecated Quickdraw. Now, 10.5 will get rid of the remnants of Quickdraw in Carbon (eg: adding new methods for creating windows that take Quartz rects instead of Quickdraw rects), and fully support resolution independence. So in 10.5, crusty old Carbon is actually a throughly modern widget framework, supporting resolution independence, anti-aliased drawing, composited widgets, and an object-oriented substrate that serves as the basis for higher-level Cocoa APIs. The best part is that for developers who kept up with the little updates over the years, using the new Carbon features in 10.5 will be a piece of cake. By the end of 2007, the majority of actively-developed OS X applications will be utilizing these features. In contrast, Avalon is a complete break from Win32. Porting applications to Avalon is going to take a substantial amount of time, and it'll be years before the majority of common apps are based on the new APIs.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[StikyPad]

Your really have to be stupid to do that.

Yes, your wood.

That's why I installed it before it came out.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[mrchaotica]

This is the first release of Windows that actually does less than the previous one.

Forgetting Windows ME, eh?

Re:This is exactly the reason

[jvkjvk]

It is relatively easy to argue that no one needs Vista (period), and arguably correct. However, that doesn't quite stop the reality that soon enough when people buy new PCs they will mostly be getting (you guessed it) - Vista!

So, let's say one works in the computer business using Windows (I know, that's a stretch here on Slashdot), perhaps setting up systems, troubleshooting people's home installs, developing software...

Are you going to wait until someone calls you up about Vista problems before you install and play with it yourself? I guess some people might, but not anyone I would want to deal with.

It's not that anyone needs it, it's that a large percent of the population will have it anyways, which will grow to a majority as time marches on. It's kind of like the opposite of the chicken and egg problem - you have an egg(Vista), ergo you will have a chicken, an omlette, a pissed off driver... but the egg is there.

Re:This is exactly the reason

[Brandee07]

Signing up to be a guinea pig isn't always a bad thing. You often get paid for it.

In this case, however, you'd be paying them to be a guinea pig, which is a raw deal however you look at it.

No Timeframe?

[Lithdren]

thats sorta depressing. If I pay for something, and it requires a key to activate it, and you fail to give me that key, you're ripping me off.

Known issue or not, get them working keys!

Re:No Timeframe?

[ivan256]

We can do better than that analogy.

They're so keen on applying terminology for criminal theft of physical objects to copyright violation that we should do it back to them.

Let me give this a try:

This is like selling somebody a car, giving them a fake key in exchange for the money, and then selling the car to somebody else! They're kind enough to offer your money back, but they took your old car on trade, and they already melted it down for scrap.

There. That's seems about comparable.

Not Surprised...

[da' WINS pimp]

This is the same thing that happened with our MSDNAA lics during the release to OEM's and MSDN subscribers. Just more of the same. It only took three weeks for them to provide a new release rather than new keys. YMMV, but I doubt it.

Re:Not Surprised...

[westlake]

Just more of the same. It only took three weeks for them to provide a new release rather than new keys.
YMMV, but I doubt it.

It's just another non-story, another chance for the geek to vent his rage against the universe. Vista has moved into the home market, where its dominance is as certain as the rising of the sun:

You have to wonder how long the crowd here will continue grasping at straws:

I just tested this out for myself. If you received a free copy of Vista from your participation in the beta program, the Ultimate key you were issued qualifies for the Windows Vista Family Discount. How's THAT for a discount!

Now, if only they could issue correct PID keys for the Home Premium installations...

Speaking of which, if you were issued a bad key, just install Vista without it. When it asks for the Product Key, just select "Next", then chose "Home Premium" as your edition, and continue as usual. Then, when Microsoft sends you the right key, you can add it to your system. Vista Beta Reward Product Keys and the Vista Family Discount

They do

[geekoid]

it just has to be their PC.

Re:I can already see it..

[romland]

Goes in line with their whole Wow-Starts-Now competition. Now they're hoping that happy, naive parents will send in pictures of their adorable kids...

In a few weeks they'll come knocking on their door demanding their first-born. Parents asking "why?" will just get a blank look: "Didn't you read the EULA?"

Re:I can already see it..

[melikamp]

Let's see... Mine says "Slashdot Troll Special Edition, 2007 - OO". (I guess they had to use infinity in order to include the Duke Nukem Forever release date).

Might be the computers

[edwardpickman]

Maybe they saw the Mac commercials about upgrading PCs and they're afraid of the upgrade?

digest

[Andrei D]

I think there will be many *issues* Vista will have in the next months. Maybe slashdot should compile a monthly digest and publish that instead. Am I the only one who got bored of Vista already? I'm a romanian, and I don't even consider getting a torrent of vista. Imagine how bored Vista makes me feel!

Re:digest

[kfg]

I'm a romanian, and I don't even consider getting a torrent of vista.

So was great granddad; and he won't be either:

"Windows Vista: So pointless even dead Romanians don't care about it."

KFG

Re:digest

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't seem to be doing too bad on torrent sites
http://www.torrentz.com/search?q=windows+vista

Re:I can already see it..

[skoaldipper]

Probably the bonus picture calendar which comes bundled inside every Vista retail box, featuring Ballmer in the month of June dressed in a white wedding dress for losing his delivery date bet to Bill.

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[Dachannien]

In that case, shouldn't it be called Windows Vista Penultimate?

People with tags

[jpardey]

Yes, defectivebydesign is good. windows and bug are also good. But still, where's the slownewsday?

Re:People with tags

[Aladrin]

This doesn't really fit with 'slow news day' because this IS news we'd expect to see here. That tag is reserved for things that really don't belong on this site at all, and especially not the front page.

A major IT producer making a screwup this big is definitely 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' no matter who you're a fanboy for.

Re:People with tags

[jpardey]

Woah, I meant to make a joke. Bad job on my part. But yes, it is news. I just find Vista more funny than anything else. The increased price of hardware is somewhat troublesome, but I am sure there will be alternatives, such as not playing video games, and pro audio equipment. I'm happy with Ubuntu and Fluxbox and not watching HD-DVDs on my computer. A large percentage of the population probably would be too. Seems a lot of these things are forced down our throats. Urge to critique "free market" rising...

Re:People with tags

[jpardey]

Oh yeah, it was just that there are so many of these things now. That is not necessarily a problem with the OS, just it seems like reporting on every traffic accident in the world on Slashdot.

Re:People with tags

[Speare]

Yes, defectivebydesign is good. windows and bug are also good. But still, where's the slownewsday?

> yes slownewsday, haha. dude, nannystate censorship pointless fud.
whining defectivebydesign flamebait? eff pwned windows! piracy maybe, mafiaa no.
ps-- omgponies fantasy pigpile wrong, duh. arr!

Quick! More Vista sucks stories!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick faster, we'll really make microsoft mad now!

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[Agelmar]

Actually, I think you are the one who misunderstands.

The program is basically this: If you bought a retail version of Windows Vista Ultimate, you can buy two additional upgrade licenses for $50 each. These upgrade licenses are for Windows Vista Home Premium - i.e. you don't get two more Ultimate licenses, you get 2 home premium upg licenses. Hence the bit about home premium.

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[Anonymous Coward]

When the aircraft designer puts the flap lever right next to the gear lever and makes them look and feel exactly the same, who is to blame when the pilot accidentally retracts the gear while on the ground after landing?

When you build something as incredibly convoluted and confusing as the fourteen different versions of Vista, you must accept at least partial blame when people get them mixed up. Most of these people probably don't even know what Windows Vista Ultimate is or whether they have it. Sure, this is partly their fault, but mostly MS's fault for building a confusing system and making strange requirements based on it.

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[plaisted]

Perhaps you should read the article you linked to. Yes, you can only use it if you bought Windows Vista Ultimate. But it allows you to upgrade up to two other PCs to Windows Vista Home Premium. So they are supposed to be issued license keys for Vista Home Premium, but the keys aren't working.

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[TubeSteak]

Oh... i get it now

You spend $400 for Vista Ultimate
Then buy the family upgrade pack
and get two Windows Vista Home Premium keys for $50 each

Essentially, $500 for Ultimate + Home Premium x 2

What's to stop someone from buying Ultimate, doing the family upgrade pack & reselling those licenses for >$50?

Seriously, get a grip people

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I like reading /. for the tech/science news. It's a very valuable tool for that. But, honestly, when every other article is another Vista-bashing FUD extravanza, this site really loses its respectability.

This site is supposed to be about news and technical scoops not about personal opinion or flame wars. Get a grip. We like different operating systems. All the other ones suck. Let's move on and talk about something interesting.

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[kiwioddBall]

I second that... well said.

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[kfg]

Look, I like reading /. for the tech/science news.

That's why they make sure that ever other story is about a game console.

KFG

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[AudioEfex]

Look, I like reading /. for the tech/science news. It's a very valuable tool for that. But, honestly, when every other article is another Vista-bashing FUD extravanza, this site really loses its respectability. This site is supposed to be about news and technical scoops not about personal opinion or flame wars. Get a grip. We like different operating systems. All the other ones suck. Let's move on and talk about something interesting.

I think you are being a bit sensitive here, at least on this specific story.

MS is selling bad products and telling customers "sorry, don't know when you'll get your paid product". I'm sure that some of the idiots who bought the "ultimate edition" did so expressly for this feature.

I'm sorry, but MS is bringing on all the bad publicity themselves. You can't go to an online store that sells computer products today and not see a dozen shitty tries to get you to be excited about Vista, which does absolutely nothing at this point for the average consumer but take your time and make your existing apps/devices a bitch to reconfigure.

If MS wasn't touting this as some miracle OS that everyone was eagerly anticipating, then people wouldn't be making fun of it. Regardless, though, again that's not the case here - any company giving out bad product keys is /. material, and the fact that it's MS just makes it even worse.

AE

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[edwardpickman]

Where have you been? A couple of months ago there was a rash of Mac bashing. More recently the iPhone got slammed inspite of no one slamming it have ever held one. The story is a legit issue so if anything I'd say they are going easy on Vista. After five years of waiting it's an eye candy yawn fest.

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[psychgeek]

This site is supposed to be about news and technical scoops not about personal opinion or flame wars

You must be new here

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[Falkentyne]

Look, I like reading /. for the tech/science news. It's a very valuable tool for that. But, honestly, when every other article is another Vista-bashing FUD extravanza, this site really loses its respectability.

This site is respectable? Screw you guys, I'm outta here! Me AND my bad karma!

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[ZDRuX]

Both Vista AND total new screwup that it brings fall under "news" and "technology" that you come here to see, so I don't think it's the editor's fault that Vista just seems to take the spotlight every other day on here. If it was a smooth release with not a single bug found, it probably wouldn't get my attention on slashdot, but because it keeps failing misserably and invalid keys are a HUGE problem, this is something that needs to be mentioned.

I can understand your frustration if they would post every little bug that someone finds, but nobody cares about those.. but when you're upgrading a system and realize you bought a useless coaster, and now possibly your computer is un-workable, I think the masses have the right to know.

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[Viceroy Potatohead]

What's the problem, exactly?

The release of a Microsoft Operating System failing to function for perfectly legitimate users IS tech news. It may not be the tech news you want to here, but it is not unreasonable to post it.

Sure, we can do with a lot less of "person X says MS product Y may have problem Z", just like we can do with a lot less "person X used Linux distro Y and felt he could not overcome problem Z". But come on. This is a legitimate piece of information, and it is hardly FUD. Microsoft is shipping a product which they have had in development for a long time, and I, as a potential purchaser (not really), may not even be able to use a legally purchased copy. That sounds like perfectly acceptable tech news to me.

I'd agree that the voice recognition story is more funny than a serious piece of information, and may not belong here. And I'd agree that corporate America liking Bill Gates (or hating him) doesn't belong here, but be realistic.

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[Anonymous Coward]

My point, I think, isn't that /. shouldn't post news on important bugs in Vista. It is, after all, a new operating system and it's important to know about the bugs. The problem is wading through article after article of obvious bias trying to find the actual news that might be important. Yes, a problem with upgrade keys is a serious issue but it has become hard for me to identify real stories and more poorly chosen FUD after how someone dislikes Windows Vista and this is why.

And I have been lurking here for years now and I have not seen bias towards Macs (or the iPhone) comparable to that of the /. wrath against Vista.

Anyway, that's my objection. By all means, let me know what's wrong with Vista. If I ever upgrade, I would like to know that information. But let's not post everything under the sun that has any vague resemblance of journalism. Let's stick to some ethics here.

I know, ethics and the internet are two concept hard to connect but if we try hard enough (and squint our eyes) we might be able to see them merge.

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[bigbigbison]

OK, tell us where there is FUD in this article. Then submit some articles of your own and hope they get selected.

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[GuyverDH]

Dude, when you're bashing MS / Vista - it's NOT fud - it's just the truth.

LOL - codeword for this post was "layoffs" - future for MS anyone?

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[evilviper]

when every other article is another Vista-bashing FUD extravanza, this site really loses its respectability.

Yeah! Slashdot should get back to it's roots... Every other article should be raving review about any little thing Apple does, or may possibly do.

Re:Seriously, get a grip people

[Duds]

Agreed, it used to be just a lot of the commentators that were morons. Unfortunately since Slashdot was bought by the Linux equivilent of Microsoft it's become a simple propaganda machine.

Mod parent up; GP down

[SEMW]

Amazing how many people mod up things that *sound* well-informed, as long as they're in a condensending or sarcastic manner ("Some users just cannot read..."), whether they're factually correct or not.

Re:Mod parent up; GP down

[Dunbal]

whether they're factually correct or not.


      Welcome to slashdot!

      By the way - just a hint - if you read at -1 then you can decide for yourself what is worth reading. Yes it's more work, but then you get to see how mods regularly abuse their "power"...

Re:Mod parent up; GP down

[jevvim]

Amazing how many people mod up things that *sound* well-informed ... whether they're factually correct or not.

But, as your moderation proves, accusations can get positive moderation without providing any details about the claim at all. What's factually incorrect in the GP's comment?

Re:Mod parent up; GP down

[SEMW]

But, as your moderation proves, accusations can get positive moderation without providing any details about the claim at all. Why should I have provided any details about the claim? The post I was replying to was the one which provided the details. My post was just a note to the mods to mod him/her up.

I've no idea why a 'mod parent up' post was itself modded up, but if a modder wants to waste their mod points, I'm not going to complain.

What's factually incorrect in the GP's comment? Uh, s/he said that the family pack upgrade "does not include Vista Premium" (quoting from the subject line), attempting to prove this by quoting from a source that the program "is limited only to Windows Vista Ultimate". The source meant the upgrade program only applies when you buy Ultimate; PaulCamel interpreted this to mean the two cheap upgrades the program gives you were Ultimates; when in fact they are Home Premium. The posts were fairly self-explanatory...

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[melikamp]

Mods, check the basic facts before wasting your points.

Customers who purchase Windows Vista Ultimate, the most expensive Vista version, at retail will be able to upgrade two more PCs in their home to Vista Home Premium for $49.99 each.

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[SEMW]

What's to stop someone from buying Ultimate, doing the family upgrade pack & reselling those licenses for >$50? Fear of losing the warm, fuzzy glow of knowing that Microsoft trusts you?

I for one welcome our new uber-topic

[wordsnyc]

Seriously. Vista seems to be shaping up as the gift that keeps on giving, if you're in the market for schadenfreude. My guess is that they're actually keys for "Club Clippy," a special secret online video vault full of Ballmer-Goes-Wild scat porn. Ooogaooga!

Re:I for one welcome our new uber-topic

[dreamlax]

Dammit, if only I had mod points!

Ouch!

[erexx23]

"There is no expected time period for a fix at this time"

That's a customer satisfaction kick is shorts for sure.

A thought

[Shadyman]

Maybe they're leftover keys from Windows ME that never got used. They've got plenty of those left over.

Fix? Yeah, we'll think about that...

[SeaFox]

Many (if not all) users who took advantage of Microsoft's Vista Family Discount have been issued invalid installation keys [CC] and cannot install Windows Vista Home Premium.

Microsoft's antipiracy program is so good, even if you do pay for the software you can't run it!

Microsoft says, 'There is no expected time period for a fix at this time.'

Hmmm, they already have the customer's money, are not delivering a product and have no time frame to deliver the product to these people. Isn't that a textbook case of fraud?

Keys work on Ultimate

[gcnaddict]

I tried this out as a test. The family plan activated Ultimate Edition just fine, though I think Microsoft might invalidate it (ew, WGA) once they read this post.

Family Plan wasn't in beta.

[gcnaddict]

Take it from me, I came up with the idea (August 22nd in the Windows Anytime Upgrade beta chat. I won Best Suggestion for it). They never beta tested this. It was a surprise to me when it was actually implemented.

Re:Family Plan wasn't in beta.

[Anonymous Coward]

so YOU'RE the one to blame. GET HIM!

Re:Family Plan wasn't in beta.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a surprise to me when it was actually implemented.

Didn't you even read the title of the slashdot post? it says they're not compatible! That means it wasn't implemented!

Re:Family Plan wasn't in beta.

[ElleyKitten]

Take it from me, I came up with the idea (August 22nd in the Windows Anytime Upgrade beta chat. I won Best Suggestion for it).

You forgot to suggest that it should actually work, not just be a sparkly box people can pay a couple hundred dollars for. ;)

Seriously though, it was a decent idea. Props on winning Best Suggestion.

Re:What's to stop someone...

[DodgeRules]

What's to stop someone from buying Ultimate, doing the family upgrade pack & reselling those licenses for >$50?

uhm, how about keys that don't work!

(Can't wait to read about the class-action lawsuit on Groklaw about this one!)

get a clue

[thanksforthecrabs]

yes...it's crappy people got invalid keys.

You're misguided to think more any of these people go to Linux instead. They paid for their product and will either get a refund or a new key.

Re:get a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that these ppl will not go to Linux. They are obviously way too mentally deficient as evidenced by their going out and buying Vista this early on...

Pete

Overblown MS bashing

[Ace905]

I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't screwed up here, but the author of this little 'blurb' put a very anti-microsoft spin on it. The representative they spoke to had said Microsoft was taking care of the issue and offered the only possible solution that could be offered - refund or waiting for a new key.

This wouldn't be unacceptable if you had a problem _installing_ vista and the sales guy at the store said, "I don't know why you're having a problem, we'll have to have a technical rep. get back to you". It just sounds horrible because it's something simple like a 'product key'. Well guess what - not everybody can make those.

They are probably under the tightest lock & key system microsoft has because you _don't_ want anybody, even most of your own employees, to be able to create valid keys.

I think the article's overzealous hatred of microsoft is apparent when the author says, " If Microsoft does not have this issue fixed very soon, they are going to have a lot of unhappy customers ". I'm sorry but I think Microsoft actually knows that, and so do I.

Don't insult our intelligence.

That whole anti-ms rant was written based on 1 phone call to a rep that sounded, surprise! reasonable.

---
surprise!

Re:Overblown MS bashing

[sweatyboatman]

They are probably under the tightest lock & key system microsoft has because you _don't_ want anybody, even most of your own employees, to be able to create valid keys.

it's reasonable to expect that MS will protect their incredibly popular software from piracy (whether or not these systems have anything but a negligible effect on piracy is a different question). however, MS has become so paranoid about keeping pirates out that they've made a system that's a hassle for themselves and their legitimate customers.

And thus the "defectivebydesign" tag is applied to this story. The key generation system is so locked down that even in cases where they're clearly in the wrong and would like to help, they CANNOT easily generate new keys. MS put a lot of time & effort perfecting a system to make it extremely difficult (even for themselves) to resolve installation issues.

Money well spent!

Re:Overblown MS bashing

[Ace905]

You're probably right, but at this time it seems way too early to tell. I mean just because the rep said there's no planned fix for the problem doesn't mean they won't jump on it and have it fixed within hours, or 1 day. He was just saying he didn't know how long it would take. still sounds legitimate to me.

Re:Overblown MS bashing

[Senjutsu]

This wouldn't be unacceptable if you had a problem _installing_ vista and the sales guy at the store said, "I don't know why you're having a problem, we'll have to have a technical rep. get back to you". It just sounds horrible because it's something simple like a 'product key'. Well guess what - not everybody can make those. They are probably under the tightest lock & key system microsoft has because you _don't_ want anybody, even most of your own employees, to be able to create valid keys. You're kidding, right? "Call me Jeff", their outsourced tech-support in friggin' Bangalore can issue you a new key in a bored tone of voice and bad English if you ask him nicely. If they're willing to let quasi-third party notoriously non-company-loyal contract workers in a country rife with piracy cut genuine keys, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think they're not exactly held in Fort Knox here in the US.

Re:Overblown MS bashing

[tapehands]

(Preface: I dislike Vista.)
I agree that the article is blowing it up more than it should, but why couldn't the MS rep generate a new key? They did it for XP for a good amount of time. Additionally, I have to argue on the point that it's reasonable:

These people decided to purchase more Vista than I'll ever want to see in a lifetime, and they were offered a special lower price for doing so. MS hasn't upheld their end of being a merchant by obviously not supplying these people with a working product. The choice between Refund or Wait-it-Out may seem clear-cut, but...let's break it down.

Refund: They get their money back. Maybe they decide to buy Vista again, but not go with the family package for obvious reasons. The result? No discount. Hopefully at this point, they just decided to keep their already-working operating system of choice, as from the reviews I've read, you're basically screwed from a support standpoint if you haven't bought brand new equipment within the past 6 months, or if you're not an experienced user. Hopefully anyone willing to shell out for Vista Ultimate would consider themselves at least moderately experienced.....

Wait-it-Out: The "no expected time period" response is utter shit. Like any large company, we all hope that MS is on top of this, and will have a fix for this people in at least a few days. If these people used MS' inability to roll Vista out in a timely manner as any measure of when they'll get their keys, they probably have already opted for the Refund.

Neither one of these options is ideal for the end-user, or for MS. Instead of a refund, MS should have done something to get these people Vista Home Premium at the price they were quoted...mail them out full copies if necessary. Just something to get the people what they paid for. Don't tell them what their keys are used for, and everything is safe. Or...maybe since they were highly inconvenienced...find out if the keys are for anything useful (like that shiny new Office Premium), and let them keep that as a bonus prize. On the other side of the fence, MS could have passed the info down to their phone support minions on when they are projecting to get this fixed. You know..something like, "It'll be done by the end of the week." or, "You might want to go peruse our other fine products. Are you sure you don't want to buy 2 additional copies of Vista Ultimate?"

Re:Overblown MS bashing

[Ace905]

Alright, well I don't really know about that - I imagine the notoriously non-company-loyal contract workers you're talking about are at least networked to microsoft as they speak to you - so they might not be cutting keys. They may be getting them cut in real time via microsoft.

The distinction is if they have a bunch of invalid keys, how did they get those invalid keys cut and accidentally sent out? Maybe there is a problem with the key-cutting source, which would *have to be* centrally located if Microsoft is trying to cut down on piracy. (which they are, they can check keys that seem valid against a database of actually valid keys, therefore, central location)

If the problem is there, then the problem can't be resolved by the rep - because the problem is the key cutting itself which very obviously had a problem in the first place.

"Our system is generating keys valid for the wrong software!"
"Generate more and see if they work!"

that's a horrible plan.

Re:Overblown MS bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft can generate keys immediately without delay. This rep chose not to. I know they can do that because I had a home key that didn't work. After about 10 minutes of arguing with the rep (who didn't *want* to generate a key, just like this one) the rep "called a supervisor" and 30 seconds later read me out a new key.

Done and done.

Ergo, the rep is being a jerk, or MS is, one or the other. Either way, bad MS, bad.

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[RobertLTux]

just a hint if i read things right when you punch in the key it first check if it is valid period then checks at what level so your same VUE rom will install all the way down to a Vista basic if thats what the key is for

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

[SaDan]

Ah, son of a BITCH!

I have a cell phone with a 1-800 support number that gets redirected to it after hours. Apparently, a popular 1-800 number for MS support is just a digit away, or something, because I get tons of calls from people looking for MS tech support.

*whimper*

I'll never sleep again!

Re:NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

[codepunk]

Send them to me, I could have alot of fun with that....

Not Only That

[mfh]

Large companies advertise that they are doing good things (like offering Family discounts) and then they turn around and something prevents it from happening. It's false advertising and I'm sorry but a refund is not good enough. I can understand if it was an honest mistake on their part, but they need to give either a time-line on a fix, or do something for the customers, to make amends.

Re:I can already see it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it wouldn't appease the Gods much if they tried to sacrifice dead babies, now would it? Sheesh. Youngsters don't know anything.

Site / key sever over loaded?

[Joe The Dragon]

When I was trying to order the X86-64 DVD that I had to pay $10 for my free copy of vista the site was running very slow and I had to restart it a few times so it may just be that to many users are trying to do it at the same time and the system is spiting out errors?

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[thejynxed]

Who pays $400 for it? You can get Vista Ultimate 32-Bit OEM from Newegg for $199 + $4.99 3-day shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16832116213

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[Slaimus]

They are just keys, not COAs. eBay, for one, does not allow selling of just software keys.

Wait til they find out about the new Vista-WPA

[gd23ka]

Once Microsoft "resolves" the issue by giving them new keys in a couple of weeks,
how long do you think these keys will stay valid before they lock up the machine
again...?

I guess I made the right decision

[WinDoze]

I bought a 24" iMac on the day Vista was released (seriously - typing this post on it now). My first OS X machine (although I use them at work), and so far I freakin' love it. And best of all, it doesn't try to tell me what I can and cannot do with media I purchased separately.

Re:I guess I made the right decision

[Mr2001]

And best of all, it doesn't try to tell me what I can and cannot do with media I purchased separately. I guess you haven't run iTunes yet.

Re:I guess I made the right decision

[rolyatknarf]

Ba careful about posting anything that resembles a praise of Apple products here. It could bring some of this crowd to your door carrying torches and ropes.

Seriously, congratulations on your purchase, and a few of us are happy you are a satisfied switcher.

Re:I guess I made the right decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, that's right, because Slashdot is oh so hostile to Apple. You poor martyr.

Re:I guess I made the right decision

[Farmer Tim]

I guess you haven't run iTunes yet.

I use iTunes all the time, and so far I haven't found any limits on what I can do with imported media.

Music from iTMS is a different story, but most people seem to be aware that iTMS and iTunes aren't the same thing, and you don't need one to use the other...

Re:I guess I made the right decision

[Mr2001]

Ah, so by "purchased separately", you mean "not purchased from Apple". Apple goes pretty far to limit what you can do with data you purchase from them (including encrypting parts of the OS, locking it to their own hardware, crippling QuickTime Player, and restricting iTMS videos to the point where they're nearly useless), but it's true that they don't try to exercise the same control on behalf of third parties.

Re:I guess I made the right decision

[Mr2001]

Oh, I forgot to mention a big media limitation that has nothing to do with iTMS DRM: they changed the library sharing in iTunes 7 to break compatibility with iTunes 6. Why? Perhaps because the iTunes 6 protocol had been deciphered, and people were using third-party apps like Xbox Media Center to stream their own music to non-Apple devices. Now, even if your library is full of nothing but songs you recorded yourself, you can't share it with anything but another copy of iTunes (or an Apple TV).

Re:I guess I made the right decision

[Macthorpe]

Honestly, living without care of the risk of troll mods:-

What in the living fuck are you talking about? Slashdot is a haven for Apple and Linux users raging against the MS machine. I'm more likely to get flamed for using Vista than for buying, well, anything else.

At long last...

[Anonymous Coward]

At long last... incest isn't the only thing the whole family can enjoy! Now they can all Vista together!

Re:At long last...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the enjoyment will be from NOT using Vista...

Moo

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick faster, we'll really make microsoft mad now!

Anybody else take a first quick glance at that sentence and think it said:

"Quick faster, we'll really make microsoft mad cow!"

Family Discount. WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand the legal justification for software site licenses (not on the small scale at least).

It is unquestionably legal for a family to watch a [legit] DVD together. One copy, one license, one location, several people. A site license. Music is no different. Heck, even the neighbours can listen.

But somehow it's illegal for three people, in the same room, to share one copy of a piece of software?

Legal or not, I feel absolutely zero guilt for have one copy installed on two of my computers - especially since I rarely have both switched on at the same time.

ScrewMaster's Corollary

[ScrewMaster]

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Never forget that the devil you know is still a devil!

Flap lever

[Nick Driver]

When the aircraft designer puts the flap lever right next to the gear lever and makes them look and feel exactly the same, who is to blame when the pilot accidentally retracts the gear while on the ground after landing?

The airplane designer... of course.

Everybody knows the flap lever is supposed to be a big manually-operated "johnson bar" lever on the floor between the front seats that is unmistakable to identify, and doesn't need any electricity to operate... like a properly designed airplane should be done! :-)

More information

[Anonymous Coward]

This article has more information on the XP keys.

Re:More information

[fyrewulff]

mod parent down for goatse

Enough Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a way to block all Vista articles from the Slashdot entry page?
Or could the Slashdot admins prepare a new category "Non-Vista"?

I have to wonder

[BCW2]

There are times like this that beg the question: If all the brains at M$ were dynamite, could they generate enough force to blow one nose?

What about in the future?

[Todd Knarr]

I can understand making a mistake in key generation. Mistakes happen. But what makes me wary is the Vista enhanced authentication/validation process. We know Vista is designed to validate that key not just when it's installed but periodically thereafter. Microsoft knows they need to make a good impression right at product launch, and they still manage to stuff up the keys so they won't validate. My thought is this: if they can blow it now, what about 6 months or a year down the road when it isn't so blatantly critical for them to look good? Are they going to upgrade a server somewhere, blow it again and suddenly my key isn't on the valid list anymore? What confidence does this incident give me that this won't in fact happen?

Another user nailed...

[weave]

A mac user got nailed with this too.

Alternative

[SuperKendall]

They do, however, require that your hardware have a shiny Apple logo on the outside, so let's not get too excited.

When the alternatives are flat matte black DellDJ-esque designs, and green Alienware overcooked plastic, it's kind of hard not to get excited when you find someone who cares as much about what goes inside a computer (hardware and software) as the outside.

And all for a lower price for what you get...

Re:Alternative

[Mr2001]

And all for a lower price for what you get... Lower price? Not really. There's at least one Apple model that's cheaper than the equivalent Windows box (the Mac Mini), and one of the desktops might qualify... but it's nowhere near true across the board. If you're getting a laptop, Apple will bend you over a stump.

Re:Alternative

[julesh]

Lower price? Not really. There's at least one Apple model that's cheaper than the equivalent Windows box (the Mac Mini),

Mac Mini Combodrive - £399
"Core Duo" @1.66GHz
512MB
60GB

No keyboard, mouse or monitor.

Packard Bell 354 - £430
Pentium D @ 2.8GHz
512MB
80GB
Includes 17" TFT monitor, keyboard and mouse.

I think the latter is a substantially better deal.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

"Core Duo" @1.66GHz £399
Pentium D @ 2.8GHz £430
I think the latter is a substantially better deal.

You're out of your gourd. Core Duo is a significantly better chip than the Pentium D. Just as Mac OS X is a significantly better OS than Windows XP.

Re:Alternative

[jsight]

Ok, here's a comparison with US prices:
        * 1.66Ghz Intel Core Duo
        * 512MB memory
        * 60GB hard drive1
        * 599.00

HP s7700y
        * Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processor T2350 (1.86GHz)
        * 512MB memory
        * Base HD - 160 GB 7200 RPM
        * $519

(btw, it's fairly difficult now to find an intel box with a mere Core Duo... most have already gone to Core 2)

Re:Alternative

[julesh]

You're out of your gourd. Core Duo is a significantly better chip than the Pentium D.

You're right that it's better, but "significantly" isn't the word. If that 2.8GHz chip were a 3.0GHz one, the performance would be almost identical, according to most benchmarks. Add to the fact that when you've added the cost of a 17" TFT monitor to the Mac Mini it works out significantly more expensive, the Pentium D machine is a much better deal. Unless you're looking for that tiny amount extra performance.

Re:Alternative

[Mr2001]

Look, I hate to defend Apple's pricing because it's so crappy overall, but now you're making me do it. The Packard Bell you linked to is a full sized desktop. The Mac Mini is about the size of a cable modem, suitable to be placed in a living room entertainment center (where a desktop PC's fan would be intolerably loud). They're not equivalent.

Re:Alternative

[julesh]

Look, I hate to defend Apple's pricing because it's so crappy overall, but now you're making me do it. The Packard Bell you linked to is a full sized desktop. The Mac Mini is about the size of a cable modem, suitable to be placed in a living room entertainment center (where a desktop PC's fan would be intolerably loud). They're not equivalent.

OK:

EZ PACK CUBE MICRO ATX 650W SMALL FACTOR CASE CASEZCUBE £55.05
        £55.05 Remove Item
ASUS P5PE VM 865G SND LAN VID CORE 2 DUO MOTHERBOARD MBDASUP5PEVM £34.91
        £34.91 Remove Item
INTEL PENTIUM CORE 2 DUO E6300 2 X 1 86 1066 Mhz CPU CPUINTCORE186 £129.64
        £129.64 Remove Item
SAMSUNG HD080HJ 80GB 7200RPM 8MB SATA HARD DRIVE HDDSAMSATA80-8 £30.63
        £30.63 Remove Item
MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC 32 BIT OEM SOFMSBASIC £55.10
        £55.10 Remove Item
LITEON DVD ROM 16X BLACK DVDLIT-BLK £9.26
        £9.26 Remove Item
512mb DDR 2 PC4200 533MHz MEMORY MEMMIC533512 £29.36
        £29.36 Remove Item
SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON X300 SE 256MB PCI E GRAPHICS CARD DISSAPX300SE256PCI £29.87
        £29.87 Remove Item
          Total £373.82

Plus the extra twenty quid that particular supplier charges as a system build cost, and that's an ATX machine with a faster processor and a larger hard disk than the Mac Mini, for slightly less cash. If I'd rather use Linux, I can save the £55 for Windows Vista OEM and just buy it bare without an OS; this isn't an option with the Mac.

Re:Alternative

[Mr2001]

You've selected this case, right? Again, just like the Packard Bell, if all you care about is computing power then it's close enough.

But the Mac Mini has "mini" in its name for a reason - the main selling point is its size. The Mini is 2" high, 6.5" wide and deep. According to the manufacturer, however, your case is 9" high, 11.2" wide, and 13.8" deep: sixteen times the volume, four times the height, and twice the other dimensions. Just looking at my entertainment center, I could fit the Mac Mini on top of my TiVo, VCR, or DVD player; I couldn't fit your case on any of the shelves even if they were empty, and I bet that 550W power supply would make quite a bit more noise than the Mini.

Re:Alternative

[julesh]

Look at the picture - do you see a machine that isn't much wider than a 5.25" drive bay, because that's what I see in that picture. I don't think those dimensions are even approximately right; I've seen one of these cases, they sit on the shelf at my local computer shop. They ain't 11.2" wide. They're similar to the machine I have sitting on my desk which is only 9.5" wide.

Re:Alternative

[Mr2001]

Look at the picture - do you see a machine that isn't much wider than a 5.25" drive bay, because that's what I see in that picture. It looks nearly as wide as two 5.25" bays. That silver trim on each side is pretty wide.

For reference, two 5.25" bays are about 3.5" tall together. The case is clearly as tall as about 5 of those bays (we can see two of them), which puts it around the 9 inch mark, and it's wider than it is tall.

I've seen one of these cases, they sit on the shelf at my local computer shop. They ain't 11.2" wide. They're similar to the machine I have sitting on my desk which is only 9.5" wide. I suggest you take a measuring tape the next time you go to that shop. The manufacturer's specified dimensions look right to me.

Known universe

[SuperKendall]

and the OS works so well because it is tailor made for a know set of hardware.

Yes, like all the same USB devices you use with Windows and most of the same PCI/PCIe/PCIx cards. And on the same Intel chipsets as Windows boxes get to use.

Try again.

Re:Known universe

[jimicus]

But not on the NVidia or SiS chipsets that windows boxes also get to use, and 99% of the time the end user neither knows nor cares that there is a difference.

Re:Known universe

[TheRaven64]

OS X already has drivers for pretty much all ATi, nVidia and Intel GPUs. This is the vast majority (over 80%) of the GPU market. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to expect people who wanted to use OS X to get one of these...

Re:Known universe

[jimicus]

Who said anything about GPUs? I'm talking about motherboard chipsets - both AMD and Intel compatible.

Granted, a basic chipset driver should be fairly universal, but there's a whole heap that have been released with various bugs in them which require specific drivers to provide workarounds.

Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you candyass Mac-lovin' fairies don't have families!

Just sayin'.

Why I love /. BETA

[codecracker007]

below:
[+] defectivebydesign, haha, windows, slownewsday, bug (tagging beta)
above:
'Buy VIsta Today' Ad

All hail the wonderful world of contextual ads!!!!!!

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[TooMuchToDo]

While I know you're just using it as an example, it's not possible to retract the gear while on the ground in an aircraft. There's something called a squat switch on the landing gear supports that prevents the hydraulic system from lifting the gear when weight is applied to the gear.

Not just MS, it's DRM, too.

[Kadin2048]

Before I go - there is one more thing I want to get off my chest here. One might hope and pray that it will be stopped by anti-trust laws before it goes too far, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Why did the courts not press for a breakup of Microsoft? I think they were leaned on by the US government - for a reason I have not seen articulated before. The fact is that Microsoft is a US corporation, one of America's finest. It brings in big bucks to the good ol' US of A. So from a local perspective, among fellow Americans, Microsoft's monopolistic practices are scandalous, but if an American - especially a Congressman - looks at it from a nationalistic perspective, it's good for America. In fact, the worse it becomes (the monopolistic practices) the better it is for USA. Bill Gates' age old dream of world domination happens to coincide with America's dream of world domination. That's why we can't count on the US courts to put a stop to this.

I think you hit the nail on the head. But you need to look beyond Microsoft. The U.S. Government is -- or fancies itself, anyway -- much bigger than even the largest corporations. They're going to protect Microsoft, because they see MS as a modern U.S. Steel or General Motors; it's a huge part of the national industry.

Moreover, DRM in general is going to be pushed heavily by the USG, for the "national interest." Even though it will punish consumers here, it's a way of protecting one of the only things that the U.S. exports anymore: "intellectual property." We don't make stuff anymore; we "manufacture" IP. DRM is a way, in the minds of some folks in DC, of protecting that whole category of exports, and maintaining our dominance in one area, at least. Without DRM, the whole idea of commoditizing and selling "IP" on a retail-like market doesn't work; if you can't tie down information to physical artifacts, or make it behave conservatively (even though information is naturally nonconservative), then it's devilishly hard to sell multiple times. And if you can't take one Hollywood blockbuster and sell it 100 million times over, like it's some sort of aspirin tablet that you're turning out, how do you keep the economy going, when nobody wants to buy anything else we make here anymore?

Re:Not just MS, it's DRM, too.

[CowboyBob500]

Moreover, DRM in general is going to be pushed heavily by the USG, for the "national interest." Even though it will punish consumers here, it's a way of protecting one of the only things that the U.S. exports anymore: "intellectual property."

Problem is that it's not actually illegal to crack DRM in most other countries. It may break the license agreement for the content, but the act of cracking it itself isn't illegal. In other words, the content is really only protected inside the US which kind of defeats the object - if that is indeed the object.

Bob

Re:Not just MS, it's DRM, too.

[smchris]

how do you keep the economy going, when nobody wants to buy anything else we make here anymore?

We still make stuff!?! I thought we were a 3rd world nation that exports grains, coal, timber for chopsticks, recycling, beef (between mad cow scares) and other raw materials.

Don't forget what the desktops at the defense department run. Thinking about that aircraft carrier that had to be towed back to port when the NT 4 servers BSODed should put Vista's problems into perspective one way or the other. Hearing about a new project in embedded linux now and then makes me think the Army is slightly hip to linux but remember that Windows has a vast and overwhelming entrenched market _in_ government as well as being a darling industry supported _by_ government.

Re:Not just MS, it's DRM, too.

[Kadin2048]

Problem is that it's not actually illegal to crack DRM in most other countries.

They're working on that. Check back in five years. Software patents are at the top of the priority list, as is copyright in general (e.g. AllOfMP3.com), but once they get those foisted off on the rest of the world, "anti-circumvention" will be the order of the day.

The people pushing these things, both within government and industry -- both in the U.S. and abroad -- have incredibly deep pockets, and lots of patience. The public certainly lacks the latter; they'll just keep trying to force through their measures, over and over, until eventually one of them sticks, because nobody was looking. (That's how we ended up with the DMCA: hell, we don't even know who voted for the damn thing, the way it was done, and that's exactly how they wanted.)

Subject

[Legion303]

"There is no expected time period for a fix at this time."

I guess that would depend on the speed of your connection and the quality of your usenet provider.

For instance, on my rather slow connection I could have the 32- and 64-bit combo RTM DVD in about 6 hours if I actually wanted it, and about another 20-30 seconds for the Vista final activation crack.

So really, MS doesn't have to worry about a thing. The market will fix itself. :)

Lockout happened to XP this week, for me

[Rilian]

Losing access to your purchase is a real issue. It just happened to me. My retail, boxed copy of XP Home was this week refused activation by the Microsoft phone line - in fact I was hung up on. I was told it was 'installed on too many computers' when in fact it's only ever been on one, and the retail box is still sitting on the shelf next to it. The Microsoft phone line told me to get another license from a retailer!

The fact that I've been upgrading the hardware one paycheck at a time, so one reactivation per month since November, has clearly upset them.

In the end I repeatedly called the activation line and deliberately chose the wrong option, where I found a helpdesk person who activated my PC with only the first code group from the reactivation screen - not going through the normal conversation - so they didn't know who I was. I was lucky this week.

The next reactivation my computer's gone for sure, and I'll have to re-buy. My fear is I will be forced to re-buy Vista, which I don't want - so what to do? I'm seriously considering buying another XP key now, while I can still get one. This makes me about as happy as you'd expect.

Re:Lockout happened to XP this week, for me

[Anonymous Coward]

go looking for xpkey.exe

you will have thousands of windows XP keys to activate with.

add the WGA crack and you are good to go. AND LEGAL cince you have a legitimate recipt there for your copy.

If your screen 75hz, why do text faster?

[cheekyboy]

Many games do 60fps easy, now a gui using 3d video card features, doesnt do much and it too can be fast.

Whats slow is stupid code with lots of lots of wait states, and endless refresh for each tiny update.

raw plain widgets are fast, but if you stard adding procedural generated textures with shadows and lighting, its gona slow down.

Sometimes things are too fast that coders do not see their inefficiencies, it would be smart of them to slow down a gui app to 1/100th speed
to see where the inefficiencies are in wasted redraws.

or run OSX under vmware

[cheekyboy]

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Vmware _how_to

Printe Version

[Little_Professor]

Without all the asshattery: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=printArticleBasic&articleId=9009961

No refunds?

[monktus]

Microsoft does not offer refunds for purchases made through their web site
Surely refusing to give a refund for a product that doesn't work is unlawful? I know it is in the UK, and AFAIK across the EU, don't you guys have similar consumer protection laws in the States?

Re:No refunds?

[nosferatu1001]

American consumer protection laws - what laws?

dispute the CC charge as the goods recieved have not been of merchantable quality. Your agreement will cover you for that, hopefully - mind you in the UK even that is written into basic law, the 1974 Consumer Credit Act which holds CC companies equally liable for any problems with goods!

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[TheRaven64]

Not entirely true. At the Farnborough Airshow (back when that's what it was called), someone was demonstrating an 'idiot proof' fly-by-wire aircraft. The test pilot decided to test that it was idiot proof by raising the undercarriage while on the ground. The system allowed this, and did something very expensive, because the designers of the 'idiot proof' system had underestimated the upper bounds on idiocy. I always think of this when someone quote the line 'when you build an idiot-proof system, nature builds a better idiot.'

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[jools33]

OK slightly off topic - but here in Europe we can buy retail Vista Ultimate for $692 (price from amazon.co.uk and currency conversion from Yahoo finance) (and theres no family pack for us). If you're in the US and you think $400 is expensive - check out our European prices. What I wanna know is - can Microsoft not do currency conversions or something? - or is import + tax costs really = $292? or is Microsoft just taking us all for a ride?

Commiserations

[mynameismonkey]

I am dating my self

Aren't we all mate, aren't we all...

Dupe

[dunc78]

We don't get enough dupes on the main page, so people have resorted to posting dupes in their comments.

The Hackers hacker

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Joy

valid for something?

[nurb432]

I wonder what product they got keys for? ( which im sure have been deactivated already )

Pissing off little customers.. The new way of Microsoft.

And why be suprised they only cater to large companies? That is where the money is.

Never

[nurb432]

I dont expect apple to ever support 'generic' PCs for OSX.

If they do, they lose control of the hardware and ablity to keep everything stable. The exposure for them is far to great i believe.

John Lennon said...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of a step back for those of us trying to get everyone to stop using 'hacker' incorrectly

Like trying to shovel smoke
with a pitchfork
in the wind

uh huh

[s4ltyd0g]

So Microsoft can't even distribute their own keys properly, and they go about telling evryone that WGA can be trusted and is accurate detecting pirate copies. yeah right...

user confidence?

[nurb432]

Does it even matter? For most people there are no other choices and they will just accept being screwed.

tagbombing

[franksands]

Ok, it can be considered offtopic, but bear with me please. Did you notive that recently, all microsoft stories has the defectivebydesing tag? I don't like MS actions as much as the next slashdotter, but I don't think this bombing helps in any way.

Cheaper still

[SuperKendall]

The Macbook Pro and Macbook are both cheaper than Dell's with the same specs. Sorry to hamper your illusions. The buying public doesn't seem to be as confused, the last I heard Apple had 25% of all laptop sales.

Re:Cheaper still

[Mr2001]

The Macbook Pro and Macbook are both cheaper than Dell's with the same specs. Sorry to hamper your illusions. I don't know about Dells, but an HP dv6000 series with specs equivalent to the low-end MacBook Pro is about $500 cheaper. Last year the price difference was over $800, so at least Apple is closing the gap.

The difference being....

[Anonymous Coward]

With Windozer ya get what? A flashy desktop, a retarded shell, a solitaire game that required 1/2 gig of ram to play, and minesweeper. Oh, wait... BillyBorg did add Pinball, and hearts though. Dude, that stuff aint cheap to develop (ie-reskin FOSS projects and obfuscate/compile), and requires a butt-load of power to run!

With FC you get what? Several cool desktop options, games, game servers, several flavors of office tools, several browser choices, tools to take advantage of the ENTIRE internet (not just mail and the MSHTML based web), the ability to boot to different kernels, package updaters to keep everything on your system fresh and happy (usually), security, and cost-effectiveness. For FREE! Lots of stuff there, need a little more horsepower to sort thru it all. Turn off some bells and whistle that you don't need and it runs faster. Don't install every package no the disk, it'll run faster then too.

But why would anyone want a free OS with tons of free apps and tools, when thay can overpay for glaring security holes. It's Windows' BullShype that keeps the IT sector in business. Can you imaging a world where we aren't all making money from the end-users panicking?

Yeah, then one can switch to the alternative.

[jotaeleemeese]

Er...

How about...

[cparker15]

• Ada Lovelace
• Ken Thompson
• Dennis Ritchie
• Douglas McIlroy
• Brian Kernighan
• Richard M. Stallman
• Linus Torvalds
• Alan Turing
• Donald Knuth
• Martin Cooper

Next.

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most layfolk refer to those people as "programmers" and not "hackers". Fair or not, "hacker" has earned a negative connotation now, due to the actions of a notorious few. Don't feel too bad. It used to be there wasn't anything wrong with being a Muslim. Now people look at you funny if you say you follow Islam and wonder when you are going to suicide bomb them.

A resolution straight from a dude at Microsoft...

[prophetmike]

I'm one of the people suffering from this issue and have been looking for a solution. Seems I found one when I was browsing the Vista newsgroups in Windows Mail... According to Doug Hite at Microsoft, he said the following......

Hi Everyone. I finally got an answer. From what I have been told:

The Vista Family Discount (VFD) team has found the problem with the product keys. Turns out they are not Vista Keys. The VFD team is working on a fix and will email out new keys to everyone with in 4-5 days.

If your key does not work; odds are its one of the bad ones. If you do not hear back from the VFD team with a new key next week; I would send them an email or call:

email: vistafamilydiscount[AT]one.microsoft.upgrade.com
Phone: 1-800-835-0663

I hope this helps! Thanks and sorry for any issues... -Doug I hope they stick to this :P

You get your keys next week

[michaeltrainor]

Wed. should be the day...I just called...FOOLS!!!

3-5 biz dayz from today

X11 is a client/server windowing system

[Tungbo]

It sit on top of DirectX and GDI and has a defined protocal for rendering windows on any display on the network. However, using different window managers, one can change the look and feel of it dramatically. Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that X is not a GUI, it's actually many GUIs!

It's much worse...

[Franklin Brauner]

Personally, I think part of the answer is application lock-in; people who use some app that they can't get away from, and where the developers force them to upgrade to the next OS because otherwise, the next version or revision of the locked-in app won't work.

I suspect that it's the perception of application lock in. There's nothing worse than the cage door being open and being afraid to leave.
--
Franklin

Because Most Users Don't WANT That

[Petersko]

"Why not build a stable core - multitasking, networking, application sandboxing, list management, basic graphics with user-settable bitmaps and/or polygonal models -- the rest of the usual suspects like disk io and USB -- and then let the user decide if they want, for instance, to add a 3d desktop with voice and haptic features, widgets, zooming, 400 language compatibility (OSX carries a crapload of language stuff to your drive it doesn't really need to, for instance) and drivers for every printer ever known to man?"

Most people who just want a computer to use don't WANT a machine running at half mast. They don't want to have to discover and enable the cool stuff. They want to plug in their old printer and have it just work.

People who actually care can turn off the stuff they don't like.

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your blanket statement applying to all aircraft belies a fair bit of ignorance about them.

While your statement is no doubt true for large airliners, there are a lot of aircraft with retractable gear that don't even have hydraulic systems, squat switches, or any automation at all. The landing gear is controlled by a manual lever. In between the manual lever and the fully automated hydraulic landing gear of a 747 is a whole spectrum of possibilities, and I assure you that many aircraft lack this feature that you describe.

Not the ad I had

[Anonymous Coward]

This was mine, perhaps even funnier:

Windows CD Key Changer
Change your Windows Product Key with KeyChanger. Free Download.
www.KeyTech-Software.com/KeyChanger

MOD PARENT UP -- very good questions

[zooblethorpe]

To repeat hackstraw's very pointed and valid questions:

I'm not trolling, I'm really asking a question to see if there is a good answer.

Is there anything positive to say about Vista? Granted, I'm not a Windows user, and I get my info from slashdot, digg, and standard media outlets, and I saw Gates on the Daily Show, but seriously, is this a bundle of software that has any merit?

I hear about licenses not working. I hear about it being beta quality. I hear about it having OS X like features that just aren't as good. I hear about it ambiently consuming 10-20% of the CPU. I hear about all of the real features like WinFS that were abandoned.

Are there any honest or real positive opinions of this product?

Please, can someone make a case here? I too have seen only lukewarm "yeah, well, it's kinda okay" reviews, exactly the sort of damnation by faint praise that makes me want to run the other direction. Is there *any* compelling reason to get Vista? Aside from the patently illegal (but condoned by the corrupt US government) strong-arm tactics that effectively leave the majority of computer users with little choice (such as OEM Windows taxes)?

Alternate title for the story

[Master of Transhuman]

Bill Gates steals money from consumers via fraudulent Discount coupons.

I mean, how cheap can you get?

Is Bill going to be stealing money out of the church plate now?

Stealing food stamps from welfare mothers?

Stealing kids piggy banks?

How low can this guy get before somebody gets a clue?

I mean, I can understand Bush just sneering at the rest of the planet and planning his attack on Iran (scheduled for sometime in the next ninety days, apparently, based on Navy carrier movements), but Bill is not the President and doesn't command the military and secret police apparatus.

So why does this country let Bill get away with this crap?

Any other company would be in deep shit doing this stuff. The FTC would be on them like flies on shit.

Is it just because Bill's Dad is connected to Abramoff and Bush and the rest of the crime family that Bill gets a skate on this stuff?

WOW, they're quick...

[prophetmike]

...so much for 3-5 days... I just came home from work and checked my email.. the new keys are there :D They sent em at 9:22P (ET) I'll upgrade... NOW :D Muchas gracias, Microsoft!

Odd term for "equivlent"

[SuperKendall]

The highest processor speed you can get on a dv6000z or dv6000t seems to be 2.0GHz. The Macbook Pros start at 2.16 and go up...

From looking at it, the dv6000t/z seems to be a lot more comparible to a Macbook, though even there are a lot of things still missing - like a gigbit ethernet port, or even a DVI connector (VGA only). Or Firewire.

Once you add in the things like Vista Home Premium and more memory, it's about the same as a Macbook, though like I said still missing a lot of features.

Not to mention, why on earth do they have two different models that are virtually identical?

Re:Odd term for "equivlent"

[Mr2001]

The highest processor speed you can get on a dv6000z or dv6000t seems to be 2.0GHz. The Macbook Pros start at 2.16 and go up... That's an 8% difference in CPU speed - barely noticeable, and certainly not worth paying 33% more.

From looking at it, the dv6000t/z seems to be a lot more comparible to a Macbook, though even there are a lot of things still missing - like a gigbit ethernet port, or even a DVI connector (VGA only). Or Firewire. Well, you're overlooking the biggest difference between the HP and the plain MB, IMO, which is the HP's 15.4" screen. You can't get a screen bigger than 13" from Apple without spending $2000.

Gigabit Ethernet, DVI, and FireWire are all luxury features with little utility to the general public. I suppose they'd come in handy if you do a lot of video editing (with an old camera that doesn't support USB 2.0), transfer the uncompressed files over your LAN, and view them on a 50" plasma screen - but who does that outside of an Apple commercial? DVI doesn't look any better than VGA on a decent desktop flat panel, and hardly any devices need FireWire.

Not to mention, why on earth do they have two different models that are virtually identical? The "z" uses an AMD processor, which requires a different motherboard.

Re:Odd term for "equivlent"

[SuperKendall]

That's an 8% difference in CPU speed - barely noticeable, and certainly not worth paying 33% more.

Yet people do all the time. People pay exactly that much (or more) for just that tiny a performance boost. You can't come in lowballing and then claim you have the same computer.

Well, you're overlooking the biggest difference between the HP and the plain MB, IMO, which is the HP's 15.4" screen. You can't get a screen bigger than 13" from Apple without spending $2000.

That's just 18% bigger. Not much of a difference. And you have a larger window onto less capability - what's the point? It's the only advanatge it offers admist the lack of so much more. You also forget the Apple Macbook screen is exactly the same resolution (1280x800) so you simply move a bit closer to get the same field of view.

Gigabit Ethernet, DVI, and FireWire are all luxury features with little utility to the general public.

Gigbit ethernet is only a "luxury" if you don't get it automatically included with all your computers. As anyone finds that gets it standard, it's actually QUITE useful for even casual home users, who might want to move an hour of DV footage from the laptop to the computer or vice versa. You may not have noticed, but new parents seem to like video cameras. Or watch video streamed from a different computer.

Firewire is again useful if your computer is set up to automatically set up user accounts from your old computer - then it's not a luxary, but a nessecity in that it seems like madness to not have a computer completey set up in a half hour including all your applications! And it's not a luxury in reading images from CF cards. What good is the larger screen with a box so I/O constrained?

DVI is useful on more and more HDTV sets that only take DVI in, if you want to hook your computer to an HD-TV for photo shows.

What you think of as luxary are actually very useful features to people who are used to them being like air. Just because you have deprived yourself of them for so long do not dismiss how useful they are to real people, not the elite.

Again you can get cheaper if you lowball - and then you wonder why computers don't really seem as useful as they could be. So in no way did you even get close to a Macbook, much less a Macbook Pro - showing yet again that today, Macs are actually the less expensive alternative for a very practical computer.

The "z" uses an AMD processor, which requires a different motherboard.

I did actually notice that at first and then I forgot. It's pretty darn confusing to the consumer though, they should really have one model and simply let you choose processors inside (which would then of course adjust what motherboard was used).

Re:Odd term for "equivlent"

[Mr2001]

Yet people do all the time. People pay exactly that much (or more) for just that tiny a performance boost. You can't come in lowballing and then claim you have the same computer. All right. Then let me put it this way: for $1500 or less, I can get an HP laptop with a 15.4" screen and a Core 2 Duo. Where's the equivalent from Apple? Can I get a decent sized screen without spending $2000 or not? (Hint: the answer is "not". You can either "lowball" and get a laptop with a tiny screen, cheap keyboard, and bargain-bin video chipset, or spend an extra 33%.)

That's just 18% bigger. Not much of a difference. Actually, it's 40% bigger: 101.84 square inches vs. Apple's 72.32 square inches. A bigger screen makes a difference.

And you have a larger window onto less capability - what's the point? Well, we both know that's not true; a PC can do everything a Mac can, including running MacOS if that's what you want. That extra 40% screen area makes a big difference if you're watching movies on it... which seems to be an intended use, since it's a 16:9 screen.

Firewire is again useful if your computer is set up to automatically set up user accounts from your old computer - then it's not a luxary, but a nessecity in that it seems like madness to not have a computer completey set up in a half hour including all your applications! And it's not a luxury in reading images from CF cards. What good is the larger screen with a box so I/O constrained? Huh, I guess you've never heard of USB 2.0. You can copy files between computers and read flash cards using the very same connector you use for your mouse and printer, and it's just as fast in practice. You should check it out sometime. ;)

DVI is useful on more and more HDTV sets that only take DVI in, if you want to hook your computer to an HD-TV for photo shows. If you're one of the relative handful of people who actually own an HDTV, you probably won't mind dropping another $500, because you will have already spent more on your TV than you're about to spend on the laptop. Personally, I wouldn't spend a dime on a TV that didn't even have S-video inputs.

Again you can get cheaper if you lowball - and then you wonder why computers don't really seem as useful as they could be. No, actually, the $1500 laptop is plenty useful. I have FireWire and DVI now and I never use either of them. I'm just wondering why Apple doesn't have anything in that price range - I can either go down to the slap-in-the-face MacBook, or spend an extra $500 for the MBP. I like my PowerBook, but no thanks, I can't justify spending so much more on its replacement when competing laptops have everything I need for less.

So in no way did you even get close to a Macbook, much less a Macbook Pro - showing yet again that today, Macs are actually the less expensive alternative for a very practical computer. Less expensive? No, a $2000 laptop is not "less expensive" than a $1500 laptop under any definition. At best, they're about the same price as a PC with identical features (if you want to customize a Sony or something to have exactly the same specs), or far more expensive if you're willing to accept a PC with slightly lower specs - one for which Apple doesn't have any equivalent.

Mods on crack

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Flamebait I can understand, but offtopic?

Easy

[SuperKendall]

All right. Then let me put it this way: for $1500 or less, I can get an HP laptop with a 15.4" screen and a Core 2 Duo. Where's the equivalent from Apple?

Macbook, as already stated - same resolution, way more features, leess price.

Less expensive? No, a $2000 laptop is not "less expensive" than a $1500 laptop under any definition.

Yet a $1200 laptop is. Amazing!

Re:Easy

[Mr2001]

Macbook, as already stated - same resolution, way more features, leess price. You complain that the HP lacks a few rarely-used ports and runs 160 MHz (8%) slower, but now you want me to believe a 13" screen is equivalent to a 15.4", even though the latter has 40% more area? Talk about hypocrisy! No wonder Apple's lineup sucks so much if their fans are willing to go this far to justify their shortcomings.

Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think you are the one who misunderstands.

You are probably right, and the GP was certainly trolling, but they may actually have a point. According to another poster, the keys issued by the website (intended to activate Home Premium), actually work in Vista Ultimate! This would be a great reason for MS to not tell people what the key is actually for, as they have confirmed that the key is valid for something, but have not admitted for what.