Slashdot Mirror
Vista To XP Upgrade Triples In Price, Now $150
ozmanjusri writes "Dell has tripled the charge to upgrade Vista PCs to XP. Under current licensing 'downgrade' agreements, system builders can install XP Pro instead of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate; however, Dell has opted for a surcharge of $150 over the price of Vista for the older but more popular XP Professional operating system. Rob Enderle says the downgrade fees could potentially be disastrous for Microsoft: 'The fix for this should be to focus like lasers on demand generation for Vista but instead Microsoft is focusing aggressively on financial penalties," says Enderle. 'Forcing customers to go someplace they don't want to go by raising prices is a Christmas present for Apple and those that are positioning Linux on the desktop.'"
Blackmail is such an ugly word...
I prefer "extortion." The "X" makes it sound cool
Most people believe that Windows is synonymous with computers. Being the consumer sheeple they are, they're going to go with what hits their wallet the least—especially in a depressed economy.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
It's so huge and its hold is so strong that even the giants like Microsoft, trying their hardest to destroy it, can't succeed.
Of course the Linux (namely Ubuntu) upgrade is always free of charge :D.
(Somebody had to post it.)
I guess it's too much to ask that they're not trying to force people over to Vista as much as they're trying to nudge people over to their Linux offerings.
Probably.
"Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
Honestly, I don't know what all the resistance to Vista is all about. I've been using it everyday for the past 18 months plus, and I've never had a problem with it, and that's on what was a relatively low-end machine I bought three years ago. All my hardware works fine, it never crashes, and it's easy to use. It doesn't seem at all slow to me, either. And, yes, I also use Linux as my main computer at work. I just prefer Vista for its ease-of-use when I come home.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Well, since it's an upgrade, it's only fair that people should pay more, right?
Merry Christmas and a bottle of rum! But seriously, combined with economic downturn, more and more people will just pirate it.
How do they rationalize it to the consumer, I'm kind of curious, given that they phrase it as a "downgrade"
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Did you forget to tick "Post Anonymously" again, or is this just your idea of humor, especially after posting this.
I can't wait for the Apple ads to make fun of this. People are willing to pay extra to avoid Windows Vista.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
XP is three times more valuable than Vista.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I don't know. It's not red for me. But then again I'm logged in with the "no icon" and "Slashdot Classic Discussion System" options, which makes everything seem to work 10x faster than the new defaults.
I used to use the "low-bandwidth" option too, before I realised that also cut out the polls.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I find it quite sad that Vista to XP has to be considered an upgrade.
As to the financial penalties... well they would work; who actually will fork out all that extra cash? Most laypersons or uninformed small businesses won't bother changing or paying anyway.
I have seen the future: Windows $NEXT_VERSION Milestone $MOCKUP.
I tried it on a low-end laptop with four Core 2 Duo chips and only 8 gig of memory, and trust me: $NEXT_VERSION is shaping up to be one heck of a product.
WordPad and Paint have seen major overhauls to their user interfaces. Forget the freetards and their "distros" full of all sorts of useless shovelware like FireFox" and "OpenOffice" and, haha, "GIMP"! - the bundled software with Windows $NEXT_VERSION is clear, simple, sparse and to-the-point. The much-loved $HATED user interface from Office $HATED_VERSION is now part of WordPad and Paint! It'll leave $LAST_VERSION utterly in the shade.
The controversial Digital Rights Management system in $CURRENT_VERSION has been worked over, with user-downloadable "tilt bits," which you can configure to your own liking. It'll require every user to supply a blood sample for DNA analysis, and the beta nearly took my finger off, but of course that's only if you want to play premium content. The Blu-Ray(tm) of Battlefield Earth was unbelievable on this operating system.
A public beta should be released by the end of this year. There's just no way that Steve "Trains Run On Time" Ballmer will miss the Christmas deadline. The final release should leave the midnight queues on $CURRENT_VERSION release day - the street riots, the water cannons, the rubber bullets - in the shade.
I am so excited about $NEXT_VERSION of Windows. It will go beyond just solving all of the problems with $CURRENT_VERSION, it will be an entirely new paradigm. Forget about security problems, those are all fixed in $NEXT_VERSION. And they're finally ridding themselves of $ANCIENT_LEGACY_STUFF. We have to charge them more for $PREVIOUS_VERSION, to get them to understand just how cool $NEXT_VERSION will be.
Also, there'll be $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM. It'll be awesome!
I wonder how $NEXT_VERSION will compare to $NEXT_NEXT_VERSION.
The biggest inconvenience is having to show up at a dell depot so the can bend you over a desk.
One reason people say Linux has a hard time gaining ground is because it's free so people think it's shit so it has to be given away.
That's partially true. People do believe the cost of something is related to it's value. Well now MS is implying that XP is better because it costs much more to have it. The sad thing is they're probably right in that it is better.
Because you just subscribed to slashdot and now can see posts from the mysterious future.
This won't really apply to home users but for corporate and office users they will not pay $150 to downgrade to XP when they can use the restore WinXP SP3 CD that came with the prior PCs. Long as the PCs have a license sticker on the machine such as Vista or higher they have the right to downgrade for free.
Dell is just milking everybody much as they can and it's wrong. Makes me wonder if this is even legal?
Color me mildly shocked that Enderle, at least in TFS, accurately described the situation.
Does Microsoft charge them more for XP? (Which would be illogical for older software).
Surely they don't prtend that it costs more to dump one image to a drive rather than another?
Costs more because of diver support? Nope, Dell don't write the drivers...
So, I'm confused as to how they can justify this.
Mind you, not surprising from a company that charges the same for a PC with Linux as it does for Vista....
Hehe, I love the way 'downgrade' is in quotes, but upgrade isn't... ;)
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Does this mean it's going to happen this year? not really, not ever in fact. the problem with linux isn't so much techology anymore.... hence why it'll never be the dominate desktop.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
is Rob Enderle right about something?
Do you have ESP?
"to focus like lasers"
Is it just me, or does anyone else think a really smart 12 year old wrote this summary? I have the flu and feel kinda messed up so I might not be thinking clearly but... this just sounds like something from realultimatepower. Right? Somebody set me straight!!
Windows Vista-Compiz Edition
Windows_Vista
Windows 2003 Ent. Corp. SWE +keygen!
Windows.XP.Professional.Corporate.SP3.CLEAN
VLK Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 SP3
Windows 2000 Professional SP4 - Included Serial
No, I didn't...
Anyway, it's no longer red now that I posted.
Oh, I don't know. Now I'd say for $150 you could probably find a local linux enthusiast who would set you up really nicely.
That was not only incredibly stupid, but completely irrelevant.
I waited three years for XP to gain stability, before adopting it. It's not perfect, but it's fine to do some video editing now and then.
It took me three seconds to refuse 'Vista', a marketing stunt wearing new clothing ovr XP's kernel and making it slower and full of odd limitations and asking popups.
I don't buy Microsoft. I don't ever let them force me. Therefore, I don't buy a new laptop because there's Vista on it, not even if they 'let me' downgrade, what a hassle.
Now they want me to pay for a failed OS product I don't want on my new laptop. Then they want me to pay to take that away for an older, less limited version of OS....
AND, they have the face to fight against piracy, as if people was given any other choice to just have a computer that works the way they want. It's the vendor way or no way? Must I click where they say forever or get unemployed and electrocuted?
No. Time for change.
They are fools. The only thing I can conclude is that air must make people crazy down in Redmond and elsewhere somehow other than endlessly arrogant in trying to own people's freedom.
I wish they good luck, but I'll do without them.
While the Microsoft schill, Enderle, might finally be right about something it does raise a major question.
Why do the PC vendors position their products so that Linux versions of their PCs are MORE expensive than Microsoft versions of the same basic thing. This is most notably the case with Dell and Asus.
In the case of both vendors, their Linux offerings are more expensive than their Windows offering. And while some might point out that the Asus EEE Linux version is more expensive because it has an SSD where the XP version has a regular hard drive, it still creates the perception that the Linux version is more expensive AND has far less storage.
Can I get a 160GB Linux based EEE. Sorry, no can do. It is cheaper to buy the Windows version and remove Windows and install Ubuntu. But why?
The conspiracy theorists may be able to argue that Microsoft is behind it in Dell's case but, I can't accept that Microsoft is forcing Asus to do the same. Why are they positioning Linux as the more expensive option?
Forcing customers to go someplace they don't want to go by raising prices is a Christmas present for Apple
/.ers agoing to say "There already IS good Linux for the desktop" to which I say "How about a *nix that's as good as OSX?".
Yep
and those that are positioning Linux on the desktop
Nope
I went to Apple precisely because I got tired of waiting on a good Linux for the Desktop. I know some
'nuff said. Sorry guys, we've been wanting this Linux on the desktop for years now. It's not happening. Thanks Apple!
You may mod me down now.
This is something that can only happen when there is a monopoly involved. If there were a real and competitive environment, a vendor would not be able to do this to their customers without them choosing the competition.
It is so bad, that they aren't choosing competition, they are choosing to keep their previous product. Its pathetic.
Seems like companies will take advantage of the consumer at every chance they get. Obviously your laptop should cost LESS with Windows XP pre-installed as it is a dated product. Vista does have a few valuable features that I believe give it superiority over XP. Fast user switching in Domain environments is a big plus. Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol with their new VPN Client would be a huge bonus to corporate VPN users. However, these are the only two nice things I have to say about Vista, and honestly their is no reason these features couldn't have been integrated into Windows XP. While these features are beneficial to corporate environments, Vista is hardly a candidate for a corporate workstation. Regardless if you have been running Vista without problems, slap it on enough workstations and laptops, and you will begin to see the issues trying to support it. I use Ubuntu, although I was recently employed with a small company that wanted to keep up to date on Windows operation systems so I found myself supporting a number of Vista users. It was definitely one of the busiest jobs I've ever had.
Is what people will pay for it. People will pay $150 to go from Vista to XP. Enough said.
They charge more for XP Pro, so it must be more valuable than Vista. I'll go with that instead.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The aspire one with 1G ram and 160G hard-drive (same hardware), is available both with windows xp and linux, the linux one costs 50EURless than the windows one.
... there, I said it!
I was forced to buy a new computer this summer in a hurry, and all I could get was Vista SP1. Maybe it's just that SP1 took care of the big issues that you hear about, I don't know. But it works just fine, quite responsive, stable as hell, and I haven't had a single problem with it. I turned off all the Aero crap because I just didn't care for it, not because it was a performance issue.
Mostly I'm in Ubuntu Intrepid anyway, but Vista is just the new Windows as far as I can tell - no worse than any of 'em. When I hear some of the stuff people say about Vista, I wonder what they're talking about, because it doesn't match my experience at all.
They should be installing XP as the baseline OS, and charging users $75 to "upgrade" to Vista.
That's just marketing 101.
Salt the XP fields as thoroughly as possible.
Oh, I don't think it's blackmail.
I think for it to be blackmail, there would have to be a formal letter.
If one had XP before, just reinstall it and if it needs re-certifying, just say it's the only computer used, which it is since you got the new machine.
Why anyone would pay > $ 100 for an OS is beyond me - it is a service program!
They may be pushing Vista right now to have another cut on charging for upgrading to the next version - Windows, what is it - 7?
It's all about Money - isn't it?
That's a great point. It's a shame the moderators are racist. People want to buy XP. Microsoft needs new leadership that provides what the customer wants.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Maybe he's just drunk... really drunk.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Vista is to Microsoft as dBase 4 was to Ashton-Tate, a stinking turd. dBase had competition from alternative database vendors and paid the price for producing a turd. Microsoft has almost no competition and can effectively extort money from users for a downgrade as they try to escape this turd.
Microsoft can spray all the marketing turd polish they want on Vista but it will still stink. Hopefully, enough people will migrate to Linux or Apple that Microsoft will go the way of Ashton-Tate (I'm hoping but I'm not holding my breath).
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
they messed up Vista and now thet are charging users 3 times for XP?!!? Who would dare even consider Windows 7 after this?
The goal of the bait-and-switch is to convince some buyers to purchase the substitute good as a means of avoiding disappointment over not getting the bait, or as a way to recover sunk costs expended to try to obtain the bait.
I just finished setting up my girls (7 & 10) PCs, with Linux... Merry bye bye Windoze.
Yes, I did forget to check "post anonymously" like a dumbass would. But, in my defense, I've also lost points for saying that white people can be stupid in comparison to blacks. Also, can we blame with a straight face the current situation of the U.S. on anybody else but good ole' boys?
Microsoft can spray all the marketing turd polish they want on Vista but it will still stink.
Vista, with good drivers, is JUST AS GOOD AS XP.
Is it different, in a way that some are scared by? Sure. If you use XP drivers, is it worse? Yep. But Windows Vista isn't any worse than Windows XP, and if you're getting a new PC you might as well get the new OS as well.
Any turd-i-ness that Vista retains is strictly due to it being Windows.
Just wondering....
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
For $139, I can buy a copy of XP. Why pay Dell $150?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
if you're getting a new PC you might as well get the new OS as well.
As long as the system is enough of a powerhouse to run Vista at anything faster than a crawl. It isn't much worse, but it IS a hell of a lot more bloated, with nothing to really show for it. Like it's just fat for the sake of being fat. Performance-wise, on systems with around 1 gig of ram, the difference between XP and Vista is like night and day.
After all there's no way to legally purchase XP nowadays, so Dell is free to do pretty much everything and claim any amount of money.
Previous poster(s) hit the nail on the head... very little incremental cost, if any, to put XP images on their machines, vs. Vista unless MS' bulk price for XP licenses has gone up. I'm surprised that a handful of people have defended Vista as performing reasonably well, and stably. I fix and set up PCs for home users, and I have yet to see a Vista machine, whether bargain basement warehouse club cheapy, or high-end gaming rig, that didn't pause at odd, arbitrary moments during simple operations such as opening up a folder, or populating the control apps in the Control Panel. The performance issues I described are after I do a thorough performance tuning - putting it in Classic Mode, removing bloatware, using MSconfig to disable all startup items other than the security package, and disabling unncesessary services. I've done perhaps a hundred of my own vista ----> XP "downgrades" (Had customer buy an XP CD) and they've gone rather smoothly, resulting in far better performance. The thing I feared since the day after the official launch (the day I did my first downgrade), are manufacturers that are making OEM devices that go into system boards, such as sound, networking, etc without publishing XP drivers. So far, not so much, with the glaring exception of a Dell Studio laptop with a Broadcom wireless device for which I could only get Vista drivers.
Yet Microsoft not only manage to keep the 7 yr old model the same, but charge $150 IN ADDITION to the price of the new model. Logically, the older Windows OS should be on sale now, in the bargain bins, while the new shiny Vista has the full price tag. Would you expect Photoshop 6 or 7 to be more expensive than Photoshop 9? Trade in Halo for Halo 3 and get some money back too?
If Dell get away with this much of an increase, it emphasises how desperate people are to avoid Vista. It kinda flies in the face of the desperate Microsoft propaganda that Vista is the most popular Windows yet, and that people are loving it.
If XP was open source, Microsoft couldn't kill it off for the sake of forcing Vista sales. The project lives while there are people willing to work on it and use it. People are desperate to keep it, Microsoft's profits over-rule their users preferences.
As a Linux user I hope Dell triple the $150 surcharge, as the higher it is, in this climate.....the more will look to abandon Microsoft altogether; some will find their way to Linux, some to BSD and some to the Mac.
Since when did the Slashdot crowd become Vista apologists?
Not like anyone ever sees AC comments, much less reads them.
Any turd-i-ness that Vista retains is strictly due to it being Windows.
I don't believe a Windows that runs like a dog even if you blow $1,000 on new hardware and that has been designed to allow Microsoft to de-escalate your privileges when it pleases them (turn on full DRM or apply other, stealth "updates") describes XP nearly as well as it describes Vista.
Ballmer should be on his hands and knees begging Allchin to come back. Even promise him a chair on the board, if he can find one.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Anecdotal story: I helped my brother in-law install an XP partition on his laptop, since Vista was crashing (probably hardware/driver issues on a cheap HP laptop).
His comment: "Wow, it's faster and my old games work on it!"
I'd say that unless some magic new feature (which I've yet to see) balances out the slowness and incompatibility, Vista is arguably worse.
Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than XP in a way that can't be tweaked with a registry key or some free add-on? If you say aero then I won't argue, but most sane people use their OS to run other programs, not just a shiny UI...
If MS wants me to upgrade to Vista, I'll do it, once they make it an operating system suitable for general purpose computation.
That means dumping the DRM. I don't want to "take advantage" of any "premium content" on my computer in any event. If I want to, there are other ways to ensure a "premium experience" that I can do myself. I' don't mind "activation" and all that BS, but once the OS is licensed, butt out.
Bottom line: I don't trust an OS that doesn't trust me.
Good ole' boys may have voted for W in 2000 and 2004 and gotten him elected. But it was his daddy's friends (who are anything but good ol' boys) who got him the funding necessary to take a shot at the GOP nomination in the first place.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I've personally never liked the idea of replacing a 7-year-old machine only to get the exact same (or worse) performance.
Is there really any reason to upgrade to Vista (aside from the "we're forcing you to upgrade through lack of support" nonsense)? Upgrading to XP got most (home) users onto the NT codebase, but what does upgrading to Vista really give to end users? That pretty GUI which requires 2GB ram and 3d hardware to run smoothly? Tch. I'll pass, thanks.
In XP all my main apps are launched using Ctrl-Alt-{x}, where x is usually the first letter of the app (T for thunderbird, I for irfanview, N for notepad (well, textpad in my case), etc. Vista has the same functionality of course, but it's no faster.
You do know you can put web items on the XP desktop, right?
FWIW, I like Vista's Media Center much better than XPs version, though it's still a piss-poor attempt at a really good interface, imho (I can only presume that TiVo has the patent on intuitive interfaces). As with almost all microsoft software, it presumes that the only way you want it to operate is the single way the developers envisioned, and that there will never be more than a single person with data on a computer. *shrug*
I'll say that I've seen what looks like a context sensitive network connections on a colleague's laptop, which could be fantastic for those of us who struggle with multiple networks. I haven't played with it enough to know if it works as well as it promises.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
For the first time I wish I could mod +1 Offtopic...
If just as good you mean more resource intensive for roughly the same functionality then yeah you are right. Vista is an unneccesary and overpriced extension of the functionality found in XP. There is almost NOTHING that will run on Vista that wont run on XP. Even the supposed DX10 Vista only games were easily patched to run on XP. Im sure Vista runs fine now, but it doesnt offer me anythign functionality wise to risk the driver and hardware compatibility, not to mention the change hardware-reactivate BS.
Good-bye
I bought my wife a computer for Christmas for around 300 - no monitor.
She asked that I install Linux on it for her.
She wasn't home when I set it up so I decided to give vista a whirl thinking that surely it isn't as resource intensive as everyone here makes it out to be.
This was not a high end system, but a definite upgrade from her old computer. It was a 2.1GHz 64 bit Dual Core Processor with 2 gig of ram.
It was worse than I could have imagined. The only thing that was fast was the boot time but afterward everything was almost non-responsive and did not get much better after all the drivers were installed.
I ended up installing 64 bit Debian Sid withe KDE 4 from experimental.
KDE 4 is blew Vista out of the water in terms of speed. I can't compare much of the features because Vista took so damn long to do anything I finally gave up.
zing!
Microsoft has a huge lead right now and while they are trying to fight back, they just aren't doing a very good job. The American auto industry did the same thing, they ruled the auto industry and now they're grasping at straws just to stay afloat. Is it possible to see Microsoft take a similar downturn? Not anytime in the near future but I wouldn't scratch it out as impossible.
What a sad, pathetic bunch of losers. Vista bashing as some big circle-jerk is your pass-time?
*shakes head*
What is this, 5th Grade?
My bad. I clicked a link mentioning Vista on Slashdot. They really need to change the motto for /. to "Middle-school entertainment for bottom-feeders."
At least you wouldn't be skirting false advertising issues then.
Well, for me the shiny UI is actually useful when I'm trying to find one of about 15 or 20 windows I have open at any given time. All the little windows thumbnails everywhere are dead useful. Aside from that I particularly enjoy the built in incremental backup functionality that is built into ultimate and having search/indexing functionality that actually works and is fast(xp's search never seemed to find anything). Sure, its not the leap that Microsoft promised, some things improved, some things got a little worse, and some things are just different. But in general more things got better than got worse. Thats the way software usually is.
I don't think so. His jive spelling is spot on.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
I've personally never liked the idea of replacing a 7-year-old machine only to get the exact same (or worse) performance.
Amen. I believe this is a matter of cultural momentum. During the early days of PC adoption, you could easily forecast that hardware would become faster, memory would become plentiful, and (here's the important bit) that people would be hungry for improvement. This latter point was a crucial business driver, because there was so much unrealised potential in the PC during the early era. Can you actually write an entire book using a PC for example? You can now, but it wasn't so easy then.
When you look at today's performance and price curves, the forecasts have diverged a bit, and the business drivers will again be that strong. You can't keep adding multipliers to the resources an OS needs, because hardware capability isn't increasing logarithmically any more. And more to the point, the hunger isn't there any more. Superb capability has become a commodity, so there is little perceived need to fund improvements.
The issue with Microsoft is that -- largely due to their size -- they have been working on the assumption that people will always hunger for more, when in fact those needs have largely been met by now. If they really want to remain profitable, they should simply stop innovating, cut their team down to where their momentum is less than that of continental drift, and print copies of XP Pro to people who will still continue to insist on Windows for new computers. The rest of us would be grateful to them if they did.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
At this point, Microsoft can't really afford to flop again like Vista.
If the next Windows OS is a load of crap, computer sellers may as well just start selling mac's with Wine or even Linux boxes with Wine and go "look, it works, it's fast, and cheaper"
In all honesty every place I've ever worked has been a one-generation old Windows OS + one generation old Microsoft Office + several inhouse programs or third party applications that make very little use of the Win API outside of MDI+GDI, of which at least one runs in the web browser.
As long as Wine can do all the 32bit office (Office 95 to 2000) applications, people will use whatever they sit down in front of. When it starts getting into slow ass interfaces, people start complaining that the computer is too slow.
Hell I'd have been happy if Microsoft had released windows 2000 and never upgraded a damn thing in the UI, we'd be on SP10 already.
There are some fugly patches done to the OS by some clients (like this one that controls something on one huge RF oven) that can't even use hardware newer than a Pentium Pro. I can't imagine how much money gets wasted doing this wierd crud to Windows when they can just do it to linux instead and stick the server in a closet somewhere.
Suddenly I wonder how many times he has anonymous racist conversations with himself, such all the anon's that reply to this.
I look after a small business in-house(30 people). I am the go-to guy for IT, small apps, and web.
Vista was a disaster for me. Especially for laptops. Just a few examples that spring to mind:
- Outlook 2002 no longer saved passwords. Had to enter each time. Upgraded these to 2003 to fix that problem(there are third party plugins to handle the password for you, *thats* how pervassive this prob was).
- Delta Copy(The rSync client for windows) had all sorts of problems. Email notification still does not work but I work around that.
- USB peripherals would slaughter these machines(SP1 seemed to fix that).
- Connection to Samba shares broke. While any fix now is a quick google search away, at the time, this caused a lot of pain. For weeks.
All the time, the managers that did not care and I got them XP based laptops, well, between 6 XP laptops, the only problems have been the typical ones("I lost my tool bar").
World War One was about trench war, where the commanders in Paris had no clue of conditions.
Thats me....in the trenchs, wading nostril deep though mud, blood and guts each day. Dont tell me how fucking marvelous Vista is.
Vista is the S-mine of my existence.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
What's also dreadful about it is that it's an excuse for your inability to get your ideas over. You convince yourself that it's not that your ideas are wrong, or that your arguments are weak, or that your communication skills aren't up to the job. No, it's because people are sheeple, so it's not your fault.
He can't...he threw them all out the window.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Most people will not fully understand and just eat the cost and move on.
Its how several industries operate ( like cell phones ). If people got a clue, they would be toast.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And that was written as a surprise of some sort? That is a pretty well established way of forcing upgrades.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yeah, Windows Vista in a virtual machine running atop ubuntu linux on my machine (2GB RAM, fast I/O, 1.6Ghz dual core) is slower than almost every version of Windows before Vista running on my same machine in virtual machines.
Windows 7 beta is somewhat better, though, because when running in a VM it is much faster than vista with half the resources, default settings, and incredibly fast-yet-shiny although the VMWare display drivers were funky running on it.
Why? Because most buyers don't know what's good or bad about either of them. And they probably don't care. They should, but they don't. And if you tried to explain it to them they'd glaze over in 15 seconds and tell you it doesn't matter either way. The sad fact is that most buyers are happily stupid and if their PC doesn't work at all 50% of the time, or worse, it crashes completely and won't function at all, a goodly number of them would take weeks if not months to get it corrected.
I have three Dell computers, all with XP installed from Dell (Pre Vista), NONE of which were installed correctly. Two wouldn't allow any drivers to be installed for any hardware (Fire-wire cards) and one that was just kinky. All were fixed by wiping the drives and reinstalling the OS. Using the repair function of XP wouldn't work. I'm guessing that they need the extra money to train their techs how to do the downgrade.
have you ever seen a dog run? they're fucking fast!!
It's fair enough that they charge for an **upgrade** - upgrades are normally not free. It would be different if they charged for a **downgrade**, i.e., in going from XP to Vista...
Aack! s/"the business drivers will again be that strong."/the business drivers will never again be that strong/.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
But Vista is pretty, and then it crashes...
How much was the Mojave upgrade? It's spoken so highly of on TV by real experts. Yes sir, it sounds like MS really hit the mark with that one.
-- Posted from my parent's basement
"'Forcing customers to go someplace they don't want to go by raising prices is a Christmas present for Apple and those that are positioning Linux on the desktop.'""
I've heard this argument before but it just doesn't make sense. Here's why:
I am a computer user that uses windows. I can buy a machine with windows, a good one, for $500 or less. But its got, vista, I don't like vista. So what do most slashdotters think will happen next?
1) abandon windows and buy a mac that costs twice as much as a windows pc
2) abandon windows and buy a cheaper pc running linux
3) user buys vista machine for $500
I would say a normal rational shopper would go with number 3.
Here's why 1 wouldn't be an option.
It is irrational to pay twice as much for a computer that does basically the same thing and has a much different interface.
Here's why 2 wouldn't be an option.
The shopper is less likely to find a computer running linux for sale in a store or online, if they weren't specifically shopping for a linux pc. In addition, if they knew anything about linux they would realize it can't run word, internet explorer, itunes or most of the other programs they want without a high level of expertise.
Here's why 3 would be the choice:
Its available. Vista is easier to transition to if you are already familiar with windows xp. The price is cheaper than mac. You can run most of your programs you want on it.
This is probably a redundant remark but I have to agree with the moderator. Why cant Microsoft ( or any other software maker) focus on improvement of a great products rather foist a Hobsons choice on the consumer, which is to say force consumers to pay a premium for an obsolete o/s rather than make a significant investment in a product that forces you change out nearly all your hardware and a great deal of your software in other to make your computer operate with barely tolerable proformance.
[rant]I've helped two friends with low end vista laptops. Both were unbearably slow without turning off aero. UAC dialogs popped up whenever you needed to do anything related to system configuration and on one of the systems there was about a 1 second delay per UAC dialog because popping a UAC dialog caused a temporary video mode change. Perhaps there is such a thing a Vista box that works well but I'm not going to pay money to anyone to have UAC boxes pop up when I need to do something. I'm also not willing to deal with a machine where administrator is not really administrator.[/rant]
I thought Vista (6.0) to XP (5.1) is a downgrade
Brandon S.
Amen. XP is the primary OS for millions (Billions?) and does everything that most of these millions want. The problem stems from Microsoft being a public company, the shareholders expect (demand) something as fantasic as little Billy's first win with WIndows 3.1.
Time has passed, OS is no longer the core of innovation in computing science. Microsoft needs to learn this lesson before they end up like IBM of 1988, holding a bag of blisteringly expensive technology that fits the needs of a prior decade.
Then again, IBM is back, with an entirely new business model, and may eclipse Microsoft in stock valuation - as of Friday Microsoft had a cap of 170B, while IBM had a CAP of 110B and six times the Earnings per share as Microsoft.
It might not be a bad idea to think short-selling on MSFT in 6 months when they finally pull the trigger on XP and execute the "Peoples Front of Judea" plan.
I've been trying to convince colleagues that it is actually cheaper to buy a Mac than a PC. The Mac has nice bundled software that is ready to use instead of the Trialware that's bundled on PCs. So far, the ones that are reluctant to make the switch are the system builders who want to build their own systems.
I had a non techie friend who bought a HP system over Thanksgiving holiday with Vista 64-bit preinstalled. What he failed to realize was that his existing software will not run under Vista 64-bit. His software is pretty recent, but they just wouldn't install under 64-bit. He wanted to use wireless at home, but the USB wireless device he had did not have a Vista driver. He thought it was time to upgrade his wireless so he bought one at Best Buy, but only to realize the driver only supported Vista 32-bit. He returned it and bought an adapter that cost twice as much but would run under Vista 64-bit. He later realized that he was getting slow (< 1 Mbps) throughput through his router. There may have been incompatibilities with the wireless router he had, but he soon realized that he was spending lots of time and spending more money trying to get the Vista experience. After a few trips to Best Buy, he ended up purchasing an ethernet cable for his new PC. I spoke to him a few days later and he decided to just return the system since he couldn't get any of his software to run. Not exactly a user experience people want.
A new network stack complete with native IPv6 Support?
Afaict this does not reffer to a change of price on models that were previously offered with XP but the offering of XP on a range where it wasn't offered at all before.
Remember to get XP you have to pay the extra for a buisness or ultimate license (unless the machine comes with one of those editions as standard) as well as paying any extra the OEM decides to charge for doing the downgrade for you and shipping extra media.
Anyway I decided to take a look at the laptop they linked in the article to see what the real situation was.
They don't offer this machine with undowngraded vista buisness but comparing with other machines it seems the price breaks down into about $100 for the upgrade to vista buisness and about $50 for the downgrade to XP.
Is $50 a bit steep for shipping an extra dvd and loading a different hdd image? probabblly but dell have always charged over the odds for extras on low end machines to make up for the low base prices (for comparision it costs $30 extra to get a different color lid)
P.S. dells site for those machines is misleading. The buttons all say "extra $150" but when you actually go into the customisation pages for the models that ship with home premium as standard the extra cost of XP is only $120.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
You guys are right, Vista isn't so bad. I guess that's why MS is ditching Vista already and there is such a loud consumer outcry for extended XP support.
What's that? Vista has auto-complete and support for the windows key!? WOW! What new and exciting usability features!!
The problem was Vista was
1) sold too early before drivers were ready
2) oversold on marginal machines
3) sold with requirements that were too low
4) Should have been sold as 64 bit computer only OS that could run 32 bit software
On modern machines with at least 2gb of ram with any modern video card, it runs fine. 2gb of ram costs $30 now.
Windows 7 needs to be provided free to people who have windows vista.
If that's the case, when are we going to get some good drivers for Vista? I got a new PC and gave Vista an honest go. I used the drivers as shipped on the PC (tested by the manufacturer to be compatible, right?). It was crap. It was slow. It crashed during the install of Office 2007, repeatedly. I wipe XP and put the same software back on and it's quick. It never crashes.
I gave Vista an honest week and determined that it sucked.
I also installed Office 2007 and after a few days of adjusting I decided that I liked it so I'm not just anti new software.
I thought Dell 'got it' and was behind those of us that want XP instead of the nightmare that is Vista. How can they be raising the cost of older software?! Makes me sick. (They do run deals with no upgrade costs *sometimes* as far as I know.) On a side note: It was $99 before for the upgrade/downgrade to Vista, how is $150 three times the previous cost? I've worked on many a Vista computer (including beta testing back when) and I've never liked it, and have really grown hate it. What a waste of power. On a brand new system, "Please wait while Vista tests the performance..." Are you kidding? Nice out of box experience. Simply transferring files can be such a pain and so slooooooooow. UAC triggers a gag reflex.
Do or do not. There is no try. --Yoda
LOLOLOL YOU FUCKING DUMBASSS!
-signed a slashdotter who has been here 8 years and has NEVER been bitten by the 'check anonymously' bug
I've never had a problem with it, and that's on what was a relatively low-end machine I bought three years ago. All my hardware works fine, it never crashes, and it's easy to use. It doesn't seem at all slow to me, either.
So in other words, your defense of Vista is, "it runs" - pretty underwhelming. But at the end of the day, Vista offers no compelling reasons to switch from XP, and several reasons not to - bloat, DRM & peformance.
I can name a few...
* Win64 support (which, while technically possible in XP, was mainly experimental)
* Incremental backup
* Desktop searching (and no more search dog thing)
* Spyware removal
* Full disk encryption
* DirectX 10 (especially its ability to open 3D contexts in more than one app at a time)
* Better security through UAC, no more accessing other apps' windows, etc.
* Sync services
* Showing all windows at a glance (like Exposé on OS X)
* Superfetch
Vista is the superior OS in every way to XP. I would not ever go back to XP after using Vista.
The magic new feature is support.
Windows 98 did die out because it was broken, there were plenty of after market software solutions that could more then make up for any of 98's downfalls. But then companies like Avira and Mozilla go to Microsoft to get support insight and help integrating their products into Vista and all the sudden the coincidence of ending the life of the windows 98 support for a lot of the products. They same happened with windows 2000 which technically should be able to run almost everything XP could. SO your right in that XP might not be missing anything. It won't become functionally obsolete, it will just get left behind in some sort of unconcerned move every software vendor will make to newer MS products.
In other words, there will come a time when you need something and you will end up having to upgrade to get it or the free and open source products like Mozilla will just ignore the platform and no one with the skill will pick it up.
yeah, but, with respect, you can tweak vista in about 5 minutes (google it) and you'll get all that performance back (and in fact, vista is really quite KDE like in a lot of ways). it's not hard.
the main act of Supreme Retardation by microsfot was in selecting the default settings that vista uses. it seems maximized to piss people off. i agree you shouldn't have to tweak them out of the box. (XP also requires tweaking to get huge improvements, though not as drastic).
also, don't be mislead by vista's memory use. it's doing much smarted things with memory than XP does and does not signify sloth. google "superfetch".
I often run on a similarly spec'd machine to yours and it's absolutely fine, and benchmarks the electro-magnetic simulation software I use in the same time as XP on the machine.
Interstitial spaces are filled with cream.
My laptop is a two-year-old beast. It is many times the minimum spec for Vista.
It's not a cheap POS, it was a high-end Dell laptop. They sent me a $10 upgrade to Vista because it came out a month after I bought it.
I ran it for a bit, but it was slow. So I ditched it and went back to XP.
I reformatted XP recently, and decided to try Vista again. After all, they had their service pack out.
It wasn't so much the slowness (which had been fixed... if you turn off most services) as the fact that it crashed every day. It would out-of-memory me with no programs open, close Aero, and give random errors. Webpages wouldn't render properly, windows would persist over each other... It was bad
There's no excuse for this. And I didn't have a memory leak, either - task manager didn't have me over about 700MB RAM.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I've seen Vista running fine on a laptop with slower processor, and only 1GB RAM. Not sure what's wrong with the setup that you tried.
I strongly suspect that it is a marketing move to get rid of the somewhat tainted Vista name. According to various reports from people who have seen the previews, Vista => Windows 7 is not a bigger change than Windows 2000 => XP. So Windows 7 could also be named Vista SP3 ;-)
C - the footgun of programming languages
OSX and Linux are just as snappy without a gig of pre-caching...
My "new" notebook... granted, it's essentially a budget notebook... came with Vista x64. When I load updated Intel drivers for the video chipset for Vista, the result is high CPU utilization for that video driver... My system feels somewhat sluggish... more sluggish than I'd expect for a T5800 (2ghz@800mhz fsb), 4gb ram, 250gb of hd, etc...
Load Ubuntu 8.10 on it and it feels more responsive. I'm certain if I could move it back to XP it'd run faster than under Vista... however the licensing I have won't allow for that...
I work with a very large government department who is only now upgrading to XP from 2000. With MS' help and blessing. So MS still supports XP, if you are a large enough customer.
A full (not upgrade) XP license and disk can be bought as little as $13 academically. $25 if the University is price gouging. NO BS.
A 64-Bit OS that can address my 8GB of RAM and has drivers supplied for it by almost every company? I dunno, that's why I put vista-64 on my latest Desktop. I use it mostly to run office and VM-workstation with windows server products as a testing environment (and several flavors of linux).
With a 9800GT, a Phenom 9650, and 2 SATA disks with 8GB of ram, it seems to run fine to me.
(My laptop runs Linux, my macbook runs OSX)
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
How about the automatic resolution feature. I had an issue with Skype crashing and Vista prompted to look for solutions, normally I wouldn't go along with it as I am perfectly capable of doing some troubleshooting since I'm a tech by profession. This time I went along with it and it suggested upgrading skype and even made that simple. XP would have left you out to dry. For some that's a valuable feature I'd say.
So, sheeple don't exist, is that your point? Remind me of your position on the very day Windows PCs cease being infected my malware and ratware; the malware and ratware currently being installed because sheeple just must have their porn, or just must respond to that phishing scam promising $8,000,000 USD.
The flaw in your argument, if it could even be classified as such, is that you're ignoring *all* of the evidence that proves the existence of sheeple. Want an example with a catchy tune, to help you remember it?
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/big_box_mart
I saw my post judged as flamebait, it has now moved on to something more appropriate, IMHO.
In a Quixotic fashion, I have to wonder why claiming that the XP downgrade can only happen in a monopolistic environment is flamebait.
Here is my reasoning: In a competitive environment, vendors don't have the luxury of customers asking for a prior release. Customer's say F*^&K YOU and buy your competitor. They don't, in this case, give you MORE money for an OLDER product. Seriously? Really? Can I have that business model, pleeesseee?
Microsoft through its defacto and proprietary standards hold your data and interoperability hostage. If you bought into Microsoft's product portfolio, you basically sealed your fate. Any purchase of Microsoft "now" will have payments later. You can pay a little on a regular basis to maintain, or you can suffer the balloon payment and cash out of the Microsoft tread-mill by transfering all your legacy data a more standards based system.
This opinion is supported by all the various anti-trust actions against Microsoft. If stating conclusions supported by multiple courts of law in the U.S.A. and the EU is flamebait, then I think the definition of flamebait has changed in the last 10 years.
I don't see everyone's problem here. You pay more money for a better product :)
*runs*
Filling you car with fuel $50.
Purchasing a laptop for Christmas with Vista preinstalled in it $799.
Disgusted with Vista, so need to downgrade to WinXP $150.
There are some things money can buy, for everything else there's Linux.
IBM can sell a mainframe with half the CPU power of the average desktop for more than a million dollars?
Because Microsoft doesn't support its product for more than six years. That's why.
If Microsoft actually had a clue about what their enterprise customers really needed, they could have run IBM out of business years ago. Instead, they're too worried about cloud computing... whatever that means.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
...XP is lightning fast, especially if you do a completely clean install. As for an 'integrated desktop search', use Google Desktop.
I had Vista and it drove me nuts: weird slowdowns, hangs, slow launches. You can keep Vista. XPSP3 is so fast and responsive, why would you want anything else?
NOTE: Beware of the OEM XPSP3 installer; its license will not transfer to a different machine once it is authenticated. Better to install XPSP2 and upgrade with the SP3, then install all your other stuff.
Ask Me About... The 80's!
You do know that OS X is Unix, right? Certified, verified and labeled as of 10.5. So, no, Linux is not a better *nix than OS X, Linux is your preferred operating platform as compared to Apple's flavor of Unix.
As for "missing" particular tools that you rely upon, well... I can sympathize there. But, in truth it's really just a matter of preferences. I like the way that Terminator behaves on Linux than on OS X. I also miss htop in place of top. But, again, those are preferences. For the most part, almost anything you need is invokable (with a quick apt-get/port), scriptable or buildable via source.
I support all the Macs in a (rather large) school district and, with the exception of ARD for package management and ASR for system imaging, rely more on my Linux laptop than I do Leopard Server. But, that's because I can use my laptop in the field. Most of what I really have to do involves SSH anyhow, and I'm finding that there's a certain amount of charm to my 24" iMac w/ 9 virtuals via spaces with terminals tiled all over the place.
Anyhow, please stop the fud. Most any *nix app you need is available on OS X and, if it isn't, you can always roll your sleeves up and either compile or port it yourself. All the tools necessary are readily available.
But, once and for all... OS X IS Unix.
#SickNotWeak
Does anyone know a cheap source for legit XP Pro licenses, apart from peeling stickers off of trashed systems?
Hopefully, by the time XP support gets dropped, Firefox will be onto version 4.0, all my apps will run in it, and I can fully boot into Linux distro-of-the-month if I need to run something like a media player or a game (Steam?). Gmail? Online apps? Web-based IM? Yeah, the desktop OS is getting less relevant every day.
On ethanol?
...and if you're getting a new PC you might as well get ....
A new Mac with OSX. Then you get Linux's big UNIX brother to play with, but also many more programs than Linux will run. However if you REALLY want to run programs that are available for Linux, you can get most of these for the Mac OSX also. If you are addicted to Windows games, install your current copy of XP in a bootcamp drive. You can also learn about Linux by installing it in a VM on the Mac. It is possible to run OSX, any copy of Windows and one or more of the various flavors of Linux all on a Mac. A powerful Mac, such as a Mac Pro with 4 or more GB of RAM is the equivalent of 7 computers in one box. It will run all of these OS at the same time and allow the user to witch between them instantly.
On a 500GB HD there is enough room for many VM files, such as DOS/Win311, Win95, Win98, Win2000, Win XP , VISTA and UBUNTU Linux all running under OSX. Even a Mac laptop with OSX will run any of these one at a time, in addition to some normal OSX programs.
All theory is gray
Dell has been phasing out the number of CONSUMER options that could even get XP pre-installed since Microsoft EOL'ed XP. My company spends about 100K a year on Dell hardware, and I haven't purchased a consumer class PC for my employees on Dell's Employee Purchase Plan that they extend to their medium sized and above clients. Last I looked, they offered a low end Inspiron desktop, a high end XPS, and one 15" unimpressive laptop in their EPP that came with XP. Most of the machines I've purchased on behalf of employees were desktops that were in between the overspecced XPS and the underpowered Inspiron - nothing in between. I complained to the EPP rep 8 months ago about it and he said that's the way it was. I haven't purchased an EPP machine from him since.
Now I suggest a medium spec'd business class Vostro unit for someone looking for a new machine, if for no other reason is the hardware is comparable if not better then the Inspiron consumer class, and the support is US based, rather then overseas based which is where all the consumer line support goes, and I can get much better prices from my rep then I can from the EPP guy. Some of the Vostros can be configured with medium end gaming class video cards (Nvidia 8800GT) which will get by for the few people who have kids who want to play the occasional game or two....
On the Business lines (Vostro, Optiplex, Latitude, etc), the XP "downgrade" is still going for $99.00 and comes standard on every machine we order (Vista and Vista SP1 choke on two particular apps used in our environment) .... and frankly, my rep likes me....I get the hardware at prices much, much lower then the configured list prices...which is why we still buy their hardware.
A list price $1350.00 usually gets to me under 1K.....overnighted....
Just install Ubuntu. Then download VirtualBox from www.sun.com. Then install XP or Vista within Linux and boot up only when you need to run something that requires windows, like games.
:)
Spend your days surfing the internet on the Ubuntu side, safe in the knowledge that you won't get any viruses. Only load up Windows when you game. I have been doing this for 6 months now. Everything runs EVEN smoother than it did when I used Vista as my primary OS. Plus it is so funny seeing windows booting up within Linux as a B*tch OS. Windows becomes the Biatch of Ununtu. Problems Solved!
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
In all seriousness, I thought the "Linux on the desktop" model was dead several years ago. I can see how Enderle's point applies to Apple, but it seems an enormous stretch to predict that consumers will generally examine the desktop market as it exists today and opt for Linux over Vista, XP, or OS X. I realize Linux has gained ground in the netbook market and done well when debuted on systems that used customized distros. What's the larger picture?
i'm having trouble seeing where they made the jump from "dell decides to charge" to "microsoft's fee". OEMs have the option, there is no MS fee. just like end users have the option, and businesses and so on. dell is basically charging more, because instead of using one image per model, they're using two. and that should be ok ($150, i don't know about that), but can someone please explain how this is a microsoft fee? or is this just another chance to blindly bash microsoft?
not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
...Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than XP....
That question might be re-stated: Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than Mac OSX?
I still have an iBook G4 that came with OSX.3 originally and was upgraded later to 768M of RAM. Since I had bought a family license of OSX.5 (leopard) for our other Macs, I decided to upgrade the G4. It runs faster and better now than when it was new. This is also the case with our original Mac mini, which is now used for music and video, driving our 47 inch LCD television. Also, the same scanner and printer drivers that worked with OSX.3 work just the same with OSX.5, which is not the case with old XP drivers working on VISTA.
Any time you upgrade old hardware with a newer version of Windows, performance drops significantly. The only way you can get performance back up, is to throw or give away the old hardware and buy a new computer. When you buy a decent name brand (not the cheapest junk available) new computer with VISTA, its performance is about the same or slightly better than the old one with XP. The biggest reason why Microsoft does this, is because they make most of their money not from user upgrades of their OS, but from the manufacturers of new computers. They force the users to buy new hardware, so that they can run improved software. So, if forced to buy a new computer anyway, to run VISTA, why not get a Mac and be done with malware infested Windows forever? It seems that some of the smarter people out there are coming to a very logical conclusion. This is why, even in a recession, the more expensive Macs are still selling well.
All theory is gray
Are other OEMs (HP, Toshiba, Sony, etc.) raising their XP downgrade pricing as well? If it's only Dell then it's likely just a result of Dell seeing XP demand decline, as opposed to Microsoft raising the fee to try to force people to use Vista.
Driver virtualization
Use of a window manager (i.e. virtualization of windows)
WDDM
Windows Colors System (very useful for color printing)
Hybrid sleep
and Paint got a lot better
(I'm am OSX user BTW)
I'll say it: Vista is an underrated OS; I'd take Vista over XP any day of the week. A $500 laptop can run Vista without too many problems now--that wasn't the case when it first came out, which is what killed the OS. If you value gaming and security, however, Vista over XP is a no-brainer; what is more, there are some really nice Vista features that most people are completely unaware of, such as speech recognition. With that being said--since I do understand technology--I would much prefer building, or even buying an AMD/ATI desktop with Linux for half the price of a Dell. It's ironic that Microsoft built its empire on senseless marketing now that it is being destroyed by it.
All this tells me is that people prefer xp over vista. But then, I already knew that.
One word: games
Otherwise I'd be using Ubuntu.
In all seriousness, why in the fuck is anyone still quoting Rob Enderle?
That man has proven time and again and again and again that he has no fucking clue of what he's talking about.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Well, you can add IPv6 to XP pretty easily (although I have no idea if it works well or not).
Microsoft was never about customers. It was always *ALWAYS* about shareholders and CXO's. If it costs more to go back to XP, then I say YES! I wouldn't even be unhappy if Dell charged $250 (pocketing at least another $100 for themselves) for what is about 2 minutes worth of work. They could install Linux instead for $2. Just trying to be helpful.
You must doing something wrong, though I'm not sure what. I've got Vista running fine on a similar setup. If it's non-responsive, you're either in a VM or you have to deal with some background processes - probably indexing or updates.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Ten years, here, and neither have I. Of course, I just never bother to post stuff that I don't want linked to my UID.
Put identity in the browser.
Windows 7 - they're focusing on better performance and compatibility.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Areas that XP still needs development:
1. File system is still a sewer. This includes showing unnecessary files, being unable to re-organize programs, the slowness of search, fragility of ailases and links, drive naming conventions, etc.
2. Lots of aspects of networking and wireless networking are unnecessarily complex and useless.
3. At least 4 separate locations where startup items can be stored / triggered.
4. Still terrible search after all these years.
5. Can't add folder shortcuts to the standard save-as dialog box.
6. Still can't shutdown cleanly. For that matter, why should shutdown take 4 or 5 minutes?
7. Still architedted for weird driver conflicts if you happen to switch wireless card manufacturers frequently.
8. Uninstall is terribly designed *and* terribly implemented.
9. The registry must go.
10. How many control panels does one computer need? Why are administrative tools not under control panels?
11. Really need standardized, easier way to manage startup applications.
The ______ Agenda
I am skipping this blip in the upgrade cycle and will buy the completed product, thanks. I am currently awaiting Windows 12, which I hear will be super awesome cool, with a whole new filesystem and icons and stuff. Maybe even the fabled 2-player Solitaire. Till then I see no reason to change from 3.11 WfW (especially since the newer windows have less graceful file copy error handling).
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
A new network stack complete with native IPv6 Support?
You mean - the one that's giving connection problems and slowdowns with non-vista networks? Yeah - great one that!
The momentum of continental drift is immense
Yeah... but running Vista is something different than using it. Try running Office on top of Vista on that same computer and you are in for a nasty surprise...
I have Vista since what now, 8 month ? and i get irked that I can't go in suspend modus (eah, yeah it could be that the driver from the mobo are crappy, I *DONT* care, all i see is a blue screen each time i go into suspend). And then every time I want to see a detail lsit instead of the frigging icons I have to change the settings. And I don't get by default the name+size+date displayed, sometimes those column stays empty. *THAT* is enough to make me cringe. And don#t get me started on the other hardware problem support.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Uhm... Wasn't the reason people hate linux that they have to google around for fixes for things that should work out of the box, and wasn't the great part of Windows that every end user can just use the computer without having to tweak it...?
its WAY better than XP. i got an hp laptop with 2gb ram and 2.4 core2 duo. i got them hp guys to downgrade it to xp sp3 for 500 bucks(indian rupees). massive pain. wpa2 didnt work, bluetooth would detect my e71. also, it was no faster than my year old toshiba laptop with 512mb ram. then i installed the vista business cd that came with it and voila. decent bootup(45 seconds from shut down, 3-4 seconds from sleep), wpa2 and everything just works, and i get the beautiful ui. the search built into the start menu is great, just like launchy. its also stable as hell, i've never shut it down in the last 4 months, something i couldnt even dream of with xp OR ubuntu. copying huge iso files to my external backup is 3-4 times faster and in xp it used to slow down the other programs too. in conclusion, vista beats xp to death. period. but i have ZERO idea about osx so i cant compare.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Uhm ... comparing apples with apples ... if Linux is pre-installed on a machine like Windows normally is, end users will have a near-identical experience with each one ... everything will "just work" every end user can just use the computer without having to tweak it.
If one has a random bare machine and a Windows install disk and also a Linux LiveCD install disk ... then for ease of use today the Linux experience will beat the Windows experience hands down no contest. For a start ... only the Linux LiveCD will let one test the machine to makes sure everything will work before you attempt to install it. Linux will not ask for CD keys, registration or activation. Linux will let you have as many user accounts as you want, and any version of Linux will work with business networks. Linux will work for vastly more hardware out-of-the-box than Windows will.
Pretenderle is going anti microsoft now?
I must have slept over a season or two.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Hmm,
if GP has it in a VM I would consider that his fault. But if it is the indexing (plausible, since other sources have reported Vista does a lot of that in the first days), I call it bad design. Because a background process should not slow down the user interaction much.
Then again, the previews of Windows 7 are said to be much better in that regard. Seems that problem is finally on its way to be fixed.
C - the footgun of programming languages
and is called "essential", though you can work the computer without it (Linux).
I don't see this as any different from the mouse. It's no longer a peropheral, it's central to the use of the system. Especially Windows. Try running without one.
all of which is completely true, except if the piece of software you need to make your living only runs under windows.
it's been said many times, but really the only thing holding linux back from (plucks number from air), say, 30% market penetration is industry specific software.
in the main market where it really competes on apps, it is doing very well (servers + database).
Interstitial spaces are filled with cream.
Not meaning this to troll, but have you used virtual desktops? If you're on Windows XP, VirtuaWin works great. If you're on Vista it...sort of work. I've been addicted to virtual desktops since I first used linux on the desktop, and it's VERY hard to get any work done in Windows since then. The taskbar should have been removed in favor of desktops back in XP, let alone Vista coming out and still no virtual desktops...
"I have yet to see a Vista machine, whether bargain basement warehouse club cheapy, or high-end gaming rig, that didn't pause at odd, arbitrary moments during simple operations such as opening up a folder, or populating the control apps in the Control Panel. "
I have Vista Ultimate installed on three systems, a dual-booted Mac Book Pro, and 2 desktops that I built.
The MBP is a core 2 duo with 2 gigs of ram. I am running the 32 bit version. No problems. One of the desktops is an older system, also running 32 bit vista. . .
a single core athlon running at around 2 ghz
2 gigs of ram (333 mhz)
nforce 3 chipset
2 150 gig hard drives
old gametheater xp sound card
agp nvidia 7800
This system is not stable. It randomly freezes. When not frozen, it runs quite well. What's the problem? It was stable, previously, with XP. . . last operating about 7 months or so before the Vista installation. Guess what, the problem is not Vista. It seems the northbridge fan has stopped working, so what I have is a thermal issue. No
The second desktop, I am running 64 bit Vista.
Phenom 9850
asus 790FX MB chipset
asus 3870X2 video card
4 gigs 400 mhz ram
2 hard drives, a 10,000 rpm 150 gig, and a terabyte 7500 rpm. . . OS is installed on the 150 gig (nothing else)
onboard sound
Hauppage TV card
two monitors (at different resolutions)
LG blu-ray burner
This system is the most stable system I've ever run. It never crashes. It loads fast. It multi-tasks well (I can watch TV on one monitor and play new games like fallout 3 on the second, and it runs smoothly). The biggest problems I've had with it are the motherboard sounds drivers and a networking issue. Initially, surround sound didn't work. And, that was a pain in the ass fix. I had to find other MB manufacturers that used the same chipset and keep installing and uninstalling drivers until I found one that was completely functional. But, that's not microsoft's fault. The networking issue has to do with Vista's sharing parameters. It's just annoying. But, once I got that configured properly, it worked reliably.
Overall, I'd say Vista is a nice improvement over XP. It's more stable for me than previous systems that used XP. It requires less tinkering. The mediacenter features are nice. It looks pretty. It's a good, but not perfect, computing experience. Could I get the same functionality with XP. . . probably, it would take more work. Could I get the same functionality with linux. . . probably, it would take more work. I'm happy with Vista.
I've been doing it for years. That OS is called Linux.
Yes baby! Is 2009 The Year of the Linux Desktop?
Funny, since XP had a 64 bit edition as well.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
- Winston Churchill
I think I disagree with pretty much all of those. I'm using XP right now and after trying Linux, Vista and (briefly) DesktopBSD I came to the conclusion that no matter how "technologically superior" a particular design was, all that mattered was that the programmers made it work.
I'm sick of seeing the powerful program managers like gentoo's portage not work because people can't be arsed to check their packages compile in enough conditions. Yet at the same time Windows installs and uninstalls with clockwork precision, however shoddy and "messy" it appears, it can't be denied that it works, reliably, pretty much constantly. That's just one example. But I remain convinced that what's important is that they make stuff work...
With that in mind, there's only some stuff that I'd change. The little dog being one of them, I'd like them to push out an updated install disk with drivers supporting machines made after early 2008, native 3D after installation and not having to hunt after network drivers was one of the main attractions of Vista. Well, that's pretty much it actually. There's already support for IPV6 in Xp, although I've heard it's rather badly implemented, patching it might be nice.
How do you kill that which has no life?
that's what he was implying dumbass.
Christmas has been canceled, and government spy satellites are reading your thoughts.
What is the thought process behind this level of OSS zealotry? Does anyone actually think the average person that buys a Dell computer is going to be so incensed they can't pay whatever price to "upgrade" (hahahah) to XP that they install a Linux distro or is it a convenient fluff piece to throw in the usual LINUX ON THE DESKTOP tripe? I'm sure price-conscious consumers will totally go for Apple.
Talk about a transparent spin piece.
I recently bought a "Vista Certified" Dell, and the performance is really, really good. No, seriously, I'm like that commercial where everyone is like "Zuh!?! This is Vista!?". Take note, my other machine is an iMac, and I *love* OSX. I can say that I really like Vista. I'm really satisfied with everything I've seen in the OS. With the Yahoo Widget managers I've got it acting just like OSX's Dashboard. Even some of the widgets are the same. Vista doesn't have awesome apps like VisualHub, but I was happy to find they now have a DVD Maker, Movie Maker, etc all built in which surprisingly work just as well as iDVD and the OSX counterparts.
Long story short, Vista works GREAT (In my experience.) on "Vista Certified" machines.
This still ends up with it being Microsoft's fault. The strong point of PCs have been that you can buy your own hardware, but this is biting them in the rear. They need to test every configuration under the sun with Vista.
Only reason I have vista is because I got it for free through the Computer Science Program (MS Academic Alliance). Otherwise my box would be running just Linux, or XP/Linux.
"hardware capability isn't increasing logarithmically"
I thought that the CPU speeds still were, or the transistors on a chip were. But the real bottle neck is the memory latency, which increases massively, in getting instructions down the pipeline to the cpu. Can anyone commentÂ
Why is this still so hard for them when the commmunity has 99% of all the issues sorted already?
Wrong question. It is more related to the support issues when they try to run Turbo Tax on their new PC and it doesn't run. The correct question is;
Why is this still so hard for them when the commmunity has 30% of all the software issues sorted already?
WINE and Codeweavers is only part of the solution. Linux versions of the commercial packages is the other 70% still needed. Customer education is a huge part of the solution. They look for Roxio. CD burning being part of the file manager is alien to them.
The truth shall set you free!
The main problem with people who want to do a manual XP install on a new PC is not being prepared spec-wise before doing it. They think they can just buy any old off the shelf system and boot from an old XP disc they had from years ago and that's not the case. The first issue is SATA drives. XP doesn't natively support SATA drives from the install CD. On most Dells you can bypass this by putting the controller into compatability mode in the bios but once set if you try to revert back to native mode it will bluescreen at boot. If you know the exact SATA controller, you can slipstream the drivers into the install CD, but that requires some expertise to do. Second, peripheral drivers. It is getting harder to get drivers for lots of things (especially laptops) for XP. If a system came with Vista-64, the manufacturer may not even have have 32 bit Vista drivers. If I can get ahold of a user before they make their purchase. I'll try to tell them to buy a straight Intel system. Intel processor and chipset. For those systems the drivers are typically available from Intel or as an alternate Dell who has XP driver support for all of their Optiplex systems (which you can usually reuse the drivers for another Intel system). Lastly is the audio. New systems use the new Microsoft HD Audio bus, which is available as a hotfix, but onboard audio chipset makers like Sigmatel, Conexant, Analog Devices don't typically host audio drivers on their site, and if you load similar drivers from another manufacturer, you may find that some ports on the computer don't function or the mixer may be messed up. So I can understand Dell starting to charge more since they have to grease the wheel with the hardware manufacturers to get driver support.
That question might be re-stated: Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than Mac OSX?
Not having to buy from Apple.
I don't know why this is shockingly new. If you want to use a product that is no longer supported, you need to pay a premium to continue that support.
IBM does this ALL the time for their supporting older versions of WebSphere, their AIX OS, and their Tivoli line of products. I'm not surprised and if the rest of the worlds continues to want support for XP, they should pay for it or move on. Even in the hardware area, if you want to continue support on older hardware (4+ years old), you typically pay a premium that is an order of magnitude higher than the current generation of hardware. Just look at the cost of DDR(1) memory or AGP video cards and you'll see that you pay more.
I suggest moving to an OS that as a base user/desktop crowd can jump onto for free like Linux, particularly Ubuntu where there is a flourishing community of people that are willing to help with your problems.
Was that fixed in XP SP1 or something? because I have a spare Windows XP Pro SP1 install disk here that I bought a while back, and it works fine with my SATA drives... I only had issues with a proprietary Intel Raid controller (but that came with the floppy...so I just need to make sure I have a floppy for the install)... Any insight?
If your wi-fi card doesn't yet have linux drivers, you can always try NDISWrapper
http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/
No sig for the moment.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Cause I'm pretty sure that's what we'll see here in not that long if this keeps up.
And, btw, XP is still supported. It's also got greater market demand than Vista. So there should be no 'premium' charge for customers that still want it. May be when there's only 5% of the market left wanting it (may be), but not when there's far more than 50% wanting it.
The whole Vista fiasco (aside from the sticker labeling issue, which is already a Class Action on its own) should result in a big Class Action against Microsoft.
If the market doesn't want your product, then there is no way you can rightfully force it on them (unless you are the government, but that typically leads to revolutions against the government or a mass slaughter by said government).
Luckily I am a Computer Science student and get Vista almost for free (I think it's about 20bucks). My University also notebooks at a discount. You can buy all of those notebooks for at least 150bucks less if you don't buy the vista license. Unfortunately it fails to install the students version of vista, XP works fine though. But this is not a problem for me because i use Linux almost exclusively.
My main point is that is the Vista 'upgrade' really is just not worth the trade off. Indeed there are real functionality upgrades to the UI. There are a number of nice things for enterprise environments in the OS. It can actually look pretty cool.
But bottom line is that an OS should be functional first and foremost. And the added functionality that Vista provides does not offset the functionality it takes away for most people.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
An important point not really mentioned much is that, from what I can see, this is an increase in the amount that Dell charges to do it FOR you. The right to downgrade still comes with an Ultimate or Business license...you just have to provide your own install media and contact Microsoft's activation hotline to get an install key.
At least, that how it was a few weeks back...MS tends to change licensing rules a lot...
I wonder if Microsoft calls the Vista-to-XP conversion an 'upgrade.' Technically, it's a downgrade, but considering the astronomical suckiness of Vista, yeah, I'd say that's an upgrade. Effing hilarious.
> Under current licensing 'downgrade' agreements, system builders can install XP Pro instead of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate; however, Dell has opted for a surcharge of $150 over the price of Vista for the older but more popular XP Professional operating system.
Yikes! $150 over and above Vista's already inflated price structure? For all that cost just to get an OS that works, it's worth considering... Ubuntu is free.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I did. And I got a nasty surprise indeed - I was expecting to get something to complain about, and the bloody thing worked perfectly fine. How can I fit in with the Slashdot crowd if I actually used Vista and it worked?!?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I used XP 64 once. ONCE.
Driver support was terrible, it was pretty bad at running 32 bit apps. Although the OS itself was faster, that's not very useful if there's nothing to run on it.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
That question might be re-stated: Can you name a feature that makes Vista better than Mac OSX?
It's cheaper.
And I never thought I'd get to say that about Vista, either.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Parent is more correct than they realize about "The Second Issue". Not only was there "the lack of obvious improvements" for Users but it is true for the Developer. Parts of the system and subsystem seemed to be complicated and harder to work with but there appeared to be little to no improvements. If your software depended on a simple Windows Service and a Control Panel snap-in in XP, your work just got a lot harder to do exactly the same thing in Vista. Just like what happens with UAC with Users, Developers lament why they are pestered with hurdles for things that used to be consider trivial.
This creates a doubly toxic situation where users and developers why some things they used to do take a lot more or work and a lot longer to do. When both see this, neither are going to rush into the product.
Biggest I can think of is forward-compatibility. It's no longer trivial to upgrade to XP 64-bit, which had shitty support anyway. Vista 64-bit is better than XP 64-bit, and it does kind of irk me that over half a gig of RAM on this machine is unusable on XP 32-bit.
Of course, sumdumass is right -- the support is the killer feature. Eventually, there will be no more critical security patches for XP. If that happens, what, do you expect the community to pick up the slack? I suspect most of them would rather work on ReactOS or Wine.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Then you get Linux's big UNIX brother to play with
Flamebait. Perhaps OS X is "Certified UNIX", but in the ecosystem of modern Unix, it's just a particularly strange BSD. Personally, I prefer Linux to BSD for many reasons.
but also many more programs than Linux will run.
Also flamebait. Many Linux programs have been ported to OS X, but not all -- it's an off-the-cuff assumption.
Perhaps you meant to say, many more shareware or off-the-(store-)shelf products. That would be accurate -- there is far less commercial software for Linux.
A powerful Mac, such as a Mac Pro with 4 or more GB of RAM is the equivalent of 7 computers in one box. It will run all of these OS at the same time and allow the user to witch between them instantly.
How much RAM to each, I wonder?
But here's the point: A powerful PC is cheaper. So long as I don't need to run OS X, I see no reason to get a Mac Pro -- and just about any other OS will run in a VM, as you've said. In fact, with Ubuntu, dual-booted XP, XP-in-a-KVM, DOSBox, and Wine, I rarely miss a Mac.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It was worse than I could have imagined. The only thing that was fast was the boot time but afterward everything was almost non-responsive and did not get much better after all the drivers were installed.
To be fair, my Laptop (on which I normally run 64-bit Ubuntu 8.10), a T61 with a 2Ghz Core2 and 2GB of RAM, has Vista Business installed on it, and while it took a fair bit of tweaking to get things smoothed out (turn off Aero and which to classic win2k GUI, disable the disk defrag service, disable drive indexing, and a whole host of other services that I didn't need), the machine now boots up fairly quickly, and actually gets to a usable desktop *faster* than Ubuntu. It also sleeps/wakesup more or less instantaneously, and hibernates flawlessly.
Of course, I'm an old Linux diehard, so Ubuntu has the applications I want, a desktop environment I prefer, and so forth, so I use that as my regular environment, despite it's failings, such as a lack of hibernate support, and resume support that's a tad flakey. But for the few times I do need Vista, I find it actually works quite well. *But*, it does *not* work well out of the box.
Okay... So a Windows based provider giving multiple options to a customer looking for a Windows based computer will cause cause disaster to Microsoft simply because one of the options is about $150 more than the other? It really doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't the customer likely choose the other option (being Vista) before choosing Mac.
...It's cheaper...
Only if your time is worthless. Cheaper doesn't mean better. You generally get what you pay for. Pay less and get less. Even so, a computer capable of decently running VISTA isn't all that much cheaper either.
All theory is gray
I am a Vista hater after experiencing it, though I would agree the "memory hog" critiques are somewhat off-base. Vista is good at pre-catching. And the fact it is using 1 or 2 gigs "doing nothing" isn't a problem.
What is a problem is that Vista is flat-out stupidly dog-slow on a computer with less than 2 gigs and no ReadyBoost. It doesn't matter what memory Vista is actually using, it is just SLOOOOOOW... That kind of resource intensiveness is obscene.
I love how Vista's interface works like a cruddy web browser (i.e. IE) on a slow Internet connection (everything is always "loading..." :)
...So long as I don't need to run OS X....
Nobody NEEDS to run any particular OS, but if you have a Mac there is NO software you CANNOT run -- period. Of course anyone who want to write programs for the hot selling iPhone or iTouch MUST run OSX, because these use a pared down version of that OS. If you want to run OSX on your cheap hackintosh, Apple will not send their lawyer-dogs your way. They just don't like others making a business selling OSX for non-Apple hardware.
(...How much RAM to each, I wonder?...)
The Mac Pro will accommodate up to 32GB of RAM, but you must not be a poor person to afford that. I bought 2ea 2GB x 32bit additional memory modules for about $70 ea and so now have a total of 6GB of 64 bit RAM. It is nice to keep an 800MB+ picture file entirely in memory in Photoshop and still run XP and VISTA at the same time.. XP runs fine with 512M and VISTA gets 2GB all to itself. I use XP regularly, VISTA just to learn about drivers and security. I have explored UBUNTU 8.04 a bit just to learn a little about it, but do not use it for any work. It is still in a VM on the 500GB HD. Safari, Mail and Skype are usually running also.
All theory is gray
1. File system is still a sewer. This includes showing unnecessary files, being unable to re-organize programs, the slowness of search, fragility of ailases and links, drive naming conventions, etc.
Agree in part. I like to see all files, from personal preference. Unless you're discussing false hits on search? The rest of it seems to work ok for me.
2. Lots of aspects of networking and wireless networking are unnecessarily complex and useless.
Lots of aspects of networking and wireless networking are still not standard. Hiding the technology from clueless users may still be a good thing. As long as I can get a command window and ipconfig etc. I'm happy.
3. At least 4 separate locations where startup items can be stored / triggered.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't see it that way. Although it would be nice if VMS-style logical names were part of the mix.
4. Still terrible search after all these years.
Download the new version of Microsoft's desktop search. I'm finding it better than Google Desktop, my previous favorite.
5. Can't add folder shortcuts to the standard save-as dialog box.
Yes that kind of sucks. Not worth moving to a new version to get them though unless they add better file system versioning options, my opinion
6. Still can't shutdown cleanly. For that matter, why should shutdown take 4 or 5 minutes?
Depends on a lot of factors, the primary one being purging cache to disk, and the harder job of relating all the marked pages to threads in memory to find out where they all go. And there are a lot of marked pages after a long session. Remember the threads are effectively pushed out when IO's are scheduled, with nothing more than a stack reference to point to where they belong. You really don't want incomplete IO's published to disk before you shut down. The more memory, the more threads, the longer this will take. If the entire file system were character based and log structured like Unix, this probably wouldn't be a problem, but the file structure seems pretty fundamental. Or at least, they saw this in Longhorn but weren't able to deliver it.
7. Still architedted for weird driver conflicts if you happen to switch wireless card manufacturers frequently.
Sorry? I've been down a long chain of wireless hardware and they can't even agree with themselves, much less the OS manufacturer. Many well known names in communications suck when it comes to wireless hardware. Need a few ARRL engineers in the design shops, imho.
8. Uninstall is terribly designed *and* terribly implemented.
Blame the software manufacturers, they write these things, not Microsoft. They each seem to have their own way to do it.
9. The registry must go.
Why? It's heaps (sorry) better than the previous method of having thousands of little conflicting .INI files everywhere. It's slow to edit, but fast to access -- it's just a keyed virtual array to the system.
10. How many control panels does one computer need? Why are administrative tools not under control panels?
You may have something here, it's a legacy application. The control panel was a response to the original Macintosh control panel "applet". MMC might be a better interface than going back to the basics here.
11. Really need standardized, easier way to manage startup applications.
The startup folder is pretty simple, but I too would like an easier way to pass arguments to the calling program, without having to create a fresh shortcut and go through all that. Something like dragging a line of command text to the startup toolbar and putting it in startup with a right-click option.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
You mustn't have bought a Mac before. I can get a very, VERY good Dell for $2000. An equivalent Mac is $3000+.
I don't think my time is worthless, but I don't think it's $1500 worth either.
(And in the Apple world, "you get what you paid for" doesn't apply. With Apple, it's "you get half what you paid for").
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Its one of the best things to happen to OSX and linux yet. keep going micro$oft
Damn. Who on /. gave mod points to a bunch of Windoze fanboyz? Any bets the negative mod points came from Micro$oft sheeple who probably don't even know what dBase was let alone have used it?
Oh well. Looks like I started a good discussion.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Precisely. Also because they want hardware support out of the box without any effort, and application compatibility.
It's somewhat ironic to watch Vista struggle in a position so similar to the one Linux is in...
Tell us, how epic was the face-palm when you realized you didn't post anonymously?
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Y'know... if your main advantage point is shortcut keys... you can make your own in XP. If Vista has some by default, that's all fine and good... but my XP has about a dozen shortcut keys or so doing what I told them to open.
...in the Apple world, "you get what you paid for" doesn't apply...
That is possibly true a the lower end garden variety consumer computers, not for top of the line professional machinery. Even so, I did look for a long time at Apple's refurbished list until the system I wanted came up one day. I jumped on it and got my dual-quad core system for $2400. including shipping. It came with the same warranty as a new one and has worked flawlessly since I got it.
All theory is gray
There are some kernel improvements for example I/O priority. Low priority process won't slow high priority process for disk read/write.
if you have a Mac there is NO software you CANNOT run -- period.
It's true that there is more software you can run, but that shows a bit of a lack of imagination. For example: Can you run mobile apps on a Mac? How about a Windows driver for some archaic piece of hardware?
Of course anyone who want to write programs for the hot selling iPhone or iTouch MUST run OSX, because these use a pared down version of that OS.
That wouldn't prevent Apple from releasing the developer tools for another OS, so I can develop and test (with emulation) on Linux or Windows, and deploy on an iPhone. I don't know if they've done so.
Of course, that's sheer fanboyism -- there's still Android and Symbian. I'd much rather develop for Android, even if it means a smaller audience.
XP runs fine with 512M and VISTA gets 2GB all to itself.
Thanks. I've got 4 gigs of RAM on this laptop, running Ubuntu as a host OS (it's not an acronym, by the way, you don't have to spell it UBUNTU) -- looks like those will fit comfortably, if I ever need them.
And I do have an XP license, so the only OS I can't run on this is OS X. I can't be bothered -- I'll borrow a friends' Mac if there's something I desperately need to test, and pretty much all Mac software I care about exists for XP.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!