The DRM infection which crippled video play back. And blocked 100% legal content playback.
Not just GPU drivers but sound drivers for things like soundblaster devices.
Broken power savings settings that ate laptop batteries.
A side panel that want a whole core for a news ticker and a clock.
To mention again. UAC which completely blocked MS ability to deploy Vista at the corp level from desktop to server room. ( Yes I know there are ways around this. But not without a ton of work by the admins. )
Lies about "Vista Able/Ready" branding on new PC's.
64bit non-working drivers for most devices. Still to this day some very common devices have little to no x64 support.
-- With all the years of effort put into building this brick of an OS. Don't you think the marketing guys and QA could have done a better job. Apparently not.
I should add. This choice of engine had less to do with technology than it did with time to market for the key platforms. Chrome had to beat ie8 out the door. With ie8 in Alpha-Beta release and the press beating it up it was perfect timing to come out with a browser that one performed way better than ie and two ran on the iPhone.
What no one has noticed is that Google is after the people that spend money. Right now those people are all after the iPhone. Guess which render engine works on iPhone. Guess which one would allow them to get chrome on the iPhone ASAP.
Web Kit also has the benefit of Apple techs making sure that it runs smooth on the iPhone.
Also notice they released it for the most popular desktop OS as well first.
Running web feature rich apps on the iPhone allowing mobile users to buy on eBay, check mail, look at the map of how to get to fancy restaurant X is what google wants you to be doing. It's fits there business model.
They have some fairly obvious business goals here. They give the user something they want that also fits into how the generate money. It's honest it's straight forward.
Well as a Vista user since day one. Both x64 and x86 I can say that Vista for home use is fine. Vista at the office is a nightmare.
Lets expand.
Vista at home turned out to be usable from day 1. There were some largish annoyances. Like the changes to network sharing and the in your face account control which I think is universally shut off by everyone. But for everyday use as an OS that is intended for use as a entertainment system or for those doing things like writing reports/essays etc. it's fine.
Vista at the office is frankly not even remotely usable. First and most importantly the IT staff of every office I have been in, in the last year have no training in the support and maintenance of Vista. The most common slap in the face was that most of the IT staff I have encountered believe that Vista is only 64 bit. This actually shocked me. So the first thing they usually state is that "Our current software will not run on Vista because it is not 64 bit." They are stating this based on the false assumption that Vista is 64 bit only. Staff knowledge issues are the largest issues I encountered. However issues like lack of working drivers, requirement for new upgraded hardware, unavailable working versions of software are all major issues.
Vista in the server room. I just don't have the guts, time or money to attempt that. The OS is no where near mature enough for that.
Vista SP1 we all hope will address the issue of uptake of the new OS. With uptake, the knowledge and support will follow. Lets hope that Vista SP1 does what XP SP1 did. With XP SP1 brought the vendors to the table and support came. XP SP1 was a dramatic improvement to the OS. XP SP2 brought the maturity that the office required. Will Vista SP1 be the sum of XP SP1 and SP2? I hope it is.
Unfortunately it appears that the negative press and Apple and Google's moves in the industry are forcing MS to build the rumoured Windows 7 and put effort into buying their way onto the net with hostile takeovers attempts. These moves can only split MS attention away from Vista refinement. This drop in attention never helps the end product.
The slashdot community has been one of my most referenced sources of information on the net. With SP1 looming on the horizon I await comments as to it's quality.
Absolutely.
We just need one that works. The current security culture is focus'd on lack of trust. Security is just the oppposite, it's all about trust.
Since the major security vendors still don't trust each other we are still in the land of completely incompatable security products. Thus security has not reached that point where it is easy to use and everyone know how to use it.
I've been in the industry for a few decades and quite frankly security firms have completely and totally let me down.
And yes you need security companies, because quite frankly it is impossible for each and every firm to be perfect at security all by them selves. Standards, audits and consulting can all be used to implement the security measures your corp may need far better than they can alone.
I have solved this issue every single time by asking my boss to sign a document that states something to the effect.
"I SoAndSo her by order my staff to install product X even without proper licensing in place."
They every single time back down. I mean every single time.
Yah it can hurt your promotion prospects. But if you like me and refuse to be promoted it's not an issue.
The flip to AIX has nothing to do with stability.
IBM is Qantas's systems support vendor. They actually have the ability to recommend system level changes to Qantas in the Guise of helping Qantas out. AIX also means new P series hardware installations. Hardware installation in the enterprise space are insanely expensive. Since the majority of the cost has support not the actually gear.
This move to AIX is clearly motivated by money. Lots of money for IBM. Qantas was sold the system stability story and they bought it. Now IBM the primary vendor of also the bleeding edge "EQ" system also has more time to iron out the MONSTER bugs with the software system and get to charge Qantas for, system porting, new hardware, systems consultation and EXPENSIVE consultation hours.
The only thing wrong with the Linux installation was that the system builds of Linux being used were not documented at all by IBM. Thus they were impossible to maintain. Let alone build again the same way.
This whole port to AIX stinks of poor management and greed.
Slashdot Mirror
The DRM infection which crippled video play back. And blocked 100% legal content playback.
Not just GPU drivers but sound drivers for things like soundblaster devices.
Broken power savings settings that ate laptop batteries.
A side panel that want a whole core for a news ticker and a clock.
To mention again. UAC which completely blocked MS ability to deploy Vista at the corp level from desktop to server room. ( Yes I know there are ways around this. But not without a ton of work by the admins. )
Lies about "Vista Able/Ready" branding on new PC's.
64bit non-working drivers for most devices. Still to this day some very common devices have little to no x64 support.
--
With all the years of effort put into building this brick of an OS. Don't you think the marketing guys and QA could have done a better job. Apparently not.
I should add. This choice of engine had less to do with technology than it did with time to market for the key platforms. Chrome had to beat ie8 out the door. With ie8 in Alpha-Beta release and the press beating it up it was perfect timing to come out with a browser that one performed way better than ie and two ran on the iPhone.
What no one has noticed is that Google is after the people that spend money. Right now those people are all after the iPhone. Guess which render engine works on iPhone. Guess which one would allow them to get chrome on the iPhone ASAP.
Web Kit also has the benefit of Apple techs making sure that it runs smooth on the iPhone.
Also notice they released it for the most popular desktop OS as well first.
Running web feature rich apps on the iPhone allowing mobile users to buy on eBay, check mail, look at the map of how to get to fancy restaurant X is what google wants you to be doing. It's fits there business model.
They have some fairly obvious business goals here. They give the user something they want that also fits into how the generate money. It's honest it's straight forward.
Well as a Vista user since day one. Both x64 and x86 I can say that Vista for home use is fine. Vista at the office is a nightmare.
Lets expand.
Vista at home turned out to be usable from day 1. There were some largish annoyances. Like the changes to network sharing and the in your face account control which I think is universally shut off by everyone. But for everyday use as an OS that is intended for use as a entertainment system or for those doing things like writing reports/essays etc. it's fine.
Vista at the office is frankly not even remotely usable. First and most importantly the IT staff of every office I have been in, in the last year have no training in the support and maintenance of Vista. The most common slap in the face was that most of the IT staff I have encountered believe that Vista is only 64 bit. This actually shocked me. So the first thing they usually state is that "Our current software will not run on Vista because it is not 64 bit." They are stating this based on the false assumption that Vista is 64 bit only. Staff knowledge issues are the largest issues I encountered. However issues like lack of working drivers, requirement for new upgraded hardware, unavailable working versions of software are all major issues.
Vista in the server room. I just don't have the guts, time or money to attempt that. The OS is no where near mature enough for that.
Vista SP1 we all hope will address the issue of uptake of the new OS. With uptake, the knowledge and support will follow. Lets hope that Vista SP1 does what XP SP1 did. With XP SP1 brought the vendors to the table and support came. XP SP1 was a dramatic improvement to the OS. XP SP2 brought the maturity that the office required. Will Vista SP1 be the sum of XP SP1 and SP2? I hope it is.
Unfortunately it appears that the negative press and Apple and Google's moves in the industry are forcing MS to build the rumoured Windows 7 and put effort into buying their way onto the net with hostile takeovers attempts. These moves can only split MS attention away from Vista refinement. This drop in attention never helps the end product.
The slashdot community has been one of my most referenced sources of information on the net. With SP1 looming on the horizon I await comments as to it's quality.
Absolutely. We just need one that works. The current security culture is focus'd on lack of trust. Security is just the oppposite, it's all about trust. Since the major security vendors still don't trust each other we are still in the land of completely incompatable security products. Thus security has not reached that point where it is easy to use and everyone know how to use it. I've been in the industry for a few decades and quite frankly security firms have completely and totally let me down. And yes you need security companies, because quite frankly it is impossible for each and every firm to be perfect at security all by them selves. Standards, audits and consulting can all be used to implement the security measures your corp may need far better than they can alone.
I have solved this issue every single time by asking my boss to sign a document that states something to the effect. "I SoAndSo her by order my staff to install product X even without proper licensing in place." They every single time back down. I mean every single time. Yah it can hurt your promotion prospects. But if you like me and refuse to be promoted it's not an issue.
The flip to AIX has nothing to do with stability. IBM is Qantas's systems support vendor. They actually have the ability to recommend system level changes to Qantas in the Guise of helping Qantas out. AIX also means new P series hardware installations. Hardware installation in the enterprise space are insanely expensive. Since the majority of the cost has support not the actually gear. This move to AIX is clearly motivated by money. Lots of money for IBM. Qantas was sold the system stability story and they bought it. Now IBM the primary vendor of also the bleeding edge "EQ" system also has more time to iron out the MONSTER bugs with the software system and get to charge Qantas for, system porting, new hardware, systems consultation and EXPENSIVE consultation hours. The only thing wrong with the Linux installation was that the system builds of Linux being used were not documented at all by IBM. Thus they were impossible to maintain. Let alone build again the same way. This whole port to AIX stinks of poor management and greed.