You know, I hate this rant. Look, you bought a computer, and windows was what you bought with it. If I buy a computer from Dell, I can't buy it with no RAM (at least not for most of their consumer products), or return the RAM saying I want a refund. I bought a computer system. Same as I can't buy a Nokia phone without the software that comes with it.
The problem is not with the return policy on windows, nor the "bundling" as you call it. The only way that this is a problem is if Microsoft is coercing the manufacturer's into using only Windows. Consider Microsoft an outsourced manufacturer of a part for the PC, like RAM or a HD. It's really not their problem if Dell or HP or whomever uses them as the single source vendor for that particular part.
Does this decision allow for a bid from all competitors or just SFL? The translated story is not very clear on that matter.
Quebec courts have always been quick to rule in the favor of local interests. If anyone can submit a competitive bid then justice has been served, but if it's only the SFL then the corruption is on the side of the courts. Would this have been accepted if it was a french version of REL?
Bill Gates for everything else about the man, was about making things usable for the average person. Did this always work? Nope. Did they cut a lot of corners out of laziness? Yup. Did they do illegal things with their monopoly? Sure did. Was adding IE one of them? Not from their point of view.
From their point of view, they created software to fill a need their customers wanted. ActiveX, piece of trash? Yup. Made to destroy other browsers? Not likely. ActiveX was a lazy way of fixing a complex problem. They had a lot of that over the years.
People make it sound like they went out of their way to destroy Netscape. I don't think that was the case at all, because what would they gain from it? Windows was already dominant with no other competition in sight, and they didn't sell IE. The more likely answer is they went to make a better experience for their users, and Netscape being ruined was an unfortunate side effect that frankly, didn't matter one way or another to them.
I can honestly say that of the places I've contracted at, small to medium businesses are the more likely to want support contracts. See the big companies assume their covered. The little guys like the assurance of one less thing to worry about. You may think you've convinced them that they don't need that support contract, you haven't. If you start trying to convince the owner of a company that they don't need support, they start looking for a second opinion because the idea that you don't need support goes against common sence.
At to the point about firefox, firefox and open office are 2 rare apps amongst thousand of open source apps. 2 amongst thousands doesn't make a pattern that supports your arguement. I hope more open source apps reach the critical mass of those 2. I really do, but let's not take 2 fringe cases and make an arguement out of them.
P.S. It's always better to buy support contracts because support is cheap. Not buying support means that 1) you have an internal resource spending their time on something 2) the cost to the business of being down. I'm sorry, but when I buy from a vendor It's their job to know their software and someone who deals with it 100% of the time is likely going to be able to fix the problem faster than someone who spends 20% or less of their time with it.
The problem to that is a matter of perception and money. It's not that there aren't other viable options, it's how people perceive those options. When you talk to a manager in a mid to large size business, every last one of them is aware of VMware, and every last one of them is aware of Hyper-V because MS was so vocal about it. You may see some Fortune 500 guys who are big Sun shops that may talk about OpenBox, but that's not the norm.
So when the higher ups go out for lunch, are they talking about the open source virtual server? Probably not. They're probably talking about VMware or Hyper-V because that's what their friends companies are running.
Also, when was the last time an open source vendor took a higher up to an expensive lunch or on a business trip?
The worst part about corporate IT purchases is that they rarely have anything to do with quality or return on investment. They're usually made on a recomendation of a friend of a higher up, or back room deals. How many times have you seen a CIO go on an expensive all paid "business trip" from a company and all of a sudden you have an exclusive deal with them?
I doubt most people would notice. When people click on something like that and nothing happens, they just assume it can't be fixed, not that the tool itself is broken.
Think of how many times they've run across a fix button that does nothing in antivirus and antispyware software. People just shrug their shoulders and go on.
Mind you, not a good attitude to have but people have it anyways.
Actually, I did the whole test and did it in 42 seconds on 3G. Here are the results:
14 seconds to load the apple iphone page (the main google page loads in about 8) 10 seconds to load my location on gps 10 seconds to load a pdf attachment from an email (exchange, 100KB pdf) 8 seconds to call my house (I dialed it directly).
The same test took about a minute an a half on wireless (my iphone doesn't gps well on wireless and took over a minute).
My iphone is not unlocked either, and I am on Rogers in Canada. Maybe our 3G is different, but I doubt it. Also, the same pdf from a pop3 account took 36 seconds, so that might also make a difference.
Computer makers have never switched back to offering earlier versions of Windows before.
At almost every other point in time there were 2 versions of a windows OS selling at the time. With XP you could buy 2000, 2000 and ME were available at the same time.
Also, never in the history of windows has backwards compatibility been broken like this before. Windows programs had garbage design for so many years (fault of developer, not microsoft). It was laziness. Easier to just design crap than to use proper security. Security is beefed up (which is what people wanted) and now improperly designed programs don't run.
Performance issues are MS's fault and need to be fixed. Badly designed software is the fault of the develop and needs to be fixed. Vista's problems need to be fixed by both, as application compatibility is the #1 reason I have heard from my clients as why they won't move to vista, followed by performance as a close second.
The ideals of the unions are excellent ideas, but so is communism. Unfortunately, both are affected by corruption equally. This world is all about corruption.
Now, I don't know where you live, but I live in a union town (Our primary industry is the auto industry, but we have other unions as well). Union people (at least around here) have a false sense of entitlement. They believe that every union job should pay them $30/hr to put together a couple of plastic pieces, when they make $12-15. Oh and they expect that $30 with a grade 12 (or less) education. These are not hard jobs, and by no means call for $30/hr. That's why a minivan costs you $20k.
Union people also don't understand business fundamentals (or if they do, they don't care). They believe in things like seniority not the best person for the job. Over time? Not without pay. You're paid you 5, you leave at 5, not 5:01, which is not always possible, especially when a critical meeting runs 5-10 mins over.
The story I will always remember is of this one "gentleman" who got in trouble for coming back later from lunch. When the individual was written up, he waited until the supervisor left his office and pissed in his desk. Yes, that's right, pissed in the supervisors desk, and he got caught doing it to. The gentleman was fired. Since he was high up in the union, the union went at it with the company and the guy was hired back. Again, he came back from lunch and was written up, this time he punched the supervisor though and the union couldn't save him. Is this why we have unions?
I'm not saying unions don't do good things, but due to corruption they are a mockery of what they are supposed to be.
I'm not arguing the technical merits of the OS. I believe that every OS has it's place, and each of my 3 computers runs a different OS (Mac Mini, Vista Laptop, & Solaris Server).
What everyone around here seems to forget is the windows 3.0/95 "OMGz, I wantz that" factor that was had on the general public. There were other alternatives at the time: DOS-based menu-managers, Apple, and OS/2. Heck OS/2 Warp even ran all my windows 3 apps. OS/2 was an amazing operating system that blew win95 out of the water at the time. But like I said, people chose windows at the time.
I'm not arguing that the illegal tactics helped keep them in a position of power, but a lot of how they got there was with a product that people wanted, even if it wasn't a good one.
f Microsoft's dominance had anything to do with software quality and not with barely legal tactics of coercing OEMs into bundling their and their software only, sabotaging Windows so it would not work properly with DR-DOS, and generally abusing one monopoly to create more monopolies, your comment would have some measure of correctness.
You're missing the point. It had nothing to do with tactics. Look, I hear this all the time and it's wrong. If the people buying the computers didn't want MS products then none of your so called illegal tactics would work. If there was a viable alternative at the time that people actually wanted, then the manufacturers would have told MS to piss off. Know why that didn't happen? Because people wanted Windows. Know why people bought MS-DOS instead of DR-DOS, because they wanted Windows. Spew all you want about illegal tactics, and openness and everything else, people wanted Windows, and that's why it succeeded. It may not be technically the best, but it was what the people wanted.
To this day, Dell could tell MS to piss off. Actually, they kind of are because they are selling laptops with linux. People don't care. Be it familiarity, ease of use, technical reasons, or just stupidity, people still want their Windows.
Use what you want to use, but don't blame MS because others don't make the choice you do.
You know ubuntu is absolutely ready for the desktop, the laptop is another matter altogether.
I have install ubuntu on several dozen desktops, and as you say the hardware support has been fantastic. On the dozen or so laptops, not so much. When a desktop is put together, you can frankenbox it if you wish (mix and match parts to be on the linux HCL), this is not always possible on a laptop. Most laptop's from the major companies have limited options when it comes to the hardware you can change. So if I want a Dell laptop in the $800-$1000 with such and such options, I may only have 1 choice for a video card/ wireless card/ sound card.
Perfect example, on my current laptop, I needed to compile a new module into the kernel to get my built-in microphone working. Now, I could see that if it was bleeding edge hardware, but it's a regular old built-in microphone.
No argument with "Linux is ready for the desktop". Big argument with "Linux is ready for the laptop"
So why people harp on "Linux is difficult to install?"
I'll tell you why. I have a Dell Inspiron 6400 with an ATI graphics card. When I went to install ubuntu, the install won't even come up. It kills X right away and there's an extra 20-30 mins involved, and a bunch of commands you have to type, and that was after I found the solution rather quickly. Now, what I had to do to fix the problem was not terribly difficult with the docs in front of me, but I couldn't have left it to my wife (who has done some of our XP installs).
Now, with windows, everything may not have been perfect, but the install would have happened with basic drivers like vga. It wouldn't have died before the first screen.
I'm sure someone will make some comment about hardware compatibility or this being ATI's fault for drivers. And you know, you may be right. The problem is, I don't care. I don't care who's fault it is that it happened, and neither do most people. The laptop didn't do that in windows, and it did in linux. Linux's fault from their point of view. I'm personally not going to let that deter me, but a lot of others would.
Another question is, what the market share of office 2007 vs an ODF compliant suite? If there's 10 million people with ODF capabilities, and only 1 million with OOXML, doesn't this make sense?
The question is not how many now, but it's how many will there be 5 years from now.
Yup, and VB is the killer. Should it be? probably not. It is though.
I am the first one to admit there are a million better ways to do things than VB macro's in excel. However, when you have enterprise reports that have to go out, and the person who runs them is a twit who likes to fiddle because "they know IT", you'll know why excel macros are beautiful. Management should put restrictions on these people, but when they won't, a solution must be found.
It is HP's fault in a way. HP has an international # that the other poster should have been directed to. It's not like he wanted it shipped for free, he was willing to pay the shipping costs.
Why this is HP's fault is because of the fact that they push sales on their technical calls. I'm sure the tech agent was more than happy to sell the previous poster a copy of windows. Would the agent have given the international number if they weren't pushed to sell? That's for you to decide.
Don't rush over to Vista just yet. 90% of the new features I'd gather are more suited for a corporate environment (Aero and games aside).
If you really want a true feel for what the new interface is like, play around on an OSX system for a bit. The features are basically the same with some implementation differences.
It's not DRM it's file quality. It's about erroring bits, which should be shrugged at by XP, but cause the video to come to a grinding halt in Vista.
The black screen issue I've never experienced on my mac. It is a huge problem though as it is a guaranteed reboot.
As for paying for vista. Will I pay for it? I will, and won't think twice about it. It's a business cost. I'm in the support side of IT. My business is Customer Service and Support (I don't work on the Help Desk, but my work directly relates to their ability to support people). I have bought every copy of windows, I own a mac, and I have 3 - 4 *nix systems (At the moment 1 solaris, 1 red hat, and 1 slackware). Is vista going to be good for my users? I think it will be. I wouldn't replace a mac or a *nix system with it, but I am definetly looking forward to upgrading some of my XP users when the bugs are worked out and it goes live.
The windows vista still has some major issues. I understand that it's just a beta, but there are still some major bugs to be worked out.
Current Problems:
1) Not all wmv, avi, or mpegs play properly. Some of them can take 5-10 minutes to load and then give an error. The exact same file plays flawlessly in XP
2) IE 7 needs has some compatibility issues. I understand that some pages have issues as they were designed for IE 6, but when Firefox and Opera render them correctly, that's an issue
3) The new file system.....garbage......I don't need to be babied. The simplified file system is nice for normal users, but I want an option to have full control over my file system.
4) I like the fact that an instance of a program dies when an error occurs, instead of the whole file system, but an error message would be nice.
5) Sometimes when the processor usage gets high the screen goes black and won't revert back. That may need to be fixed.
There are some nice features, but they have a lot of work to do before this thing is ready.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I hate this rant. Look, you bought a computer, and windows was what you bought with it. If I buy a computer from Dell, I can't buy it with no RAM (at least not for most of their consumer products), or return the RAM saying I want a refund. I bought a computer system. Same as I can't buy a Nokia phone without the software that comes with it.
The problem is not with the return policy on windows, nor the "bundling" as you call it. The only way that this is a problem is if Microsoft is coercing the manufacturer's into using only Windows. Consider Microsoft an outsourced manufacturer of a part for the PC, like RAM or a HD. It's really not their problem if Dell or HP or whomever uses them as the single source vendor for that particular part.
This sounds like the start to a slippery slope. Phoning home has been a major complaint about windows systems.
Does this decision allow for a bid from all competitors or just SFL? The translated story is not very clear on that matter.
Quebec courts have always been quick to rule in the favor of local interests. If anyone can submit a competitive bid then justice has been served, but if it's only the SFL then the corruption is on the side of the courts. Would this have been accepted if it was a french version of REL?
I think you misunderstand the original intention.
Bill Gates for everything else about the man, was about making things usable for the average person. Did this always work? Nope. Did they cut a lot of corners out of laziness? Yup. Did they do illegal things with their monopoly? Sure did. Was adding IE one of them? Not from their point of view.
From their point of view, they created software to fill a need their customers wanted. ActiveX, piece of trash? Yup. Made to destroy other browsers? Not likely. ActiveX was a lazy way of fixing a complex problem. They had a lot of that over the years.
People make it sound like they went out of their way to destroy Netscape. I don't think that was the case at all, because what would they gain from it? Windows was already dominant with no other competition in sight, and they didn't sell IE. The more likely answer is they went to make a better experience for their users, and Netscape being ruined was an unfortunate side effect that frankly, didn't matter one way or another to them.
I can honestly say that of the places I've contracted at, small to medium businesses are the more likely to want support contracts. See the big companies assume their covered. The little guys like the assurance of one less thing to worry about. You may think you've convinced them that they don't need that support contract, you haven't. If you start trying to convince the owner of a company that they don't need support, they start looking for a second opinion because the idea that you don't need support goes against common sence.
At to the point about firefox, firefox and open office are 2 rare apps amongst thousand of open source apps. 2 amongst thousands doesn't make a pattern that supports your arguement. I hope more open source apps reach the critical mass of those 2. I really do, but let's not take 2 fringe cases and make an arguement out of them.
P.S. It's always better to buy support contracts because support is cheap. Not buying support means that 1) you have an internal resource spending their time on something 2) the cost to the business of being down. I'm sorry, but when I buy from a vendor It's their job to know their software and someone who deals with it 100% of the time is likely going to be able to fix the problem faster than someone who spends 20% or less of their time with it.
The problem to that is a matter of perception and money. It's not that there aren't other viable options, it's how people perceive those options. When you talk to a manager in a mid to large size business, every last one of them is aware of VMware, and every last one of them is aware of Hyper-V because MS was so vocal about it. You may see some Fortune 500 guys who are big Sun shops that may talk about OpenBox, but that's not the norm.
So when the higher ups go out for lunch, are they talking about the open source virtual server? Probably not. They're probably talking about VMware or Hyper-V because that's what their friends companies are running.
Also, when was the last time an open source vendor took a higher up to an expensive lunch or on a business trip?
The worst part about corporate IT purchases is that they rarely have anything to do with quality or return on investment. They're usually made on a recomendation of a friend of a higher up, or back room deals. How many times have you seen a CIO go on an expensive all paid "business trip" from a company and all of a sudden you have an exclusive deal with them?
I doubt most people would notice. When people click on something like that and nothing happens, they just assume it can't be fixed, not that the tool itself is broken.
Think of how many times they've run across a fix button that does nothing in antivirus and antispyware software. People just shrug their shoulders and go on.
Mind you, not a good attitude to have but people have it anyways.
Actually, I did the whole test and did it in 42 seconds on 3G. Here are the results:
14 seconds to load the apple iphone page (the main google page loads in about 8)
10 seconds to load my location on gps
10 seconds to load a pdf attachment from an email (exchange, 100KB pdf)
8 seconds to call my house (I dialed it directly).
The same test took about a minute an a half on wireless (my iphone doesn't gps well on wireless and took over a minute).
My iphone is not unlocked either, and I am on Rogers in Canada. Maybe our 3G is different, but I doubt it. Also, the same pdf from a pop3 account took 36 seconds, so that might also make a difference.
Do we really care? It's not really that surprising. A cheap laptop using free software for the masses. Isn't this like a dream come true for the man?
Computer makers have never switched back to offering earlier versions of Windows before.
At almost every other point in time there were 2 versions of a windows OS selling at the time. With XP you could buy 2000, 2000 and ME were available at the same time.
Also, never in the history of windows has backwards compatibility been broken like this before. Windows programs had garbage design for so many years (fault of developer, not microsoft). It was laziness. Easier to just design crap than to use proper security. Security is beefed up (which is what people wanted) and now improperly designed programs don't run.
Performance issues are MS's fault and need to be fixed. Badly designed software is the fault of the develop and needs to be fixed. Vista's problems need to be fixed by both, as application compatibility is the #1 reason I have heard from my clients as why they won't move to vista, followed by performance as a close second.
Let's be fair about this.
The ideals of the unions are excellent ideas, but so is communism. Unfortunately, both are affected by corruption equally. This world is all about corruption.
Now, I don't know where you live, but I live in a union town (Our primary industry is the auto industry, but we have other unions as well). Union people (at least around here) have a false sense of entitlement. They believe that every union job should pay them $30/hr to put together a couple of plastic pieces, when they make $12-15. Oh and they expect that $30 with a grade 12 (or less) education. These are not hard jobs, and by no means call for $30/hr. That's why a minivan costs you $20k.
Union people also don't understand business fundamentals (or if they do, they don't care). They believe in things like seniority not the best person for the job. Over time? Not without pay. You're paid you 5, you leave at 5, not 5:01, which is not always possible, especially when a critical meeting runs 5-10 mins over.
The story I will always remember is of this one "gentleman" who got in trouble for coming back later from lunch. When the individual was written up, he waited until the supervisor left his office and pissed in his desk. Yes, that's right, pissed in the supervisors desk, and he got caught doing it to. The gentleman was fired. Since he was high up in the union, the union went at it with the company and the guy was hired back. Again, he came back from lunch and was written up, this time he punched the supervisor though and the union couldn't save him. Is this why we have unions?
I'm not saying unions don't do good things, but due to corruption they are a mockery of what they are supposed to be.
I'm not arguing the technical merits of the OS. I believe that every OS has it's place, and each of my 3 computers runs a different OS (Mac Mini, Vista Laptop, & Solaris Server).
What everyone around here seems to forget is the windows 3.0/95 "OMGz, I wantz that" factor that was had on the general public. There were other alternatives at the time: DOS-based menu-managers, Apple, and OS/2. Heck OS/2 Warp even ran all my windows 3 apps. OS/2 was an amazing operating system that blew win95 out of the water at the time. But like I said, people chose windows at the time.
I'm not arguing that the illegal tactics helped keep them in a position of power, but a lot of how they got there was with a product that people wanted, even if it wasn't a good one.
f Microsoft's dominance had anything to do with software quality and not with barely legal tactics of coercing OEMs into bundling their and their software only, sabotaging Windows so it would not work properly with DR-DOS, and generally abusing one monopoly to create more monopolies, your comment would have some measure of correctness.
You're missing the point. It had nothing to do with tactics. Look, I hear this all the time and it's wrong. If the people buying the computers didn't want MS products then none of your so called illegal tactics would work. If there was a viable alternative at the time that people actually wanted, then the manufacturers would have told MS to piss off. Know why that didn't happen? Because people wanted Windows. Know why people bought MS-DOS instead of DR-DOS, because they wanted Windows. Spew all you want about illegal tactics, and openness and everything else, people wanted Windows, and that's why it succeeded. It may not be technically the best, but it was what the people wanted.
To this day, Dell could tell MS to piss off. Actually, they kind of are because they are selling laptops with linux. People don't care. Be it familiarity, ease of use, technical reasons, or just stupidity, people still want their Windows.
Use what you want to use, but don't blame MS because others don't make the choice you do.
You know ubuntu is absolutely ready for the desktop, the laptop is another matter altogether.
I have install ubuntu on several dozen desktops, and as you say the hardware support has been fantastic. On the dozen or so laptops, not so much. When a desktop is put together, you can frankenbox it if you wish (mix and match parts to be on the linux HCL), this is not always possible on a laptop. Most laptop's from the major companies have limited options when it comes to the hardware you can change. So if I want a Dell laptop in the $800-$1000 with such and such options, I may only have 1 choice for a video card/ wireless card/ sound card.
Perfect example, on my current laptop, I needed to compile a new module into the kernel to get my built-in microphone working. Now, I could see that if it was bleeding edge hardware, but it's a regular old built-in microphone.
No argument with "Linux is ready for the desktop". Big argument with "Linux is ready for the laptop"
So why people harp on "Linux is difficult to install?"
I'll tell you why. I have a Dell Inspiron 6400 with an ATI graphics card. When I went to install ubuntu, the install won't even come up. It kills X right away and there's an extra 20-30 mins involved, and a bunch of commands you have to type, and that was after I found the solution rather quickly. Now, what I had to do to fix the problem was not terribly difficult with the docs in front of me, but I couldn't have left it to my wife (who has done some of our XP installs).
Now, with windows, everything may not have been perfect, but the install would have happened with basic drivers like vga. It wouldn't have died before the first screen.
I'm sure someone will make some comment about hardware compatibility or this being ATI's fault for drivers. And you know, you may be right. The problem is, I don't care. I don't care who's fault it is that it happened, and neither do most people. The laptop didn't do that in windows, and it did in linux. Linux's fault from their point of view. I'm personally not going to let that deter me, but a lot of others would.
Another question is, what the market share of office 2007 vs an ODF compliant suite? If there's 10 million people with ODF capabilities, and only 1 million with OOXML, doesn't this make sense?
The question is not how many now, but it's how many will there be 5 years from now.
Yup, and VB is the killer. Should it be? probably not. It is though.
I am the first one to admit there are a million better ways to do things than VB macro's in excel. However, when you have enterprise reports that have to go out, and the person who runs them is a twit who likes to fiddle because "they know IT", you'll know why excel macros are beautiful. Management should put restrictions on these people, but when they won't, a solution must be found.
It is HP's fault in a way. HP has an international # that the other poster should have been directed to. It's not like he wanted it shipped for free, he was willing to pay the shipping costs.
Why this is HP's fault is because of the fact that they push sales on their technical calls. I'm sure the tech agent was more than happy to sell the previous poster a copy of windows. Would the agent have given the international number if they weren't pushed to sell? That's for you to decide.
Most of the companies will allow you to burn a set of rescue cds. The cds work just like the partition.
Motorcycle owners? Plenty. Motorcycles are like the linux of the automotive industry.
Never heard the state "You need to know how to fix a bike to own a bike"?
Almost every single motorcycle owner you ever meet with carry a toolkit with them on their bike so that they can correct things quickly as needed.
Besides, if you want a Harley bad enough and you don't have the $40-50K for one, that seems like an excellent option.
You can buy a Harley like that for "real cheap" (Around $12-15K). So does that make the Harley not a product?
I'm not sure I agree with that. If we were talking about anything but software, I would probably agree with you, but software is a different answer.
I would say that Windows and OSX are no more done than a good linux distribution, but they count as "products" don't they?
Every software project that a user is willing to put their money towards is a product. It'll eventually change, just not any time soon.
Don't rush over to Vista just yet. 90% of the new features I'd gather are more suited for a corporate environment (Aero and games aside).
If you really want a true feel for what the new interface is like, play around on an OSX system for a bit. The features are basically the same with some implementation differences.
It's not DRM it's file quality. It's about erroring bits, which should be shrugged at by XP, but cause the video to come to a grinding halt in Vista.
The black screen issue I've never experienced on my mac. It is a huge problem though as it is a guaranteed reboot.
As for paying for vista. Will I pay for it? I will, and won't think twice about it. It's a business cost. I'm in the support side of IT. My business is Customer Service and Support (I don't work on the Help Desk, but my work directly relates to their ability to support people). I have bought every copy of windows, I own a mac, and I have 3 - 4 *nix systems (At the moment 1 solaris, 1 red hat, and 1 slackware). Is vista going to be good for my users? I think it will be. I wouldn't replace a mac or a *nix system with it, but I am definetly looking forward to upgrading some of my XP users when the bugs are worked out and it goes live.
The windows vista still has some major issues. I understand that it's just a beta, but there are still some major bugs to be worked out.
Current Problems:
1) Not all wmv, avi, or mpegs play properly. Some of them can take 5-10 minutes to load and then give an error. The exact same file plays flawlessly in XP
2) IE 7 needs has some compatibility issues. I understand that some pages have issues as they were designed for IE 6, but when Firefox and Opera render them correctly, that's an issue
3) The new file system.....garbage......I don't need to be babied. The simplified file system is nice for normal users, but I want an option to have full control over my file system.
4) I like the fact that an instance of a program dies when an error occurs, instead of the whole file system, but an error message would be nice.
5) Sometimes when the processor usage gets high the screen goes black and won't revert back. That may need to be fixed.
There are some nice features, but they have a lot of work to do before this thing is ready.