Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Says Vista Selling Really Well
An anonymous reader writes "Steve Ballmer is in no way disappointed with Windows Vista. It is selling 'incredibly well,' he told a press conference in Herzeliya, Israel today. 'Vista sells on almost 100 per cent of all the new consumer PCs around the world,' the Microsoft CEO proclaimed. He added that the operating system was also selling on '45 percent of all of new business PCs.' Which is enlightening, since business users are about the only buyers of new PCs that get a choice." Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?
Which is enlightening, since business users are about the only buyers of new PCs that get a choice
Not true at all. Business users are the ones that are most likely to not get a choice. The IT department will choose for them based on what they feel like supporting. A large portion of IT departments are run by slashdotters who are fed "Vista sux0rz" nonsense, so this is completely understandable.
Even Time magazine has notice Microsoft is "an Empire in rapid decline".
Who's this message directed at? The last people he's going to fool are corporate users. Home users continue to avoid buying new computers because what they have is working just fine. Even if he could convince them to go buy, they have a giant selection of $500 and less Vista failure laptops to chose from if they don't just buy a $300 EEE PC with GNU/Linux.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
I bought Vista, I use Vista, and once I turned off UAC I've had no problems with Vista. I think the hatred for it is overstated, and largely perpetuated by people who don't use it - the only problem I've had is a lack of printer drivers for a printer, and that's because Samsung want to sell new printers rather than make new drivers for their old ones...
/. - I mean, uh, Microsoft suck!
Wait, this is
I have 2 computers running Vista. Neither of them came bundled with it. I am very happy with Vista... I haven't had any problems at all (even though I will likely be modded as such, I am not trolling).
anti Microsoft thread on /.
I don't know anyone that bought vista unbundled with any hardware, but I think it is interesting to note that of all the customers I provide technical support for, nearly 90% of them have all stated how much they hated vista. The consumers speak for themselves. Maybe they should be given a choice as well. Though, given the current trend and opinion, that may very well cause Vista sales to bomb.
Most PCs come with Vista by default (it is a bit of a hassle to buy without) so new PCs are sellng well.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
"Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?"
Yes.
And in other news, President Bush says the War in Iraq is going "really, really well".
Note that he didn't say that he's proud of it because it's good software, but because it "has had a good unit volume market reaction." In other words, he's not proud of his programmers, he's proud of his marketers.
if you forcefully bundled your turd with the new pc, by using laws you have bought in the countries you sell them.
thats how your vista is selling.
Read radical news here
Ballmer says a lot of things.
There will be some people who buy the boxed version, but very very few. The vast majority buys Windows only with a new computer. Oh sorry, make that gets Windows with a new computer. There is after all no separate pricing for Windows, it is simply included. And by many users thus perceived as free.
Windows you get with your computer, Windows you don't buy. And it will be a very very long time before that idea is gone.
Absolutely not! This isn't an either or choice. Your customers want both! That's why, many of your customers are moving to patforms that offer both. 45% businesses choose Vista? What about the other 55% of businesses?. What did they choose - hmmmmm?
If it sold more than zero copies, that qualifies as "incredibly well" for me too.
I don't think he's fooling anyone.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
I don't know anyone who actually bought Vista unbundled, but I know plenty of people who got it pre-installed and kept using it.
They experience Vista's problems and huge system requirements, but they keep using it anyway. Maybe it's because they don't want to admit to themselves that they indirectly bought garbage. But I think it's because they want the newest, shiniest product, regardless of whether it's better.
Fact: most people are MORONS.
I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that I recently bought an OEM copy of Vista.
About a month ago I started getting random video corruption issues when waking from hibernate on my 2yo XP machine (it only happened when waking from hibernate). I narrowed it down to a software issue, and the only fix after a while was a reinstall. The machine was a refurb HP box, so the only XP install media I have are the restore CDs I burned, which contain all the crap I spent a month or so clearing out when I first got the machine. Since I was getting a new hard drive to start fresh with anyways and I didn't want to use the restore discs, my choices were either spending a hundred bucks on an OEM XP disc (btw, I could never get my "genuine product key" to work with any install CDs I downloaded) or spend a hundred bucks for an OEM Vista Premium disc. I opted for Vista. And honestly, once you turn off a bunch of the annoying crap, it's really not too bad. Some of the things they've added are pretty nice. The only issue I have is slightly stuttering sound, but since I rarely have my speakers on, it's not a huge deal. At some point I'm going to get an iMac and attempt to transfer this license over to that machine (we'll see how that goes).
This guy's the limit!
My linux laptop should be arriving today. Not that I'm a new convert, though. I've been using both windows and linux for 11 years. Purchase Vista? Let's just say it's not likely. Frankly, of all the software I still like to use on windows, none of it works as well in Vista as it does in XP. So of course I won't pay for that crapware, ever.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
I sometimes have to use Vista and XP, and when I use XP, I do find myself missing some of the features of Vista's interface.
What I mainly like are the click-while-holding-alt-tab thing, and the fact that I can hit the windows key and immediately start typing into a search box to match whatever program I'm looking for. Also the enforcement of the security model is a nuisance, but I do consider it an advantage on the whole.
So, if I were buying a new PC and I had to get Windows, I'd choose Vista Business over XP Pro. But I wouldn't actually buy Vista for an old machine... and when I can I'll use Ubuntu over any Windows any day.
I do. I know myself perfectly well.
Yep.
The better question is "Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware, and doesn't regret it?".
I don't.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I bought a copy for compatibility testing that I run in a virtual machine. A side benefit is that I get to compare versions of Windows side-by-side. It's enlightening. Vista is slower in every respect than its predecessors, and it's more difficult to use.
On the other hand, it is shinier.
Not all business users have a choice. Dell gives you a choice. HP does not.
We're an HP value-add reseller and we can't get xw4400 workstations without vista. We had to request a downgrade kit (they will only give 1 to each business address, even though we order hundreds of these a year) and then downgrade them to XP.
I had some friends who have it on their new laptops...
I was pricing a new laptop yesterday at lenovo and they all come with Vista Home for 'free' but a downgrade to XP or an upgrade to Vista Business which can then be manually downgraded for free costs 50 bucks. That's a good way to force adoption.
I know two people. One is now using XP, and the other got so mad he bought a Mac.
Saying Vista sells with new PCs is like saying people want junk mail because they choose to have a letter box.
PC Magazine's editor sure gave Vista the thumbs down. The only thing any of my friends ever tell me is that "It looks nicer" so they like it but they have more problems with it than XP. That kind of opinion does not make me want to risk buying a new PC.
Intellectual property was the desert property of the twenth century.
I bought volume licenses of Vista. Of course I promptly installed XP on all the boxes the licenses were for.
Same goes for Server 2008. I bought a Server 2008 open license edition and promptly installed server 2003. I needed it for an accounting app, but I wasn't going to install 2008...I don't trust it. Besides, servers should NEVER require activation or validation! EVER! That's a deal-breaker IMO.
(Don't worry, that server 2003 instance is only a VM running on a linux box.)
So what have we learned? That just because their FUCKED UP licensing model REQUIRES you to buy the new license in order to use the older, more functional versions doesn't mean that the product is a success. That ambulatory heap of festering dogshit that calls itself "Steve Ballmer" really has nothing to crow about.
You're using her as bait, Master!
We are using on a few of the Admin workstations(the beefy ones) only cause we have a MSDN subscription. We bought the machines with XP on them. The machines are about 2 months old!
HP and Dell are both willing to sell you a business PC with a Vista Business edition COA label on the side thats preloaded with XP Pro. Since the Vista Business and Premium edition EULA allows this "downgrade", its a pretty good deal all around. Business customers can get XP out of the box, but have the option to re-image the PC with Vista down the road if they feel the need. I'd guess that Microsoft still chalks up the sale as a Vista machine, so they can continue to spin the PR story of Vista's success.
Slashdot sucks
Talk about your reverse psychology astroturfing! How can you not get the hatred directed at Vista when the first quality you mention about it is the fact you had to turn off UAC? That in itself has got your average consumer in fits over the junk OS. Some day a smart cookie will link all you astrofurfers back to your desks at Redmond it's so blatant.
me.
I made a conscious decision to purchase a copy of vista home when building my recent box from parts. For what its worth I use linux extensively at work and dual boot and I like linux. Vista was frustrating at first but actually its pretty much like XP but fractionally better in a few areas. What I dislike about it is that they didnt push the boat out enough with the ui candy, I would kill for multiple desktops and expose (features both Mac and Linux have). And would it freaking kill them to have an "always on top" button on each window, linux has had that for like ever. For these reasons windows isnt my work OS but it makes a pretty nice play OS which for as sad as it is, linux and Mac OS arent fully there yet.
So to summaries, basically Vista a better option on a new PC at home than XP in my opinion. It beats Mac OS and Linux for "play" in my opinion but fairs worse for "work". However on my laptop bought just pre-vista, I have no desire to upgrade it to Vista from XP as it the slight improvements from Vista arent worth it.
Seriously - Vista Media Center is very well done. Couple it with the excellent HDHomerun () and you will have a pretty awesome Hi-Def DVR setup. And as to the question posed, yes, I *purchased* a copy of Vista Home Premium for my son's machine. He likes it a lot. Incidentally, he was upgraded from Win2K, not XP, so there were quite a few new features for him to explore/try.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Are business really just sticky with XP? Or are they moving over a Linux distro or OSX for that matter? I have a feeling that the Linux numbers are going to start increasing drastically. Just a hunch.
Or at least that's how I understood the deal. Correct me if I'm wrong.
db
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I sell computers and parts to over 4000 schools, universities and gov't agencies... Other than bundled Vista, which they all want Ultimate or business so they can downgrade to XPP... Not 1 purchase of Vista other than an experimental copy in which the head of technology for a 330 school district used Vista for 2 days then erased it and put XPP back on... Microsoft is fooling themselves and trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Vista is a load of crap and MS thinks we are so stupid enough to fall for their marketing nightmere!
I think the reason is that Apple is the only vendor whose all products are over $1000 each and also that nobody else (other vendors) is really interested in that overpriced market.
nc
you slimy hypocrite!
... says he's not bald. I like Vista because it's shiny and I make no apology for liking shiny things. Once you switch all the annoying stuff off it's pretty much XP with built-in WindowBlinds lite. That doesn't make it a worthy successor to XP.
Yes because guy's like me who purchases new computers for our company who are forced to buy Vista, don't just reinstall XP once we get it.
Sure you sold a copy of Vista, that doesn't mean were using it.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
I purchased a new XPS m1530 laptop from DELL which came only with Vista. I used it for a month or two, but even after SP1 it was still too slow to watch videos without hiccups, programs took too long to load, and although I liked the eye-candy it just wasn't worth the trouble.
I found forums that listed the Windows XP drivers for for the hardware the laptop uses, installed XP and everything was so quick, and I had no hiccups when watching video. I do miss the eye-candy, but to go through a day without rebooting windows for a crash is heaven...
I have also installed Linux on this laptop, and I got mostly everything, but there is a problem keeping the wi-fi working (after about an hour I would lose the connection and only a reboot would allow me to reconnect, so that got annoying and I put XP back on it.
It may be the case Vista not working well with this laptop is DELL's fault, but XP has had absolutely no issues so far.
I guarantee they're interested. They just can't compete.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I distribute a moderately popular software for windows (simple call recording tool for Skype called Call Graph). But from my stats, only 10 % of my users are on Vista. :)
I've been using computers in business for 20 years now, and I was what is commonly defined a "power user"
Why am I using the past here? because, for the first time since I started 20 years back, I see absolutely no use changing to a new machine. I use Excel. I use Access.there are some other apps that work well on XP. my machine is 3 years old, in the prime of an optimized and no nonsense life. I do not play big computer games at work. THAT's the real problem with Vista. Users have to change/upgrade machine to use Vista. what for?
I think that business users might go to Linux, but what they'd really want would be to stay as they are for years to come.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
Hang on a tick there! As a long time Windows and Linux user (and a Vista beta tester), I must say Vista is fantastic! ... oh, did I mention my latest machine is a Mac? Turns out, I wanted a POSIX machine with a usable interface. With Vista bundled on any machine you would want to buy, the choice was easy...
some fanboi who modded parent post troll come up and explain me how you can fail in selling something if you forcefully bundle them with new computers.
Read radical news here
This is how vista is being sold. In effect this stops people from building there own from older hardware. The obvious reason for this is to appease the hardware vendors, and make it so that the consumer has even less choice as to how and from who to buy!
Keep in mind that a lot of people:
1) Use pirate versions of Vista, mostly in Latinoamerica and Asia.
2) Downgrade right away to XP or Ubuntu, usually wasting the license that came with the PC.
So I wouldn't take sales as a factor here.
My school offered Vista Business edition as a free download. Its a good price for it, although I did spend $70 on 2gb of ram to make it run smoother.
...and within 4 hours, I had downgraded to XP.
Don't get me wrong - I use Vista on another computer and it's... ok. That machine, however, is a quad-core behemoth with 4GB and a RAID0 config with 2 WD Raptors.
On that sort of machine, Vista runs adequately (once you turn off error reporting, windows defender, windows search, and that performance boosting service who's name escapes me - y'know the one that defrags your hard disk in the background and won't stop for love nor money).
On my new laptop, however, a simple 2GHz dual-core machine with 2GB RAM and a GeForce 8600M, Vista was a disaster.
My god, it took forever to do anything - and it wasn't because of the bundled software (which I removed immediately - not that there was much in the first place). I played a few games, tried using lightwave, etc etc and found it grim and unresponsive.
Installed XP and, lo and behold, everything is much better. Frame rates are improved, rendering times reduce dramatically, it's a pleasure to use. Well, insofar as a MS OS is a pleasure to use.
Thankfully I've left enough space on the disk to install a Linux distro. Have just tried Ubuntu 8.04 but, after an update, it now only sees one core. Hmmm. I think I'll give Fedora a try..
What the heck has this guy studied?
an MBA? from now on won't believe an MBA ever in my life.
Another clear example that higher management never listens to customers, neither care.
I for one am making a lot of money installing XP on Vista bundled computers. $80 a pop makes my car payments. Thank god for iastor.sys! I got seduced by Vista and the eye candy more than once. Never stuck with it for more than 2 days. I am very curious if the real culprit is NT6 or the sludge poured on top.
All of them have their $4,000 laptops and Media Centers, but Apple sells twice as many as them combined. Tell me another good joke about vendors not being interested in high margin business and I'll tell you a good joke about a $400 OS and a $450 Office suite. Steve Ballmer is blowing smoke from his crack pipe.
It's remarkable how he can paint a happy face on the steepest decline in the history of the company.
If his figures are correct, the PC market just experienced the largest contraction ever and nobody noticed. Especially odd in that Intel's operating income is up 23%. Top PC seller HP's net income is up 16% on strong notebook sales and huge growth in emerging markets. Lenovo is reporting a 17% increase in sales on strong global demand.
Is anybody besides Microsoft seeing this decline? Is somebody lying to Ballmer? "Gee, no, Steve. Business is off everywhere. It's a recession. People adore Vista. You can put the chair down now."
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Back in, oh, 1983-ish, I realized that PC stood for personal computer. Maybe Balmer will start calling Windows-based PCs IBM compatibles...that'll really show us how on top of the industry he is.
I think the issue here is not a question of "if you know anyone using Vista", but more of what the reality is. I think the consensus from even MS is that Vista is not selling well, people want XP. That would be the only reason they have problem phasing out XP. However, got to hand it to Ballmer. He really got balls to always using funky language when trying to promote his company and keeping his job. Compare to his speech and B.G. he really is "better". He won't admit lose... guess that is the first rule of marketing - always paint a good picture even if the reality is anything but. If the final sales is bad, we would use the number that goes out the door. If people wants cheap computer, we will ship them something really strip down (pre-installed on new PC). If people wants security, we will claim that we ship SP3 although it keep breaking existing systems.
If you don't believe what Balmer says, maybe consult some trustworthy third-party statistics and see that... he's actually right.
Vista is a fine operating system. Most people hate it for the same reason they hate Paris Hilton: When the crowd speaks, you must obey!
I run Debian, Fedora, and Vista at home. At work it's RHEL, XP, Fedora, and a bunch of other junk. This week most of my OS hate is for Fedora and Ubuntu -- I'm seriously pissed at all this beta crap. How bad is it? Enough to make me seriously consider Debian stable for an actual Desktop machine.
If you are a neophyte computer user, you'll have problems with Vista as you would with any operating system. If you're an idiot who has only used XP, but never a secure operating system like Linux or OS X, you'll hate UAC. If you're just kind of slow, you won't like how some things are now colored differently. Oh no, confusing!
Frankly, I am really, really, tired of all this Microsoft bashing. If it were real criticism, related to reality, they might benefit from it and come up with a better OS. It's not. Basically, it's a loud message to Microsoft: Don't innovate, we can't appreciate it. The color of the taskbar is more important that impovements like Start Window search, improved booting and recovery (that has saved my ass at least once), improved security, vastly polished system tools of all sorts; no, what matters is that not everything is in the some place it used to be. What matters is that there are a few geriatric scanners that nobody has released Vista drivers for. Good god, most of the people having problems with Vista shouldn't be using computers in the first place -- that's the real crime here.
To be honest, sales are a very misleading statistic when measuring the success of Vista. What Ballmer does is simply to assume that everyone who buys Vista uses it. His calculation don't mention that very many Linux users, or perhaps even more notably, XP "downgraders", still have to buy that damn Vista license in the first place. In fact, when i bought my last computer, now running Ubuntu, i had the choice to buy a Vista licensed computer, or turn to a specialist store. It turned out the former choice was a much better deal, due to the lower hardware price. The "Windows tax" can make any release look like a success.
Important stuff
I'd love to be on side with the Apple, but fact remains that PCs got all cheaper now. You can buy half-decent notebook for $800 - and many would call it "high-end."
Business isn't buying Windows/Vista anyway - they normally sign licensing contract. That minimizes paperwork considerably. Businesses generally have some internally standardized OS/version.
So to me the 45% of computers sold to business claim sounds really strange anyhow you look at it.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
who bought vista... but it was with a computer as well. then they all instantly installed xp and got rid of vista.
I don't see how anyone not running Vista personally has any credibility to post on this topic at all. None. Regurgitating the opinions and writings of others is not a contribution but rather the way in which FUD turns into a self-perpetuating reputation. And failing to recognize the distinction between OS issues and non-compliant software and drivers from vendors is just plain unfair and allows developers to get away with lazing out on their customers and passing the blame to MS (which we seem all to eager to allow them to do). I replaced XP with Vista on 5 of my machines (the remaining several are workstations running AIX and Linux). One is running Ultimate, two are running Business and two are running Home Premium. How do they work? Like computers running a functional operation system. That is to say, my apps and hardware work fine and I can readily organize and access my files. Exactly what should I be hating? I actually like many aspects of the UI, including Aero's live taskbar icons, the fast desktop search and the ability to save searches as virtual folders (like smart collections). UAC is a non-issue once a machine is set up and even the annoyances during setup can be alleviated with just two small tweaks: turning off Secure Desktop (which removes very little protection for a lot of benefit) and changing ownership of the "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs" folder to your admin account username (this avoids UAC popups when reorganizing your start menu icons).
I've also upgraded two recent purchases from Windows Business/Home to Windows Ultimate.
In addition to Vista, I run a few Linux systems (Gentoo, Ubuntu), some XP, and an OS X laptop. So when I say "I'm happy with Vista" is based on experience with the alternatives.
Vista is not crap. Vista, in many ways, is a significant improvement over XP. And all other OSs have their own problems and good points. I think some tech people need to grow up and stop being pedantic fanatics.
All about me
Microsoft is actually doing quite well ever since they bought stock in Office Chairs Inc. Their sales are up 500% this year alone!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
If the almost 100% of PCs sold "sell" with Vista, and almost nobody wants Vista so are not buying them, then Balmer basically just admitted that Microsoft's unfair business practices have caused significant profit loss for PC manufacturers.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Especially anybody that didn't get the employee discount and run it so they could show their company loyalty?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?"
Yes, but he's a swede, so..
I have spoken'eth.
"45 percent of all of new business PCs"
... Vista is selling on quite a bit less than "100 per cent of all the new consumer PCs".
In October, Microsoft reported 88 million copies of Vista sold. In April they reported 140 million. That's 52 million in 6 months, whereas approximately 140 million PCs were sold in the same period.
52/140 = 37.1%
I wonder where Ballmer gets his numbers, because they don't match Microsoft's 10-Q.
Oh and have a look at http://amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/
I order all of our new Business PC's with Vista licenses, however I then load them with my volume licensing copy of XP excercising the downgrade rights that come with the Vista Business edition... I figure I may as well get the newest license, does not mean that I'm going to use it, as much as M$ would like to think that I am.
+++ATH0 NO CARRIER
...except as bundled with hardware?"
Yes, me. No I'm not an MS fanboy; I accept that Vista is not perfect.
But having just built a new PC (about a year ago) it was the most practical choice. Sure XP was available still then. But how long for? And long would updates be available for available for? I resent the idea of buying XP and then shelling out for Vista some time later anyway.
Linux? Well nice idea, and I do have Ubuntu on another drive (eventually - problems with the installer not recognising my SATA DVDRW drive). But until *everything* works, e.g. tv tuner card, webcam, bluetooth, Guitar Rig to name a few things that don't, I can't say that, as much as I want to be, I'm that inclined to switch permenantly.
Like I said I know Vista isn't great but it's wrong to suggest in TFS that there's something wrong with voluntarilly choosing Vista. By the way, this is not intended as a troll, just MHO.
Yes, or course they do. This trick has been at least known since Dell decided to use the Vista downgrade license to sell PCs with XP preinstalled.: "In essence, the user is buying a Vista license that it can apply to XP, and Microsoft can still claim a Vista sale."
That seems to be the issue this thread is all about. It's amazing how quickly that post was knocked down to -1. Everyone else says Ballmer is full of beans too.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
His lips are moving
When I bought my new dell inspiron 1520 notebook, I got XP.
so maybe 99.9999999999%
or
Ballmer is a big lying jackass.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I bought an OEM copy of Vista Ultimate for my HP DV9000-series laptop. I ran it for about a year until the motherboard failed (under warranty), and then built it out with XP Pro when it came back.
I miss the Sidebar, but I don't miss needing 2 GB of RAM and 256 MB of video memory just to run kinda slowly.
One of my PC repair customers upgraded his Dell desktop to Vista, and I told him at the time, "You'll be back to XP someday."
He called me last week to do the "downgrade." Turns out his [aftermarket ATI] video card was failing, and he blamed the display issues on Vista. (I took the card out, and ended up installing his OEM copy of XP for him anyway).
That's how they buy sofware in Russia.
His figures may be correct. Slow sales are the only way to explain M$'s drop in proffit when it's so hard to buy anything but an expensive version of Vista so you can "downgrade" to XP like a lot of people do. Just a while back, he was crowing about how people were buying nothing but the expensive versions of Vista.
The hardware has become a lot cheaper for vendors to be making money. You can make money selling laptops for $700 when they cost you less than $100 to make. Shelves are packed with $350 laptops right now, which implies a cost to the retailer of $175 or massive losses. There should be a lot more sales than there are for that kind of thing to happen.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
I assume this is your program here. Did you know that Stumbleupon thinks it's porn?
A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
The XW4400 is discontinued. Try the XW4600 which comes with XP downgrades.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?" As if ANYONE here on /. is going to even admit that. And if they do, they will be stoned in the streets along with thier dog... Get real..
Granted, pre SP1 and the initial launch period Vista was pretty much a disaster. With more mature Nvidia drivers, copying file performance and other things on par with XP, it's just a good as XP in most respects. Where it has a major advantage is surprisingly good app support for it's 64 bit versions. We have to move past 2gb at some point with ram prices as crazy low as they are. So it's nice to know what's out now works great (with a few caveats like no Vista 64bit emulation in Virtual PC... ect). My main draw to Vista was it's font support. I have a 24" LCD monitor that I absolutely love but for the life of me I could not get the Windows XP fonts to look nice at all. I mean we're talking about the 'beefiness' of the font that's easier to read for LCD's, eliminating those 'red' edges on fonts, and those old system fonts. I tried like hell to find something I liked by using Office 2007 fonts but having tried Vista before, it just wasn't matching up at all. The small fonts (10pt or less) look HORRIBLE in XP due to the issues mentioned about. I tried changing all fonts (and system fonts) to Vista's SegoiUI font and it just looked too thin. Yeah sure I can try upping the DPI or whatnot but that breaks the start menu badly when using 3rd party themes on it (oh say VistaCG for example). So I can make all these changes and stuff but it still wouldn't look at nice as the out of box experience on Vista. I don't have to mess with any clear type settings or do anything for that matter. It just looks nice and was the dealbreaker about a week ago for me to switch to Vista. Dreamscene is pretty cool too, heh.
I almost bought one, but with Windows 7 just around the corner...
They chose to remain with Windows XP
There are choices in the consumer market.
You can choose a Mac. You can chose OEM Linux or OEM XP.
[No one wants to build from a kit of parts. Which is why the Geek looks like a space alien when he talks about unbundling the OS from the hardware.]
But the reality - once you get past the Geek - is that these aren't the choices people are making. Top Operating System Share Trend
It doesn't matter which stats you quote. The Mac continues to hold the profitable niche market it claimed about twenty-five years ago.
Linux brings up the rear, with a market share in the single digiit and a trend line as flat as the Kansas praries.
There is no mystery here.
Walmart will sell you the gOS laptop.
The GBook is a great beginner's laptop... This is a Linux based PC and will not perform completely like a Windows based machine. It can perform basic activities such as E-mail, Web Browsing, Music and Pictures.
Damning with faint praise and securely anchoring Linux's reputation in the home market as a bottom-feeder.
Walmart will also sell you an HP Pavilion laptop with 64 bit Vista Premium SP1, NVIDIA DX9 graphics, a dual core AMD Turion CPU and 4 GB RAM for $1000.
For the Intel Core 2 Duo with Blu-Ray drive, 64 bit Vista Premium SP1, HDTV tuner card and NViDIA 512 MB 8600 M GS DX10 graphics add $400.
I bought it, not bundled, and I use the 64 bit version daily now for the better part of a year with no problems at all. I use it to run 3D Studio Max, Sonar 7, Visual Studio, NetBeans and several Unix flavors including Solaris 10 under virtualization, not to mention zillions of games including COD4 & FSX and everything works great. The only other OS that may come close to Vista in value is OSX, but Apple has that whole "use our overpriced hardware or go away" mentality that in my opinion ranks them significantly lower on the coolness scale than Microsoft. Microsoft haters should just go away. Irrational prejudice over software products is just stooopid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MfFjlF_BkM Doesn't everyone want to be at this concert?
It should not be surprising that choice is limited on a product that's about to be discontinued.
The only operating system choice on the XW4600 workstation is "Genuine Windows Vista® 32 downgrade to Genuine Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional 32". As in, you can't get it with Vista preinstalled at all, but you also can't get it without a Vista license. I found that intriguing. I wonder how many Vista sales are like that. I doubt the monopoly influence could get more blatant.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Vista came with my laptop, and it sure does work fine. The start was a bumpy road, blue screens, slow response. But now a few patches and a service pack later, it works fine, better then XP: Disk partitioning on the fly, less problems with broken user profiles, much less clumsy handling of multiple networks while traveling. Even though I am a hardcore Linux user, I am satisfied with Vista. To my opinion, XP is really outdated.
It is poorly implemented in that it doesn't have a grace period. As such every instance of requested elevation will hit a user instead of once in a reasonably short time window.
This is a real problem when people are initially bumping up against the new Windows 'feature'. When they buy a new machine and are installing countless pieces of software, it's like being hammered over the head with near constant 'cancel/allow' requests.
Once (if) the typical user gets past this initial Trial By UAC and aren't installing programs one after another, UAC is barely noticeable and is handy for the security it provides, but a user's introduction to the process is *extremely* negative and likely to sour them to the control mechanism, IMO.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
To paraphrase, 'From the vehemence with which you deny Vista as a failure, I am convinced that you believe it is...'
I haven't heard of anyone getting Vista unbundled from any hardware. I did hear about a friend getting Vista bundled with his mouse though...
Somehow, that "100%" doesn't include the 60% of all "high end PCs" sold that are Macs . Or maybe Ballmer's lies are that Macs are Vista. Or something.
And of course MacOS isn't the only other consumer PC OS sold around the world: Linux servers are already half of the amount of Windows servers sold. Plus all the Linux machines, probably the majority, that are not sold as Linux machines, which is probably still the majority of "consumer" machines, which much more rarely pay for support when they can just download the OS for free. And which probably usually wipe away a preinstalled, bundled Windows OS that might have been sold, but is not used.
Revising those crude raw numbers according to what we can easily guess about Vista alternatives shows that there's surely a lot more than "0%" of consumer PCs sold without Vista, or without Vista lasting long after it's sold as a forced bundle.
Which, apart from the gratuitous profit Microsoft continues to lock in, is what counts to the industry: the installed base is what counts to app developers and service deliverers, which is what most of the industry consists of.
If Microsoft could be kept from their ongoing illegal bundling (despite the failure of the monopoly abuse verdict to stop their monopoly abuses since Bush took over the remedy phase), Vista penetration would be on its own merit, and shrink even more from its anemic oozing into a disappointed marketplace. Though there's probably nothing that can keep Ballmer from lying at the top of his lungs about Vista's unrivalled dominance.
--
make install -not war
Will Businesses Skip Windows Vista Altogether?
Corporate Americaâ(TM)s rejection of Vista
Microsoft may allow businesses to skip Vista, go direct from XP to Windows 7
Businesses could skip Vista for Windows 7
Not true. I have not had a "native" Windows on any of my PCs in ten years. That's four computers, and I'm ready to get my fifth. All without Windows pre-installed. Only two of them were built by me. If you're complaining that you don't have a choice, it's just because you like complaining, because choices are out there. Build your own. Get someone else to build you one. Get a small mom-n-pop shop to build one for you. Buy one from Dell without Windows. Buy one from one of many commercial firms that sell PCs without Windows. Buy a Sun. Buy a Mac.
Consider that last one, Mac. Apple has been selling Microsoft-free computers since the 1970s. Saying that they aren't PC (personal computer) is semantic obstinancy. You can get cheap Macs, ultra-high end workstation Macs, desktop Macs, and laptop Macs. All without Windows.
The choices are out there. But they won't land on effortlessly on your lap. Get the fsck out of Best Buy and get to some real stores. Stop worrying about what other poeple are using, and start making your own choices. That's what mature adults do.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
you can never trust what Balmer says in public to be even close to resembling truth as you expect it. Everyone around me knows how I feel about Microsoft and their trashware but they have found a need to tell me how poor their experiences are with Vista. Some were even told to insist on Windows XP on new computers instead of Vista but took what was provided. ie, they have no choice and must take Vista.
So Balmer says Vista is selling well. BFD, the PC is what is selling and they are forcing their crap on customers who don't want it but feel they have no choice otherwise. And I don't trust what any Microsoft employee says the the press either since they are all well versed in marketing skills. IMO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Any of my friends/relatives/friends of friends that buy new PCs with Vista on them also buy XP home edition and format the drive and start over with XP. Sometimes I do it, sometimes a friend of a friend does it, but all of them dump VISTA before the first boot. One person bought a laptop, and there is no XP support for it, so he returned it.
Neither are you, Twitter.
That would be the Geek.
When his technical jargon becomes popular usage the Geek loses control of his language and his identity.
There the PC and the Mac.
There is the Geek installing a Linux distro on his bare-bones system.
No one quite seems to know where they fit in.
There's a few positive comments in here somewhere, but you really have to dig for them (as you will no doubt have to for this one).
Have any of you ever tried running Windows 95, lately. I did, and noticed there were alot of little things that I could do in 98/2k that were not possible to do in 95 (like right-click interactivity in the start menu), so much so that I cannot effeciently and effectively use Windows 95 today. The same thing also applied to windows 98 and XP for me.
The very same thing applies also to XP and Vista. There are alot of small refinements in Vista that make it difficult to work the way I want in XP. Things that you wouldn't even notice until a few months of using Vista. In brief, here are a few of the things I find invaluable time savers:
Take for example, file renaming in Explorer. When you hit F2 to rename a file, it no longer highlights the extension (when you have the extension visible) and you can press the TAB button to move to rename the next file, etc.
The start button Search Field. I no longer have to go hunting around my start menu if I don't know where something is. And let's be honest, I have tonnes of crap on my start menu that I only need occasionally and never know where it is. Now, instead of wasting a few seconds (and losing my train of thought) searching for the program I need, can just type (a part of) the program name, and windows will load it.
Default Folder names: Gone is the excessively verbose "Documents and Settings" replaced with "Users" and so too is My Documents no longer the root for all your personal files... now your username is the root folder (I just wish more programs realised that and stopped cluttering up my Documents folder with their useless settings.)
Change Explorer Views: This one's a simple one... The view selection (i.e. detail, list, thumbnail) is now a button/dropdown, instead of just a dropdown. I'd much rather click the button 3 times instead of clicking it once, moving the mouse down to the name of the view I want and selecting it. Anything that can shave seconds off an already fairly easy process is awesome.
I like the new insanely large thumbnail sizes when dealing with a pictures folder.
UAC: I bought Vista for both my parents specifically because of UAC. If you're an administrator, UAC behaves stupidly. Granted. It becomes some weird twisted sort of double "Are you *really* sure?" confirmation. Useless. But, when you're not an administrator, it becomes the most obviously useful thing in the world. In XP, if you are a regular user, and you need to run some process as admin, you need to know beforehand. You need to find (sometimes by holding Shift when you right-click) the RunAs command, and use it to run this program as an Admin. In Vista, you can run it normally, and if it then finds out it needs admin rights, it will prompt you then and there to enter an admin user/password. That's the key difference. Needing to have foreknowledge and not.
When I first installed a beta or RC of Vista, I immediately declared it a complete and utter failure and bomb. I proclaimed I would never use it fully, and most certainly not ever let my parents use it, for fear of all the questions I would be bombarded with.
After I used it for a few months though, once things became familiar to me again, I greatly prefered it to XP. And it's a pain having to continue to use old clunky (interface-wise) XP.
I realise that many of the improvements I mentioned can be applied to XP through some means or other, but the point is that by including that improved functionality in the OS, they have raised the baseline. And I do recognise that to use Vista, you'll need a bigger screen resolution (long gone are the days of 1024×768 being enough), and a faster machine. I just take it for granted that as machines become more powerful and have more resources, so too do the software programs use those resources. Anyway, that's just my personal take on Vista, for me and my family.
UAC is only good thing about Vista, and you turned it off?
Poor performance, confusing UI, needless changes, and lack of compatibility with the Enterprise network are all good reasons to avoid Vista.
But the fact that MS Windows *finally* got something equivalent to sudo? Not so much.
When "Vista downgraded to XP" is an option on PC's, we're still pretending Vista might have legs. When it's the only available option we're done pretending it's anything but an albatross around the neck of major vendors.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Good for you. You turned UAC off. You know what you can't do anymore? If you're not logged in as the admin (and you never log in as an admin unless you NEED admin rights, right?) then you have no access to other user folders anymore at all. Example: you're logged in under MyAccount working on some progect, and you need to grab a photo your wife has in the Pictures folder of HerAccount. No problem right? It's your computer and you know the admin PW, so you explore to the HerAccount user folder and when it pops up the prompt saying you don't have permission, you click OK expecting to put in the admin PW and keep going. Doesn't happen. You're not allowed at all. No PW prompt. Nothing. You're just not allowed in. So you log in to the admin account, turn UAC on again, switch back to MyAccount, and try it again. This time it says you don't have permission to access HerAccount, but it does give you an opportunity to use the admin PW to get in, so you finally grab the photo from her Pictures photo, stick it in your project, and you're good to go. A couple of months later (you naturally have UAC turned off again), you're in MyAccount, and again you need to grab a picture from HerAccount. By now you've forgotten the hassle you went through before, and you just explore straight into HerAccount, and then her Pictures folder and you get what you're looking for in a snap. And then you realize that Vista didn't deny you permission this time, didn't ask for a password or anything, it just let you straight in. UAC gave you PERMANENT access to HerAccount while you were logged into MyAccount. That access wasn't permitted on a session only basis as would be expected in any real multi-user system. And then you remember that you used the same UAC enabled trick to help her get a document from MyAccount. Now you know that she still has access to MyAccount while she's logged into HerAccount. And now you understand why she's been acting so weird lately - She found your AnimalFootFetishPr0n folder. You sick bastard.
Yeah. Just continue having your no problems with Vista. You can continue being happy with Vista as long as you ignore all the little braindead brokenness. I couldn't ignore Vista's performance-crippling, copyrights-restricting, user-rights-bungling, hardware-settings-losing, user unfriendliness anymore, and as soon as I can get Wine to run photoshop right, I can scrape that ungodly pile of crap off my laptop and stop having to dual-boot just to do a few tweaks in PS that I can't do in GIMP.
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
where im from, you call a turd by its real name ; turd. i refuse to name it anything, but turd.
Read radical news here
I've seen way more high-end laptops on my campus than I have Macintosh laptops...but anyhow, the Apple statistics on "dominating" the $1000+ price range is skewed because most PC users buying above 1000+ simply upgrade their systems. If you're buying an Alienware, Voodoo PC, Falcon NW, Build it yourself or any other high end PC you're not going to just go out and buy a new computer, you're just going to slap in a new $600 video card and some new RAM for a while. Apple pretty much forces you to buy an entirely new system, minus a few upgradeable modules...I'm sorry but it's true.
Anyhow, I bought Vista Ultimate without it being bundled with the PC..I will admit it wasn't selling well though. The place I bought it from said I was the first customer to buy Vista Ultimate from them...-this was the first week of it's release though-...and that they actually only held one copy of Vista Ultimate in stock; I was pretty shocked. I do however like Vista, and find that most people who make fun of it, or hate on it, have actually never used it.
We take advantage of this, especially for laptops (toshiba do this across virtually their entire line). What's funny is that doing this was actually slightly cheaper than buying XP pro COA licences directly instead.
And yes, that's counted as a vista sale, for precisely that reason. Still. We get an XP pro licence, a cheaper price, XP supported hardware, XP pre-installed and a free vista upgrade if it ever actually improves speedwise, so we can live with that. And no, linux is not suitable on the desktop for most users, though it does run much of our server gear, despite that bloody debian openssl patch.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
He always won 100% of the vote in Cuba's elections, even when "opponents" were given opportunities to "run".
The OEM desktop is just about as "free" as Cuba's politics, and Linux is given as much latitude as Castro's opponents.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I just bought a Dell XPS 1530m and when I got it I installed XP Pro (it came with vista home). I didn't get a choice under the XPS line from dell.
At Fry's, for $200. Without a PC. I actually like it. It looks good, performs adequately, and it runs my compilers. When I need to do a Windows build, that's what I use. Of course, Debian Linux is on my desktop, and the Vista runs in a virtual machine.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Here's their choice (not too mention Linux PC's).
Henry V .009 is basically saying that since he hasn't had any problems with Vista, all the people reporting problems must be liars or morons.
How does that qualify for insightful? It seems to be a perfect example of narrow mindedness.
Funny how whenever OS X or Linux comes out with a new graphical advancement, it is often "beautiful" and "stylish," but by the time MS shamelessly copies it (how it usually works, we all know that), the users are now "MORONS" who like it because it is "shiny."
Guess what, people are shallow. I hope you aren't just now realizing that.
Linux sucks, because it doesn't support hardware device X or software app Y.
But Vista doesn't suck when it doesn't support hardware device Z, because it is all about Samsung wanting to sell more printers?
I got vista64 on my 1 month old laptop, because it has 4gb ram and i get vista for free since i'm a informatics student. I think vista is not *that bad* anymore, my laptop actually works flawlessly and i had no problems finding drivers for it etc. The biggest problem with Vista is the huge ram foodprint, but lets face it: Ram costs nothing these days ... 100$ for 4gb ram? Last time i upgraded, 1GB cost me 200$.
The UAC is about as annoying as Ubuntu and everyone loves ubuntu after all ...
Maybe not. In June the Atom systems start wide shipping. That should generate some excitement if they deliver decent features, which could lead to wider optimism and more sales in general. Lots of buzz on this one.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I work for a fortune 100 company, all our new devices that are shipped from the vendor are licensed for Vista, however we are still using a universal windows 2000 deployment, and won't be going to Vista for another 6 months. (only execs get XP).
Having been in the IT arena for most of my adult life, I find it funny how many of the people supposedly "in the know", or people who supposedly are supposed to be IT Professionals, etc. sit here and OS bash. I remember it when 2K came out. For 2 years, it was the biggest turd on the planet, nobody would run / want / install / use it, and the ONLY thing that changed that was the leaked / warezed versions of XP coming. Then, OMG, when XP hit the market, for two more years, all we heard from the IT community was how horrible it is / was. Now, all the idiot fanboi's who felt it was their place to run XP down are doing the same thing with Vista. Keep in mind, these are the same people who said they would NEVER upgrade to 2k, XP, Vista, etc. Time to grow up. Vista works. I use it. I have been in IT since the mid 80s. Just because it doesn't work the way YOU think it OUGHT to, doesn't mean it's a turd OS. After about 20 minutes with Yamicsoft (I have no interest in them, other than I think their tuning utilities are fairly good) Vista Manager, I had a great running OS, it rarely, if ever crashes, and I haven't had to reboot it because of a crash. I can say the same thing for XP, ALMOST. I have had XP systems crash, quite a bit, but so far, the two laptops we have here at home, both running Vista, have had NO OS related problems. Prior to tuning / making the system look / feel / operate the way I wanted to, I HATED Vista. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that it was a turd at that point, either. I don't like eye candy, don't need eyecandy, nor do I want eyecandy (unless it's female lol). Remove / disable the eyecandy, and it's a stable OS. And in my > 25 years of working and running IT departments, I've found one thing that runs true more than anyone here will care to admit. Most of the problems with people running Vista are due to the fact that you are trying to run it on a POS system that was built for (usually) 2 OS revisions ago, no updated drivers are available for it and that is what makes it unstable. Both my laptops running Vista came with it, and they work WELL with it. My 3 yr old Dell Inspiron that came preloaded with XP, DOES NOT LIKE VISTA!!!! Tried it, didn't like it, didn't work well. Next stop, 64 bit version of Vista. Still can't see why HP decided to give a 32 bit version of Windows on a 64 bit Turion system out of the box. Having to find all the 64 bit drivers is keeping me from doing it yesterday, but then again, why would I install a good OS on a good system, only to load it down with drivers written for a different OS that makes it all unstable. Oh yeah, so I could come to slashdot and bitch about Vista being a turd. All because I can't make it work the way I Want it to, or because everyone else is OS bashing. People who OS bash are no different than the Jihadist Muslims. I use to "trick question" people when interviewing them... Anyone who bashed MS or another OS, they immediately went to the back of the hiring list. Life is too short for people who refuse to grow and learn. Anywho, my first post on here, after having been reading /. for literally years. I look forward to being modded to hell for my views, but then again, the people modding it down will be the same ones using something else because they read Vista sucks.
One other interesting tidbit, most of the MS OS bashers I've run across in my lifetime have been the same people who drive semi expensive euro-trash cars, live at home, are typically overweight, etc,. etc., etc. Just another useless statistic I've found in the years of working in this crappy field.
--Toll_Free
But for nerds (especially the ones on /.) speaking up against the crowd is considered to be cool.
Vista sucks. Maybe they added a few improvements here and there, but overall, it is not as good as XP. In no way does it justify seven years of development. Look at what Ubuntu was seven years ago (oh wait, there was no Ubuntu seven years ago, well, then look at Debian). But this is no surprise. Monopolies do that. They churn out crappy products. No surprise here.
A confession by a man who's quitting is usually reliable. When someone at PC Magazine says he's sorry for hyping Vista and that it really sucks, you know that Vista really sucks for a lot of people.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
7 ounces (avoirdupois) of fertizilizer for your plants as a base for 1 ounce (troy) of solid gold paint is a great buy.
Turned inside out, it's a foolproof smuggling mechanism.
Ohh, you meant "fools-gold painted". Sorry.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
OEM thing is always shadowy but if we speak about retail sales, Amazon as a number 1 globally known brand can give a clue.
Apple OS X Leopard made into top 10 software sales list months before going into market, as a pre-order without a significant rebate. Vista never, ever made into that list, at least top 10 section.
Now checking (warning: It is dynamic), MS Windows XP SP2 _is_ on the list, home edition (there goes corporate keeps stable excuse), number 20
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/software/ref=sv_sw_0
MS Office Windows/Mac editions make top 2 of list too. So, there is no issue with ordering MS stuff from Amazon, people choose Amazon to buy MS software they need.
If you use Vista as a Media Center it works great. That's the best feature of Vista over XP as far as I'm concerned.
yes, I'm well aware of all the Linux alternates. I wanted to use one of them but, I couldn't be confident in the hardware support for the various HD motherboards and tuner cards I was looking at. I looked through tons of guides and they were mostly for older SD stuff.
I'm no MS fan boy by any means but, Vista MCE really is nice and is easy to use. HD recording, radio(some free or online XM), free TV guide (unlike what I'm currently paying tivo for), photos, couple games you can play with your remote, weather(plugin) and all the normal DVR stuff of course. You can rip your CD's & DVD's and also, burn off recordings to a DVD(although very slowly). One neat feature that my tivo doesn't do is that it'll show you the movies coming up(sorted various ways) and download the movie DVD cover so it's like you're browsing Blockbuster. I thought it was neat at least. Blu-Ray drives are $120-$150, as soon as they come down a bit I'll add that in too.
I'm not saying various Linux MCE programs don't have the same or similar features. I just know that for $550 (including OS,remote & HTPC case ), I built a kick ass whisper quiet 1080i HD DVR with 1 install of Vista and a quick run through the setup guide.
The one feature missing is clear QAM decoding..which didn't matter since this was for my folks and they use an antenna. I have XP or Ubuntu running on all my PC's so I'm not saying Vista is the best but, it does have at least one compelling feature that's worth checking out.
Well, unfortunately, I had to buy Vista. Didn't want to but I had a Vista-only program I needed to run. It sucks but I only need to boot it with boot camp when I need to use it - which isn't often. Otherwise I'll stick with OS X.
and i do have the liberty of having the attitude, reasoning ability and intelligibility of a child of three.
thats what freedom and liberty is.
Read radical news here
Last night I installed Vista for the second time, on the third computer we have running it in our company. My results:
1. Vista is simpler to install than Xp was. It doesn't provide all the drivers it could, but I found drivers for almost everything extra on the Lenovo and HP sites. (A word of warning here: If you're not fairly clued up, you'll have real difficulty understanding which drivers you'll need on either site)
2. Vista, on the default install, is incredibly slow. Turn off Aero, Shadow copy, search indexing, and you're more or less at XP's speed.
3. Vista seems a bit more stable than XP. Crashing appications no longer seem to necessitate a restart as often.
4. The Sidebar is a poor copy of Apple's Dashboard, and could really be more flexible.
5. UAC would be nicer if it were actually as secure as su or sudo. In reality, the security model behind UAC is broken.
6. Standard users can actually work with that level now.
7. The Vista control panel/administrative tools layout is a disaster. It is very hard to find common recurring tasks. It is also far too complex for non technical people. Apple has this right (and even Linux does this better these days)
On the whole, Vista is not bad, but it has some serious performance problems and it seems as if a lot was done simply to attempt to lock users onto the platform.
The nicest thing about Vista: The new set of fonts it uses as standard. Cambria, Concord and co are beautful.
I'll admit that I did hate on vista for a while before ever trying it, but when I got a new laptop with vista preinstalled on it, after removing all the garbage that vendors throw on there, the sheer sluggishness of it...
My old XP laptop with half the specs does things faster than vista. I had some hopes for SP1, but so far I've seen no real improvement... As far as I'm concerned, vista made things shiny, added a few handy but hardly necessary features, and slowed down my machine.
Ezekiel 23:20
Talk about damning with faint praise...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Sounds more like Ballmer is just blowing sunshine up the shareholder's asses
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Shame he's not counting how many of those boxes get wiped and re-os'ed with XP.
I know that thats my most popular tech call just now.
Sounds like he's in the denial stage. Next comes anger(more chair throwing).
The bargaining stage will be interesting: "You'll pay me how much to run Vista?!"
While I will admit I don't care for Steve Ballmer, it doesn't make much sense to criticize him. He is doing his job. Sure Vista is a turd, but it's not like he can stand up in front of an audience and admit that.
For those of you who are happy with Vista I say good for you. I'm glad you like Vista. You paid for it, and if it does what you want and expect then I suppose you are getting your money's worth.
Consider this though... A typical Vista installation takes up twice the hard drive space, needs twice the RAM to function, and doesn't really offer much in return. Linux has proven that you don't need such steep hardware requirements to run 3D eye candy, and I see no other compelling new features in Vista that I can't live without.
I don't hate Vista. I just don't see any compelling reason to want it. For the features that Vista offers there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't have made it run smoothly on 1 gig of ram and a single core 2 ghz processor. If Linux can do that why can't Vista? My conclusion is sloppy coding. If I'm shopping for a new computer I can save a ton of money on hardware if my operating system requires less in the first place. This is where Linux shines, and the main reason why people are still demanding XP. Vista may be a really nice OS, but if I have to spend several hundred dollars more for a PC that can run it, then I'm not interested.
Userfriendly has a cartoon about the boat you're in.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Vista sells on all new consumer PCs ..
.. :)
.. :)
Well, it would do, since you can't get PC with XP on it anymore
* troll alert: Yea, I know, he refered to almost %100 and didn't refer to the Dell 'upgrade'
davecb5620@gmail.com
At work one of the people bought a bunch of computers that had Vista on them and our stuff wouldn't work on it. I was given the job of putting XP on it, try putting XP on a system which the hardware manufacturers have not released XP drivers, fun. When I was running Vista to get all the hardware specs it was hell. Top of the line HP media laptops that run worse than a 386DX with 3.11 on it. Yes, it was that bad. Took nearly 10 minutes to start up and get logged in to the point where something could actually be done. Move crap just to move it. First poster must be slow to not notice the terribly slow speed of Vista.
"Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?"
Erm, no.
Seeing the same thing here. Ballmer's touting paper sales. There is no significant installed base of Vista anywhere I can see.
If I were him I wouldn't be bragging about being able to force a product nobody wants on so many people. That could backfire.
I love how sales is more important to Balmer than performance and function.
I do like Vista in many ways but it needs work! If Balmer is in "no way disappointed" with vista than there is no hope for Microsoft OS'es
As little weight as 'Anonymous Coward' can put into a post, one of my good buddies is a Dell Higher Education Sales rep. Every XP machine sold to colleges in Texas at least is licensed as Vista.
I don't think Microsoft has any choice but to count it as a Vista sale however, as there's no way for them to tell what Dell is doing with that License.
I picked up a copy of 64-bit Vista Ultimate ... the simple facts are just that Vista supports more recent hardware than XP does ... XP is fine for business applications, but if you want to run DirectX 10 games (and I mean plug-and-play run them, no cracks or hacks) and have 4gb or more of RAM, you just have to go with Vista.
I am not disappointed with the purchase at all.
Of course is Vista selling well. It's an incredibly well working OS. Also, Steven Ballmer never threw chairs around.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
On my Linux box if a website manages to get a popup window open without asking, that's a major security breach requiring immediate examination and correction.
On the average user's Window's box an unexpected new browser toolbar, websites that redirect to unfamiliar places and a short game of Kill the popups is such a common part of the landscape that people just don't notice them until they render the computer completely unusable.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I did see an article once about installing Linux on a dead badger. Where was it? Oh, there it is. Very funny.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Vista is probably OK for home use, if you have modern and fairly standard hardware, and run modern, fairly standard and not-too-demanding software. It has a pretty interface and the software on which 95% of home users rely runs well enough.
But I wouldn't touch Vista with a bargepole for our industry environment, for two reasons. One, I already have a fair number of annoying performance hogs on my computer, courtesy of our IT department. (We are still on Windows 2000.) Why would I add another set, courtesy of Microsoft? That would probably bring the efficiency of my computer down from 40% to 20%.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, too many of our suppliers don't want to support it. Their positions is, reasonably enough, that if you spend US$500000 or more on robotics, it seems silly to entrust its control to a system running Vista. That just isn't stable enough; and it is almost unchallenged that Vista is less stable than XP. (Actually I expect to see more a more Linux systems for such purposes.) Or if you spend $50000 on advanced high-performance scientific code, why run it on an OS that wastes power on glitz?
And as the same software often needs to run on our desktops, that rules out Vista for most of our staff too, unless we give everybody two computers. Which sounds like a silly idea, but we do it fairly often for users who need more power than our standard configurations provide, or need to run software that is only available for a specific OS. However, doing it for up to 200 people would be silly.
The general feeling of our experienced IT staff and consultants is that we should migrate to XP some time this year (yes...) and skip Vista, in the hope that Win 7 will be better.
Most people who are willing to spend $1000+ are building their own computers and can install their own OS, so they don't tend to buy bundled OS's.
I had to buy a copy in order to test software.
.zip because it is bease on zip.
Stupid thing renames our data file format to
That doesn't matter. They are buying licenses to run Vista, not licenses to run XP. Its still a Vista "sale". With the availability of downgrade rights, its foolish to buy XP Pro in place of Vista Business. Generally we're re-imaging the PC new from the factory anyway, and maybe they will eventually fix Vista (we all hated XP over 2000 when it came out)
Its not likely he'll quote "running Vista" numbers, there's a huge installed based and Vista doesn't like older hardware. My new Vista work PC blue screens reliably when I RDC to it because my new video card (to support dual displays) lacks Vista drivers. So I'll be roll out of Vista myself soon.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
... and the numbers change a lot.
I work for a company that belongs to a group with total ~3k employees and the vast majority is using Windows - but XP, not Vista. Every new PC that is ordered and delivered with Vista will be immediately downgraded to XP, except for a couple of test pcs.
It's hilarious to claim that the sales are doing fine if you don't really know what numbers you are talking about Mr. Ballmer.
PS: Even my private play pc is downgraded to XP.
I have spent time selling laptops and PCs for several retail companies, from just before the time vista hit the market and for a while after. I saw many people buy Vista for one reason: Language compatibility.
Anybody who needed a computer in a language other than English was typically pushed into buying Windows Vista Ultimate, as the home editions would not support any other language.
loves it now
bought my wife (who knows just enough about computers to use them)a new laoptop for xmas she hated vista immediately( complained about how slow it was compred to her old p3 desktop running win2k)i blew out vista and immediately installed xp-pro and she loved it now
Around here when it planting season rolls around and all the hippies want their organic farms fertilized, we can sell cow shit by the truck load. Pretty much the same rule applies to vista.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
*64GB Memory supported on 32bit Linux *Backup to anything *Multitudes of wifi controls *Alt-F2, type name of command, hit enter for years
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
We're more than halfway through Vista's alleged three year lifecycle. Achieving a market penetration of 15% at that point in the cycle is not a measure of success when
15% should be considered a very poor showing at this point, and it may never get much higher for Vista since many people are holding out for the next version and the MIDs won't run Vista well when they're released next week (or ever).
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I'm sick of hearing about Vista and OSX. Vista I could care less about. OSX and it's creepy pc vs mac ads are doing my head in ! To even suggest that you need a Mac to be young and hip is retarded. Also portraying the Mac to be the center of multimedia is total crap and leads to the misinformed vision that you need a mac to make music or play with video. XP ROCKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! or should I say XP IS ROCK STABLE !!!!!!!!!!!! With a world of software at your fingertips.
I 'upgraded' to Vista on my (fairly high-end) laptop. It is definitely slow. I would say that easy tasks (like copying files) have been made easier, with better GUI feedback. Complex tasks (like setting up networking) have been made more complicated. I bought a FON router and set my laptop Wi-Fi up with it. I found that the wireless settings are /still/ broken (as they were with XP) and on a new Vista install with all updates it is still necessary to reboot the machine between changes of network settings even though the GUI doesn't request it (it says 'unknown error' on the network settings dialog). There's lots of sillies like that which just shouldn't happen on a modern OS. The only thing that feels like a true upgrade is the standby/hibernate support, which is really quick and totally reliable on my Dell XPS notebook.
Isn't this forum an odd place to ask that question? I suppose the same question could be asked at Ubuntu Forums too. /. isn't exactly a "Windows club".
I just don't see Joe Sixpack wandering these halls on a daily basis. He's the one who'll take whatever the retailers serve up. I'm pretty certain suppliers won't be falling over themselves to get XP on a box for users who don't specifically demand it, fearing Redmond's Wrath.
It's an interesting thread, to say the least. But an odd question to ask here, in my mind.
BTW: No. I have not purchased Vista. I have no plans to do so. I was offered a genuine copy that I easily turned down. Flirting with Redmond ended when I saw how many people being poked with the LongHorn.
"we are not sinking" speech from Microsoft, from the bridge of a ship halfway under water.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I also do tech support. Even when I go out to install a new computer, I get unsolicited comments about how much the end-user hates Vista. And that's the big difference between XP and Vista. When XP came out, the techs bitched and moaned, but the end user was happy. Now, both the techs [i]and the end-users[/i] are expressing displeasure with the OS.
I supplied a laptop (Gateway 2GB RAM) with Vista Home Basic this week. Customer delighted. That was until they discovered the Windows Anytime Upgrade disk. I don't know what this disk is supposed to do but it killed the sound and made the computer delay 10 seconds between anything.
I simply ran the OS re-install disk and wiped everything. Customer delighted again. Some people are easy to please. In fact that's the 2nd one this week.
I bought a laptop 12 months ago, it came with XP pro, but I got to via the manufacturer upgrade for free (as in pay for shipping) to a copy of Vista Business pro. I tried it, hated it, went back to XP, then my boss bought himself a new desktop preloaded with Vista. Uh oh, time to upgrade my ultra reliable Samba Domain Controller. So for testing purposes I switched over to Vista, and to be honest I'm still using it. Except for the stupid breadcumb navigation it's actually not so bad. Unless I need to print something.
It's hard not to do decent sales when virtually anyone that wants a new PC has to take Vista because they're not wise enough to learn something else or even know you can switch the OS.
Under our enterprise agreement with Microsoft we get downgrade rights for any OEM purchase of Windows Vista Business. Everything we purchased since Vista's release has come with a Vists Business license, but has the corporate Window XP image installed. I suspect other organizations with Enterprises/Select agreements have similar practices.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
I bought two copies, one for a new machine and one to upgrade an older box from XP. I've had zero problems with either machine.
My guess is the majority of people complaining are elitist twats or are looking for a reason not to like it. When Dell is selling laptops under $1k with 3GB of RAM and dual core procs, the argument that it uses more resources than XP is a little thin.
i love the stability of the platform, the programming environment and the digital step Windows took to improve user experience. I really good asset!
Microsoft must really be hurting losing so many sales to XP.
I work for a software editor. Several months ago, we had to port a part of our software to Vista. Since our software is web-based, the only part at stake was an ActiveX.
It was the worst nightmare we ever had. After finguring out for several months what was going on, we came to the conclusion that it simply wasn't possible. To summarize (sorry for simplifying):
- UAC is the worst design/implementation ever. Windows has several execution environments (unlike UNIX, which has... 2: user(s) and root), and UAC asks you for permission each time you cross a fence ! (in UNIX, sudo at leasts reminds the password for several minutes or so)
- ActiveX are simply impossible to use under Vista+IE7. Problem is that Microsoft didn't care to offer a replacement technology.
The consequence of all this is that our application was no longer available under Vista/IE. It worked well under Vista/Firefox, though.
Finally, we hired an ex-microsoftie, who re-implemented the ActiveX part entirely, using MS _private_ APIs, and now it works - more ore less.
Going through all this, i wonder if the NT platform can be secured at all. Since we also have a support department, i can tell you that users have fare more problems with Vista than XP.
This is going to kill MS. Almost all techies i know, plus lots of "power users" are switching to Linux or OSX (even the ex-microsoftie we hired was using OSX as his primary OS). Only big companies are sticking to MS, because of the total lack of competence that reigns there.
We probably count as Vista sales, but new machines get the corporate XP image applied on arrival.
"Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?"
I guess mac users that needed it so that IT at work would let them keep their puter...tho i personally would suggest XP. I'd "buy" the old lisence off someone that downgraded to Vista.
I wonder if they keep track of sales to Mac users.
MS goes on and on about how many licenses they've sold.
But the question is: How many of these are actually in use?
The thing is, MS knows this number - it's the number of copies pinging the Windows Update servers.
Could journalists please start asking them this question? And keep asking until they answer.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
When Dell is selling laptops under $1k with 3GB of RAM and dual core procs, the argument that it uses more resources than XP is a little thin.
The resources I worry about in a laptop aren't dollars... they're electrons. If your laptop is running Vista, you need a faster processor (less battery life) and more RAM (less battery life) and you run the CPU at a higher power level (less battery life) to get the same experience as you would with XP. Paying $200 more for a laptop isn't a big deal. Not having to play musical power cables in a meeting room is.
Best laptop I ever had was a Toshiba Libretto. The battery pack was the size of a joke pen, and I got five hours of actual use out of it, so with two charged batteries I could go all day without ever needing to find a power point.
I don't think you could even boot Vista on it.
because people are buying XP too.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Do you live in the United States of America? Also known as "The United States of Advertising?" (Bill Hicks)
Take the Microsoft Mafia Monopoly Challenge:
1. Walk into one or several of your local stores selling computers
2. Ask them what their computers have preloaded on them for an Operating System
3. If they reply, "Windows", inquire about other choices and note them if available (most won't have alternatives)
4. If they tell you every system is preloaded with Windows, note this and add a Windows logo flag next to the store name
5. Ask about the possibility of refunds for Windows should you purchase a preloaded Windows system and want a refund for the OS. Even if this isn't the way to go about it, ask about the refund anyway to see what they say, express your dismay at the limited choices and the forcing of Windows on desktops. A convicted monopoly should not continue to enjoy the luxury of a monopoly on the desktop
6. Compile this list and post it online somewhere visible, or coodinate your effort with others with sites like BoycottNovell.com and the like, groups of people collecting this information may wish to present it to the appropriate people in American government, to show how strong the Microsoft monopoly remains today, and how little the DOJ has leaned on Microsoft vs. other countries.
If the DOJ will do nothing further to stop Microsoft's continued monopoly in the United States, we must do something.
Microsoft is a convicted monopoly and it should not continue to enjoy the luxury of preloaded systems and mysterious OEM deals
In addition, archive/save the following articles before they disappear:
Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
Microsoft Caught Out
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/11/15/124827/52
Microsoft Exec: OEMs Must Not Install Linux Besides Windows
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/27/214930/249
Secret deals MS uses to control PC companies
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/06/10/secret_deals_ms_uses/
Congress: Clear the Air and Stop Preloads
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/50179/
Microsoft Getting Paid for Patents in Linux?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=07/02/11/1443211
Microsoft: Open source is too complex
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,39380307,00.htm
Microsoft: "Drug-Dealing Methods"
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7654
Well, you just did.
So we're at 11 accounts now?
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
Our design group just got new HP workstations, all with XP 64bit (we run SolidWorks; it can use the extra memory space from XP 64bit). I don't work in IT, but if our company did it you may have (or have had) an option.
If you see a +1.2M UIN account posting the usual "I agree with you" replies to one of twitter's comments, chances are it's one of his sockpuppet accounts.
(I'll take my offtopic mod now)
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
The real question is whether anyone is running desktop Linux. Hell, if Slashdot can live in fantasy land so can I. I swear this is my last post here. No, I won't let the door hit my ass on the way out. Goodbye.
Tell me why I should shell out a few hundred bucks to "try" out an operating system, only to find out what hundreds of people who HAVE used it are correct, that it IS indeed an inferior product. I sure don't want to help Ballmer with his spin doctoring.
Well, I bought a new laptop recently that has Vista Home Premium. I actually played with it for 3 weeks or so until I hated it. I simply installed 64-bit linux on the thing, and zoom. :) (4GB ram)
A friend of mine is the only person I know that actually bought Vista.. by mistake. He had ordered XP Pro but the guy sent him Vista instead. (eBay)
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
Even Vista with UAC enabled running from a limited account and IE8 a website can still silently download software that executes, escalates and installs a rootkit that cannot be detected with available tools. These tools are currently dispensed from a large number of high profile websites.
Don't pretend Vista is secure. You're not fooling anybody here. You might get away with that on some other site.
And troll your peers. You've been here a while. You should know better than this. You're not going to improve your messaging messing with me.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"you're not going to just go out and buy a new computer, you're just going to slap in a new $600 video card and some new RAM for a while."
Really? Why would you do that? You're going to go out and spend another ~$800 to "upgrade" an old computer? You're probably spending more on the new video card and RAM than the old machine is worth. I've got 3 old PC's and 2 fairly new Mac's. For the money, not a single one of the old PC's was worth upgrading. I would have had to go out and buy a whole new motherboard, processor, RAM, etc. Basically, an entirely new machine. The only part I could have recycled would have been the case, floppy drive, and DVD burner. It would have been a case of good money after bad. I think the idea of upgrading machines is fallacy. It has never been worth the money in my experience. But maybe I wait longer to upgrade than everyone else.
Does anyone else remember the launches of windows 95 and 98? They were huge news. Like, computer stores opened at midnight, had parties, and gave away stuff. Front page of the newspaper, above the fold, all the stops pulled out. People came out in droves to buy new copies for their old hardware.
Contrast this with the Vista launch: not even half of new business gear has the system on it, over a year later. People hate it. One guy posted here to talk about the time he bought a box copy of Vista Ultimate; I wouldn't be surprised if he were the only one in the country.
Can you imagine what it would say about Adobe if CS2 continued to outsell CS3? If 55% of Ubuntu downloads were for 7.0? If Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" was a more popular product thatn 10.5 "Leopard"? They would be a laughing stock and every investor on the planet would be shorting their stock. Hell, even Sun doesn't try to spin news this bad as being in their favor.
Le MS est mort! Vive le MS!
This is not a bad approach. Now:
Then you'll be almost as secure as OS X. No OS is 100% secure. Good administration and usage matters far more than the software package. That said, yeah, OS X and Linux both don't have any extant viruses in the wild and most distributions don't have any exposed services or Flash by default so they are inherently more secure than Windows. Not as secure as BSD, but pretty good.
We may be coming to a time when no OS is considered secure unless it's booted from read-only media from a known good image. That'll be a sad day.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
and promptly installed XP Professional on all.
My guess is that this is happening a lot.
No thank you.
Yes I've tried it, got one copy of ultimate from microsoft for free, got my other license with my technet plus subscription. safe bet that when I reload I won't be putting vista back on my gaming machine
Do I know anyone who knows anyone who has purchased Microsoft Windows Vista?
Why, yes, I do, insofar as I know people who know me. I support a program where we distribute computers to our freshman class and the local "power that is" decided last year those computers would run Microsoft Windows Vista Business. I purchased a copy of MSWV Business and upgraded a computer running MSW XP Pro in May 2007. I understand that this is an unpopular position here but, while I see no particular reason to upgrade a working MSW XP system to MSW Vista, I also have no particular reasons not to Microsoft Windows Vista where I use some form of Microsoft Windows. If I had software that didn't run under MSW Vista, that would be one thing but the engineering applications I support were supported by their vendors on MSW Vista before we made the final decision to use that OS.
For the record, I'm not a Microsoft cheerleader - I was using already using UNIX when MS-DOS was released and have a shell window open as I type this - but I cannot argue that MSW Vista is significantly better or worse than MSW XP. It *is* different and for some that is a reason *for* adoption and for others it is a reason *against* adoption.
From what others have said on forums like this and the NT-SYSADMIN list, a lot of people are doing this. So I suspect Vista's real-world market penetration isn't even as good as Microsoft says. Of course, Microsoft gets their money either way, so from a profit stand-point, they don't care. But it may well confuse the industry predictors at Dell and the like.
Rumor has it that when XP goes end-of-sales in a month, Dell is planning on offering this as a formal option: Sell a Vista license, but load XP as a downgrade. If so, and the price difference isn't big, I'm planning on ordering that option, just so our preference for XP shows up on somebody's radar. I encourage others to do the same. If it looks like everyone is buying and running Vista, XP support will dry up.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?
:)
i did. for $30 from the microsoft store (i'm an alumnus). was curious. it's actually pretty cool looking. works great on my bootcamp partition when i have an itch to play some TF2
worth $30.
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
In order for your comment to be true the exact opposite of what I illustrated happening in my post must be happening. Since I provided links, it would be fair to ask you for some.
PC sales are up in a big way in units, dollars of sales and dollars of profit. Windows sales are off by 24%. Make of that what you will. I choose to believe that Microsoft is getting a lot less for Windows than they used to especially in emerging markets, they're bleeding share on high end retail units and they've fully booked the sales under Software Assurance. I also choose to believe this is because nobody wants Vista, especially on the cost effective platforms that don't run it well.
We have run the circle:
We're back at nothing but XP for you. All your base are belong to XP. Now you just also have to take the Vista License so they can book another Vista sale for their marketeering. That way Ballmer can say stuff like "almost 100% of retail PCs are Vista." If you'll remember, Saddam Hussein also got 100% of the "popular vote" in the last election before his execution. At least they aren't making you take a SuSE coupon as well -- yet.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
... I do however like Vista, and find that most people who make fun of it, or hate on it, have actually never used it. I've used it, and while I don't hate it, it is far more complex to use, far slower out of the box and far more expensive than XP. Turning off all the crap that slows it down, like shadow copy, indexing and aero, leaves you with a piece of crap that makes you realise you wasted your money.So speak for yourself. Many people hate it, and almost no companies are upgrading.
wow, my first troll-moderated comment :)
I'm sure that those who moderated have never [really] used Windows Vista AND Mac OS X for a week. Otherwise they would understand the "I'm not going back" kind of feeling.
As for the overpricing, that's exactly the opposite of what I found when I decided to buy the MacBook. After more than 10 years of being curious about the Mac but unable to afford it, I was finally able to buy one that is equivalent in price and power to the Wintel laptop I'd buy, but with better software (which I feel good paying for).
The best way to predict the future is to invent it
PAE is a feature of the modern x86 architecture, just like MMX or SSE. It was introduced with the Pentium Pro in 1995 (13 years ago!), and has been standard since the Pentium II (1997). PAE increases the number of address lines from 32 to 36. It also adds a new mode to the x86 MMU (Memory Management Unit) which supports 36-bit hardware addresses. The new mode adds a third level to the page table structure, in facilitate a larger page table entry size.
Both Vista and XP enable PAE, but with a major caveat. Both avoid using any hardware address above the 4 GiB mark because it turns out a lot of drivers can't handle such. That includes drivers which ship with Windows -- and Microsoft takes on part of the support burden of those. (Microsoft doesn't support third-party (non-WHQL) drivers and never has.)
The reason both OSes enable PAE mode is to get NX (No Execute bit) support. (NX is used as a defense against code injection due via buffer overrun. Microsoft calls it DEP (Data Execution Prevention).) The NX bit is only present in the larger page table entries. So they enable PAE -- and take the performance hit of the third level of page table lookup -- but don't actually use the larger hardware address word.
So anyway, because the OSes can't use hardware above 4 GiB, they (re)configure all your peripheral hardware to exist within the 4 GiB space. That includes configuration space, ROMs, buffers, video memory, the AGP aperture, memory mapped hardware I/O (DMA), etc. Any RAM at those addresses gets "shadowed" and is not accessible to the OS.
Linux doesn't have this problem -- it's been 64-bit clean for years, and will happily put your peripheral hardware above 4 GiB. (One can still run into problems with motherboards, BIOSes, and/or expansion cards which don't support hardware addresses > 32 bits, though. Some motherboards don't have the PAE lines "wired". Some BIOSes just don't support it. And some 32-bit PCI cards don't support DAC (Dual Address Cycle), which would let them accept a 64-bit address.)
But to support a hardware address > 32 bits with Windows, you either need to run the x86-64 versions of Windows, or run Advanced/Enterprise Server. (The "Standard" version of Windows Server is limited in the same way as Win XP/Vista.)
Note that all of the above is about hardware addresses -- the actual address lines coming out of the x86 chip. The virtual address space is still limited to 32 bits and 4 GiB. And all software -- including the OS kernel -- use the virtual address space for practically all operations. But with PAE, you can at least have multiple processes which total to more than 4 GiB.
(There are also techniques which let a 32-bit process make use of more than 4 GiB of RAM, such as bank switching (memory windowing). But such techniques are cumbersome at best. Ultimately, a 32-bit process can only directly access 4 GiB of memory. You need long mode (x86-64/AMD64) to get a 64-bit virtual address space.)
(Windows further limits most 32-bit user processes to 2 GiB, reserving 2 GiB for the kernel. There's a BOOT.INI switch which changes that split to 3 GiB for userland and 1 GiB for the kernel. But unless a program was specifically compiled to support that, it will still only use 2 GiB. And robbing 1 GiB from the kernel can impact performance in other ways.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Wait for it...
Unlimited. Client. Licenses.
How cool is that?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The sticker looks more high tech.
um.... yeah, I'm done.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
MS has a massive monopoly and it is as simple as that. They sell to corporations because 80% of computer resellers only offer vista! Those that do buy it simply do not know better or have any alternative at all other then useing a MAC. Which is seeming to be more and more viable everyday one uses a computer with vista. When IE loads slower then my XP computer reboots something is wrong!
Fact is vista is a slow POS OS that only bogs down the best hardware we have ever had in order to make things more pretty! Tho unlike like the MAC OS vista is just pretty crappy. A cheap attempt at a money grab is truly sad when you offer a product that is even worse then Windows ME.
Perhaps corporations buy your crap OS but the home users/gamers refuse to lay down and take it up the rear for a downgrade. And i find it truly funny how everyone that spouts vista is good say it is good because of Directx10 since it will be needed to play all the newer games. If DX10 was good it would have been added to XP a long time ago. All it does is make the best video cards today work overtime to do 1/10 the work. Of course if you go buy the most hi end intel cpu and nividia GPU your computer might almost work as good as a computer from 3 years ago.
PS selling well and offering a decent product are two totally different things...
I agree with you sir.
Sincerely,
Not A Sock Puppet.
Large computer companies are always interested in any major market segment. Apple hasn't handed Balmer anything though. Apple is still small compared to Microsoft and unless Apple can ship a network centric product it won't take the business end of the market.
... But the truth is a little different. The large OEMs are selling computers with Vista Business licenses but are loading Windows XP on them as the downgrade rights allow. We have no intention of starting to even look at actually using Vista for more then a year.
The real thing is that Microsoft has become so disconnected and arrogant that it has put itself in a position that its customers are willing (and wanting) to find any viable alternative to their products.
I really believe that Microsoft believes their own stories. If you go to a computer/electronics store you won't find a choice between computers with Vista and XP. You will find Vista rammed down the consumer's throat. I think they really believe that the customers are really choosing Vista over XP even though they have no choice.
As far as businesses: The company I work for purchases lots of computers from Dell (100+ a month) and last week I changed our purchasing from ordering only machines with XP licenses to only ordering systems with Vista licenses...
I'm certain that Microsoft will lie to themselves and tally this up as a successful sale of Vista instead of a customer who wants no part of it but is going to pick up the license for the same price and hedge his bets.
When a company lies to itself and loses focus on trying to meet customer needs it is walking the road to failure. The only question is if there is a David out there that can capitalize on Goliath's faltering. (Can Linux pull a major rabit out of their hat? I just don't see it...)
His recent journal posts are fantastic.
Here he likens criticism of free software with racism. Apparently someone saying that he is against the South African government mandating a particular technology is akin to saying "Everyone knows Africans cant actually create anything". Amazing.
The latest tells a tale of how a man accidentally bought 7 copies of Vista. He goes on to relate how Microsoft are refusing him a refund, even though the story he links to states he's already had a refund for 4 of them, he's just waiting on the other 2. Not in an edit, in the actual article.
There is no depth to which Twitter is unwilling to stoop to push his choices on the rest of humanity.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
People choose to breath air.
Too lazy to create a sig...
Of course it is "selling" well, Microsoft has contracts with every OEM manufacture and when Microsoft told them jump to Vista, they all did.
Only reason why Vista is "seling" well, is that humans needs computer. They buy one and 95% of those what they buys from local stores (wallmart etc), online or local computer store, has windows Vista presold (preinstalled).
If Microsoft would loose it's contracts, so client always need to buy computer and OS separated, GNU/Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris would be more popular. Windows has currently 80-85% market share (when looking how MUCH GNU/Linux users there are everywhere, library, goverments, big and small companies, schools etc) while GNU/Linux has ~10%.
And those who like to rise that "study" card of 0.67% market share, be nice and tell us, is it true that on 8 years, GNU/Linux popularity has not raiser at all but stayed on same level, under 1%, whole this time? 2001 normal user didn't even know that Windows is OS and there is alternative like GNU/Linux, BSD etc.
Now even the poorest and richest user knows that Windows isn't only one. It's market share has grown so fast that not even Microsoft understand it, they just has high fear factor against it. Best way to keep enemy not gaining market share, is staying quiet from it. Microsoft did "great" job for promoting GNU/Linux by warning companies about it!
Vista isn't "selling" well, it is forced very well, GNU/Linux is "Selling" much better because users wants it and they just installs it! Windows users get Windows's new version, even they would stick on old one!
What hardware are you running it on? You can't simply say "oh Vista is complete crap and slow" when you may or may not being newer hardware. If you plan on running an OS on older hardware then by all means, XP is the best choice...however, if you're running a top tier machine, Vista runs really fast. I'm running 64-bit Vista with 4 gigs of RAM and ready boost, everything full blast..runs better than XP did. Anyhow, many people here that even have "tried" it a) probably didn't pay for it b) ran it on older hardware expecting stunning performance and c) held a bias towards it the entire time during their usage.
They say Steve Jobs has such charisma he could convince someone to drink poison Kool-Aid. This article implies Steve Ballmer convinces himself.
Because he talked about getting a sex tape and that makes him a myscoginist meanie.
No, not making much sense here.
Maybe he's just a myscoginist meanie but he's right about vista. Or did that thought never cross your mind?
And my mom said I'm the best looking person on Earth...
if your time is worth nothing.
Would that be right?
- Finds files and applications.
- Auto-detects wireless networks and extra monitors.
- Multiple desktops for a single user.
- Keeps video RAM for games properly sandboxed. eg if you accidentally press the windows key and get sent back to the desktop your game will probably still be running ok. In XP I find this can kill some games.
- Control sound levels of different apps independently.
I'm afraid I can't think of any more. As it is I have had to seriously bite my tongue over in order to produce a list that *only* lists Vista's plus points over XP without being snippy. I speak as someone who persevered with Vista for 3 months on a new laptop before "downgrading" to XP.
Could it be simply because Apple computers are more expensive? I've heard that the Bugatti Veyron is dominating the $1,000,000+ car market as well.
But for many of us half-decent isn't good enough. I'd rather save and get something as good as I can possibly afford, on most all items of my life. Half decent sounds like half assed to me, and I try not to settle for anything in life. Life is too short just to 'get by' on everything.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The only worthwhile upgrade on most PCs is to max out the memory, absolutely as soon as you can afford to. PCs are still sold with excessive CPU and far too little RAM. Put in as absolutely much as the motherboard can take and the OS can use.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
You sound like you're speaking from actual experience :) 10.2 was indeed the production-ready release, and that was when our studio started to upgrade from OS 9.
10.5 is the first release I'm reluctant to install, however, because I need Classic occasionally. In that sense I am "a Mac user pining for OS 9", but I am far from typical (I only need it for MPW).
you had me at #!
Hi gents,
Today is my fourth attempt in 12 months to try and use Vista and I loathe it within hours of installation.
I've made several posts about Vista in the past, such as this one.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=364823&cid=21406737
At this point in time, I am definately not in the crowd which claims it's got poor performance or compatibility, both of these are not major issues for me.
What continues to tick me off and continues to be a problem which I firmly believe will NEVER be fixed is the classic user interface for us 'tech types' (who don't use linux) is absoloutely and utterly appalling!
As you'll see from the link up there, there's a plethora of small niggles in Vista which quite simply don't exist in XP - the much older OS.
Today I bring you another which I managed to capture, it's a small simple little bug but it's JUST PLAIN FRUSTRATING AND STUPID (sorry but it is)
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/WTF.wmv (encoded with Windows Media Encoder 9, sorry people, you'll likely need a recent version of WMP)
That movie there really summarises some of the well, dumb shit that Vista does.
Why would clicking NEAR the folder and having the folder highlight, not update the window to the right?
Before anyone says it, I agree that's a ridiculously small problem but none the less XP does this fine! it's awkward, annoying and it wastes my time.
So, looks like my desktop PC is about to get XP MCE, because I'm not putting up with Vista as my primary OS just so I can record TV shows, stuff that.
- Scott
P.S if ANYONE from MS does actually read this, message me, email me - reply to us all anonymously and explain why on earth such a simple thing was missed? Did anyone actually test this UI when developing this OS or did every moron leave the bloody aero theme on during testing?
Nitpick all you want, but the guy in the article asked for all of his money back, (including the initial license he had ordered because he apparently was ordering the wrong thing) and MS still hasn't refunded him. twitter may be a little fanatical, but his claim in your linked journal post, that ms hasn't given him his money back, is factually true.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
We migrated to XP three years ago, so that's an indication of how slowly REAL businesses move at... and don't let the zealots here tell you otherwise.
This quote is from OP:
Absolutely no idea what OP is talking about (aside from parrotting a tired old Slashdot canard). I can go to any store, or any vendor website, and still get a PC with XP or Vista. Yes, it would be nice if I could get the "all of the above" option like the company I work for does, but oh well- I don't order a thousand computers at a time, thus I don't get preferential treatment like they do. If volume purchasing has no benefits, why do it?
And if he's talking about "choice" as shipping with Teh Lunix on it... that's not really choice, nor is it cost effective. Teh Lunix has about a 0.65% market share of desktop OS's. Yes... that's much less than one percent. Obviously, there isn't any money to be made in catering to that market... and obviously it would take manpower and expense to set up your company to offer that option. Every time Dell foolishly presents an option for Teh Lunix on Teh Desktop... it's a huge waste of their time and money.
Here's an idea: there are computer companies which make WinTel machines, and there are computer companies which make Apple machines. If somebody (maybe Richard Stallman?) has SO much faith in Teh Power of Teh Lunix... why don't they start up their own Lunix exclusive hardware company? I mean, one not about ripping off children living in poverty in the third world.
Teh Lunix has had fifteen years to show us how much better it is than Windows. Almost every comoputer user appears unconvinced.
We do a lot of database work, dealing with everything from DB2, Oracle to Postgres and MySQL. Older versions of the major DBMS will obviously not work on Vista, but anyone who installs Oracle on a laptop is kidding themselves. VMWare is the only way to do development in a clean environment. In addition, these DBMSs don't run on XP. Windows 2000 or 2003, and/or SUSE/Red Hat.
The basic tweaks I usually do to any Vista machine is to turn off the UAC, which is pretty stupid. It's like having a lawyer on your desktop telling you to sign everything so that MS isn't responsible for any problems.
My home office workstation has a 64-bit processor with 6GB RAM, and every day tasks do seem faster. My dislike with XP is simply that the entire GUI is based off the CPU, nothing is off-loaded to the video card. With a decent GPU, Aero out-performs XP by a significant margin just when dealing with a bunch of open Explorer windows. I can definitely open up to 50+ folders and not have a problem. XP on the other hand will most likely crash at that point.
Playing WoW also is pretty nice @ 1920x1200, dual monitor setup, running windowed. I can check DKP and strats while having a bunch of documents open. One time I actually forgot to close a VMWare environment (Win2k3, Oracle 9i) before raiding and didn't notice any slowdown. On my girlfriend's machine, running the same VMWare will completely render the GUI unusable. This is where Vista really shines.
In fact if I had to choose, I'd take Vista Business any day over XP. Vista Ultimate is a little bloated, with a lot of functionality that people don't need and only serves to slow your system.
But I DO expect stunning performance on a 5 year old computer. I can get that from XP (20 second boot) and Linux (FULL BLAST with Compiz and everything).
* Software I need doesn't run.
* I removed almost everything from Vista while trying to make it run faster and it didn't help.
* I can't get System rights and disable some of the protection crap (like WRP).
* I had to use the command line to set up networking. I couldn't find a way through the stupid wizards. Seriously, starting a wizard from another wizard recursively is the most confusing thing I've ever seen...
* Aero is ugly (the blur effect is overdone) and slow on the same hardware on which Compiz runs just fine (3 year old graphics card).
* Drivers for my soundcard are missing some features that were in XP.
After a month of this, I just said 'NO MORE!' and switched to Linux with XP in a virtual machine. At least it doesn't pretend to be what it isn't.
I have Vista ultimate and I like it just fine. I used XP Pro and XP MCE 2002 and MCE 2005 for a very long time before Vista came out and I actually find Vista to be faster and more reliable than any of those. The trade-off was I had to upgrade my RAM and my video card, but that needed to happen anyway. I seriously don't understand why so many non-gamers loathe Vista. Aside from gaming (drivers) and certain software applications (again, drivers), it runs fine. And as for drivers not working, is that the fault of Microsoft or the fault of the companies hosting the software/hardware in need of drivers?
I have a Creative SoundBlaster Xi-Fi Extreme audio card that does not work well with Vista. It's the drivers. Do I blame Microsoft? No, they have nothing to do with it. It's Creative's fault for making shitty drivers and not inputing the time necessary for making proper Vista drivers. Vista would work great if the 3rd-party software companies would actually make software to support it.
Microsoft made a fine OS and are doing what they can to improve it. But right now, the software manufacturers are not upholding their end of the arrangement to make software that works with Vista. For Vista to be a forward-moving OS, software companies need to adjust their programming to work with the OS, not the other way around.
I bought a boxed copy of Vista Ultimate at a silent auction. It was good thing too, because I've used the repair utility included in Ultimate to battle BSODs on several systems in my office running OEM versions.
Actually, it's not. I was wrong about this to.
You'll note that all the transactions he's noted are marked 'Pre-Authorisation'. That means that Microsoft never took any money in the first place. He just has to wait until the bank frees it up again.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
That's probably part of it. If you look at the prices Apple charge for things like memory and hard drive upgrades, it's obvious that they consider their customer base to be relatively naïve. You can't charge twice as much as a competitor for exactly the same hardware upgrade (eg memory or a hard drive) unless your customers don't understand they're overpaying. Parts sellers often sell the same upgrades for far less than PC vendors (much less Apple), but then there's the installation issue, which can be difficult for some users.
I think the reason Apple can get away with it is because their products are differentiated, so they have more power to set prices than say HP, Dell, Lenovo or Fujitsu-Siemens. Anyone who decides they want a Mac can only buy from Apple, whereas someone who decides they want an HP can buy essentially the same thing from any number of competitors. The result is that, barring users who know how to upgrade these things themselves, Apple buyers have no choice once they've decided on a Mac, whereas an HP buyer can always buy more or less the same thing from Dell, Lenovo, Fujitsu-Siemens or one of the many other PC vendors.
From a business perspective, Apple's management clearly know what they're doing. Even if the underlying hardware in a Mac is mostly the same as a PC, Apple know how to differentiate their products in terms of style and software, so can sell the same thing for a higher price to their target market (ie those who prefer the style or software offered by Macs), and hence earn higher profits. The trouble for the others is this sort of thing doesn't really scale, especially with the software. Software developers may be willing to support two or even three operating systems, but typically not much more than that (which is a major reason why the Microsoft/Intel PC wiped out most of the competitors in the first place).
- per-application volume controls (There is a 3rd party app you can get for XP that does the same thing, (can't remember what it's called)... but Vista has it built-in. And besides, with the XP version, you have to configure each app to work with it before you can control its volume this way
- WIN KEY + <type app or file name> + ENTER -- extremely useful
.. yes, I know Google Desktop gives you similar functionality on xp, but for quick access, you need to push CTRL + CTRL (instead of WIN) ... This is less useful for me than just hitting WIN because during cut and paste operations, I sometimes accidentally hit CTRL + CTRL, bringing up the google search box when I don't want it.
- Windows Explorer has some nice new things like showing the column headers even when in thumbnail mode. This makes sorting by date, for example, much easier in vista than in xp, when in thumbnail mode. Another useful feature XP lacks: right click on a column header and "Size All Columns to Fit". And finally, search being integrated into each explorer window really saves me lots of time.
The downside about vista? Dog slow. I'm a gamer, and I don't like it when my 8 month old pretty-quick-hardware computer can't beat my buddy's computer's performance at Crysis (measured in FPS, using the same video card) --- his computer is running XP and specs aren't nearly as good. Boot time is incredibly slow. I've thought long and hard about switching back to XP. I may switch, may not. There are some really compelling features that vista has that I really like. The trade off is mainly just speed, for me. I don't really have any compatibility issues with vista (hardware nor software).Sorry, but just no. I have a decent new laptop PC (Turion 64x2 @1.9Ghz, 4GB of RAM a 7200RPM Sata 2 drive and the weakest piece is the integrated ATI express 1250.) For most tasks Vista on this PC runs at OK speed. That's absolutely ridiculously inexecusable for hardware of this level to be "just OK" at best. However, if I try to do any kind of file operaiton the thing is an absolute pig. I don't know if its the stupid DRM or what but this machine will sit there and grind endlessly when doing simple copies. So, why do I leave it at Vista, well 2 reasons: I need a MS OS to play some of the games I have and I don't feel like paying for a copy of XP just to throw on here (it came with Vista Home "Premium" pre-loaded.) The other reason is that I suspect XP drivers will not be available for the hardware if I spent the money and bought a copy of XP. What this leaves is I dual boot Linux (I usually use Mandriva but have tried Ubuntu as well) and Vista: Linux for everything but my a very few games and I shop for Linux native clients or beg vendors for them. I have the option of loading Cedega (been a member/customer of theirs for years), but haven't gone that route with the new machine yet.
I work in the IT support depatment of a large council. We do not bother with the OS installed on the boxes we buy. As soon as thebox comes in the door it is reimaged with our corporate XP image through our site licence. No Vista no more. And it is extremely unlikely that Vista will be on our PC's at all given that my employer did not look at NT 4 till '99 and XP only made an appearance due to the fact the new range of PC's our supplier didn't come with NT drivers for the chipset (mid 2005). So as far as I am concerned even that 45% figure is questionable in terms of how many of those computers are actually running Vista as opposed to XP. And I know of a number of people that wipe Vista and install XP, even those that are not tech types, who seem to loathe Vista more than the tech community.
During the invasion of Iraq, their information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, said "Baghdad is safe" and the Americans were committing suicide on the gates of Baghdad. (Think back before the Rumsfeld follies played out, when propaganda was really hilarious.) Recently, al-Sahaf has made a comeback as the new PR and marketing director of Microsoft. Hence, Windows Vista is selling extremely well. No one is buying Mac's or installing Linux. If they do, it is only to jump off a cliff with and commit suicide. Windows is safe.
OEM versions of course, but still, didn't hesitate a moment to pay the Microsoft tax.
I also don't hesitate to pay for new releases of OS X if I happen to have a Mac around at the time. Haven't bothered in a few years since dealing with OS problems on two platforms (Windows, Solaris) is more than enough for one person.
I would even pay for Linux if I felt the money would get to anyone who deserved it. Instead I contribute directly to projects I feel have earned it.
Please take a look at the market share of the different desktop operating systems. Then come back and we talk again.
Quality does not equal market share. ESPECIALLY if there is one company that does have the monopoly and has had it for so long.
I'm running on a 2GHz Lenovo Thinkpad (T43p) with 2GB RAM and a CAD certified nVidia Quadra graphics card. If you consider that "older" hardware, or running under specifications then I wonder what you consider the massive numbers of laptops with Intel integrated graphics being sold in various chains with Vista Home Premium?
Vista, out of the box, is slow. It runs just fine on my dual quad core Xeon (2.8GHz) with 4GB RAM and nVidia 8800GT, but this box cost me an absolute fortune and isn't exactly "portable" (unless you're a body builder)
I have seen ads in newspapers here in the UK where the biggest electronics retailer (PC World) is giving a discount of £150 ($300, give or take) for Vista Ultimate upgrades.
I don't know if that is a big or small discount (I broke the MS habit many moons ago, so I am not very familiar with MS-ware pricing), but keeping in mind that you can nowadays have laptops for £400, it tells me a lot about the state of desperation of companies here in the UK to try to move units of the abomination that Vista obviously is.
But Ballmer thinks we are stupid. Whatever.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I got a Dell machine with Vista (not my fault, I did not have a choice).
I put a live Ubuntu DVD to check speeds and, oh boy, Vista is a completely slow hog compared to the speed of Ubuntu running exactly in the same hardware.
There is a reason for all this: all the unnecessary stuff tossed in top of the OS in MS infected machines, and the fact that Vista is suboptimal (this is so widely documented that is not funny having to reply to somebody who is trying to defend the indefensible).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.