There were so many Windows fans that turned to Linux because 98's support ended, they should have built a comminuty up and released the code and let them patch it, keep it up to date, and keep it secure.
I find it hard to believe there would be a significant overlap between "happy to use windows 98, but not XP" and "happy to use Linux".
This is one reason that as we near the election in November Americans are becoming more excited about the prospect of finally putting the nightmare behind us [...]
The rest of the world has watched y'all fuck it up twice in recent memory, and we remain unconvinced you won't do so again:).
While there's something to be said against people being sued for tens of thousands of dollars, what's the alternative? What's your solution to the piracy problem?
To me, tens of thousands of dollars does not seem unreasonable. It's not a crippling amount of money (but it will sting) to anybody who owns a computer, and at those rates it is unlikely that the companies are actually making any serious money, given their costs involved. to me, it's just about right.
What ? "Tens of thousands of dollars" for the average person represents an entire year's after-tax income. For someone who is _poor_ it's likely more "spare" money than they'll see in their lifetime (or at least a significant chunk thereof).
It's going to do a hell of a lot more than "sting".
Of course, that was really just an extreme example to make the point of how potentially unfair the GPL *could* be because it is designed primarily to influence third party (other people's) code rather than first party (your own) code.
Surely, if the GPL piece is 1%, writing it out is what you'd do.
And now we get the standard evasion to any criticism of the GPL - "if you don't like it, don't use it".
Consider the analogous situation regarding proprietary software.
We don't need to consider an analogy, we can compare directly. Nearly all closed-sourced shared libraries impose few - if any - restrictions to linking to them, and certainly none that require you to expose your source code.
It seems to me that the peril is far greater than that connected with the GPL. GPL folks don't have the Business Software Alliance advertising for disgruntled employees to rat on their employers, etc.
Instead they have websites encouraging people to "rat" on GPL violators, and/or asserting such violations take place.
But most folks think that charging money for proprietary software is fair. If that's fair, the GPL developers request for another form of payment, an exchange of software rights, should be just as fair.
The issue is not the concept, but the magnitude. Since GPL-licensed code can easily influence code far outside the scope of its actual use, it has the potential to be very unfair. Something like the LGPL, on the other hand, which cannot influence code outside its original scope, has far less potential to be unfair.
Companies like Microsoft and Apple have few(er) problems with the LGPL, because of this. It is not the "exchange of software rights" that concern them, per se, it is an asymmetrical exchange.
So, provide tax incentives to people who live close enough to walk (1 mile) or bike (3 miles) to work each day. Even if you don't walk or bike, you still get the tax incentive if you just choose to live close to work because you are saving lots of gas that way. I predict an even more massive rise in Downtown real estate prices in every city because of this.
Better plan. Incentives to let people work from home.
Ever hear of the suburbs? I would highly doubt that anywhere close to the majority of people live within a reasonable biking distance of work or school.
I bet a fairly large chunk of them live within biking distance of, say, the nearest train station though.
Even if they did, you have the little issue of snow and freezing temperatures. I'd also imagine grocery shopping, towing the boat, family vacations, or any errand that involves transporting cargo bigger than a toaster would be tough on bikes.
The interesting thing about free markets is that it doesn't matter what the producers want.
Of course it does. No-one can buy a product that doesn't exist.
The consumers have said that software must be cheaper.
Consumers want everything to be cheaper. What's your point ?
I'm glad that not all companies are going to fight it til the end, and are instead showing signs of embracing it. Seriously, good for them!
No-one has ever produced even a remotely convincing argument (let alone evidence) that a) people won't pay for software and b) open-source methodologies are inherently superior.
This assertion doesn't really stand on its own, it's more like saying "nyah nyah" than an argument until you write down why you think GPL might be unfair.
Because just linking to a piece of GPLed code could potentially mean you have to GPL the entire codebase that links to it.
That is to say, even if the GPLed code makes up less than 1% of the end product, you may still be forced to GPL the other 99% that is your code.
This, of course, is because it is what the GPL is supposed to achieve - the GPL isn't about controlling your code, it's about controlling other people's code. That, however, doesn't make such situations any less unfair.
Be assured that I've handled such arguments before, they are easy to refute.
Of course, those "refutations" are almost certainly along the lines of "if you don't like it, don't use it".
If I were in charge of Microsoft and I decided that I wasn't going to let Free Software take my customers, I would: (a) redesign the entire kernel and OS from the ground up, [...]
What business justification is there to expend this massive effort ?
[...] and (b) create a secure enough product that the third party anti-virus/PC security software industry would be forced to dissolve due to the lack of need for their software.
Impossible.
AV software has nothing to do with OS security, it's there to protect the user from his own stupidity and/or ignorance.
Just a little bit of the many ideas that I came up with in my caffeinated brain within the last minute or so.
I like business. I love capitalism. I see Free Software being the logical end state of software development in a free market, and enjoy seeing these huge companies starting to realize it.
Open Source makes it near-impossible to make money developing and selling software, without tying it to some other product (hardware, support contracts, mandatory subscription services, etc). Hardly a situation a capitalist interested in maximising profit would like.
They still can't stand the GPL, it's too fair for them, [...]
Quite the opposite. Microsoft (along with other companies like, say, Apple) don't like the GPL because it has way too much potential to be massively unfair.
OTOH, a greater assurance of "fairness" is what makes the LGPL acceptable (hence why Apple are prepared to use LGPLed code).
I think civil rights would suffer even worse under the likes of Bill Gates because he cares little about the wants of his users when they pay him in an open market.
Until you have to declare it while going through Customs...
It's still a lot cheaper. In fact, if you get a good deal on flights and are buying, say, a few thousand dollars worth of "stuff", it can end up cheaper to fly from here in Switzerland (or the UK, as I have friends there who do the same thing) to the US and shop there.
Import duties for most things in Switzerland is less than 10% - that's assuming you even get checked at customs.
Of course, then you'll see the real difference - spending the U.S. price plus tax, instead of the localized price plus tax. (What, you thought they included tax in the listed price?)
To give an example, a 16G iPod touch here in ZUrich costs CHF 580.-, which is about UDS560. A 16G iPod touch on apple.com is USD400. Decent clothes are (relatively speaking) cheaper still (and will come in reasonable sizes).
Another example is pushbikes, which for some reason they are crazily expensive in Switzerland. I know several people here who have saved well over CHF500.- by importing a bike from the US completely above boardand paying the full customs charges and duties.
Stuff in America is just cheap. This covers everything from consumer goods to services (10 minute taxi ride here can easily set you back USD40+ - it's about USD7 just in flagfall).
It's going to get even more dramatic over the next 1-2 years as the US$ continues to tank.
This is one of the ongoing problems I've found when asking questions about things inside the Mac. Many parts of the system seem to have several different names, depending on which app or doc you're looking at. I'm guessing that "Mac OS Extended (Journaled)" is a synonym for "HFS+", but I can't verify that, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong. And if I use the wrong abbreviation, the result is a discussion of my knowledge of Apple's confusing terminology, not of whatever question I was asking. This materially slows down the process of getting useful information.
Your filesystem is Journalled HFS+. There is also normal (unjournalled) HFS+. These are roughly analagous to ext3 and ext2 in the Linux world, respectively.
The other major filesystem OS X supports is UFS, which is the same UFS you'll find on Solaris or FreeBSD. This is its "UNIX filesystem" and will behave much like a filesystem you would bump into on any UNIX-esque system (eg: Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD).
HFS, to go back to your original post, is the very old MacOS filesystem dating back to the mid-80s. It is the Mac equivalent of FAT16, as another post said (albeit somewhat more advanced).
I'm sure this is all documented in Apple's support pagges, although I've never bothered to look. They are certainly pieces of information that you can find in 5 minutes with Google.
But for the purposes of this discussion, it's just one more example of why I objected to the recommendation of Mac OSX as a server for a small site with little net expertise. I've been using this Mac for going onto 5 years now, and I keep stumbling across such problems. You could argue that it's because I'm too stupid to learn the system. But note that if you say that, you're supporting my contention that OSX isn't suitable for people like me.
Yes, if you're after Linux or some other traditional style UNIX system, then OS X probably won't do you much good. That's because it's built to be as much UNlike a traditional UNIX system as possible.
And there is evidence that I'm not all that stupid. I've set up various sorts of network servers using linux, solaris, HP-UX, and various other unixoid systems. All have had their problems, but I haven't had nearly as many problems with any of them that I've had with OSX. If a dummy like me can set up a linux server in a few hours so that it works, but can't do the same with OSX after several years of futzing with them, the simplest explanation is that OSX is materially more difficult for such tasks that is linux.
No, it just means all you've got is a hammer, so everything looks like a nail.
Apple's "extensions" to the file system (caseless matching, extended properties,...) also cause ongoing problems, mostly because they're not clearly documented anywhere that's easy to find. The reason behind this can apparently be summarized as "Don't worry your pretty little head about it." This can be a rather frustrating reply to someone who's trying to learn.
I don't know what you mean by this. The filesystem distinctions and terminology you were confused about can be trivially cleared up in a few minutes on Google (third result searching for HFS is a Wikipedia article answering all the questions you posted here). This says to me that you didn't bother trying.
So for a small shop with little net expertise, I'd still suggest that OSX isn't a good choice. Such people are more likely to be happy (or at least less frustrated) with a linux-based system.
A small shop with no expertise is going to run into the same problems with Linux. The difference is that the first few steps - which may very well be completed *without* running into any problems - can be trivially completed.
(I've looked over various people's shoulders when they were trying to set up a MS Windows-based server. I'd have to agree that OSX would be far better than that. The amount of swearing in such tasks can be truly impressive. But such people
Actually, these price diferences are true not only to software but hardware as well. And the value has nothing to do with the versions being localized.
In fact, the price difference applies across the board. Pretty much everything in American is just dirt cheap.
(Which is why, when we're passing through the US lat this year, we'll be arriving with two empty suitcases each and leaving with them stuffed full of clothes, electronics, and the like. The money saved over buying in Europe or Australia will pay for a non-trivial portion of the trip.)
We purchased a number of these machines because it seemed like an easy and cheap way to get a fileserver going that did both AFP and SMB, was AD-integrated, and could have its file store on a SAN.
Windows 2003 ?
Equivalent hardware (hotswap RAID (SCSI, I should add), redundant PSU, fiber channel card, GigE, dual processor machines in a 3U form factor (SuperMicro chassis) come out to about $1k less than an Xserve, on average. And when a part dies, like a backplane, I can BUY THAT PART. With Apple, you have to buy an entire parts kit, which comes with stuff you may not want.
I would be surprised if a 3U machine was *not* significantly cheaper than a 1U box. With computers, smaller == more expensive, remember ? Why are you buying parts to repair machines yourself ? Ever heard of a "warranty" ?
Back then, Apple gave vague, unspecific warnings that some Mac apps wouldn't work right on a caseless file system. Dunno if they claim to have fixed it. The PB is still running (and I'm typing on it right now), but it's mostly relegated to "network appliance" status. It no longer gets used for serious attempts at software or web-site development.
I think you are getting UFS and HFS+ confused. HFS+ has been standard on Macs since MaCOS 8.x - I doubt OS X even has a "regular HFS" driver in it.
My perfect laptop form factor would be a 12" non-widescreen with nVidia discrete graphics. Oh, and it would be even more awesome if it were a tablet and doubly awesome if I could rotate it into portrait mode.
Not quite sure why the discrete graphics is so important. It's not like you'll be playing any high-end games on a machine like that (which will inevitably have a form-factor requiring a relatively slow ULV CPU).
yep most people using Vista have older hardware that they really don't want to upgrade yet again just to gain some flashy stuff that does what their existing hardware could do.
The idea that "most people using Vista" are doing so on hardware that is 3+ years old, and was bottom end when bought, doesn't even pass the laugh test. Most people are getting Vista on new PCs, just like they got pretty much every previous version of Windows. Almost everyone upgrading existing machines will have hardware that a) is less than 3 years old and b) was not bottom-level when bought.
DX10 isn't all that big of a improvement over DX9.
How is it any less of an improvement than, say, DX9 over DX8 ?
the fact the moment Vista was released a completely hardware incompatible version of DX10.1 was introduced and made standard by MSFT has nothing to do with what most customers already have.
DX10.1 arrived with Vista SP1, more than a year after Vista's release. It (obviously) requires DX10.1 capable hardware. and does nothing more than make a few previously optional capabilities, mandatory. It is most certainly not "completely hardware incompatible", for any meaningful definition of the term.
Slashdot Mirror
There were so many Windows fans that turned to Linux because 98's support ended, they should have built a comminuty up and released the code and let them patch it, keep it up to date, and keep it secure.
I find it hard to believe there would be a significant overlap between "happy to use windows 98, but not XP" and "happy to use Linux".
All the good stuff that MS has ever done, has been bought - either from buying the company, or the individual who developed it.
Are you suggesting there is some other way "Microsoft" could sell software without hiring people to write it ?
This is one reason that as we near the election in November Americans are becoming more excited about the prospect of finally putting the nightmare behind us [...]
The rest of the world has watched y'all fuck it up twice in recent memory, and we remain unconvinced you won't do so again :).
While there's something to be said against people being sued for tens of thousands of dollars, what's the alternative? What's your solution to the piracy problem?
Decriminalise not-for-profit copyright infringement.
To me, tens of thousands of dollars does not seem unreasonable. It's not a crippling amount of money (but it will sting) to anybody who owns a computer, and at those rates it is unlikely that the companies are actually making any serious money, given their costs involved. to me, it's just about right.
What ? "Tens of thousands of dollars" for the average person represents an entire year's after-tax income. For someone who is _poor_ it's likely more "spare" money than they'll see in their lifetime (or at least a significant chunk thereof).
It's going to do a hell of a lot more than "sting".
You could also say that F/OSS removes artificial scarcity from a market where duplicating a piece of software is so cheap as to be free.
Of course, this conveniently ignores the massive production cost before that duplication can begin.
"Give the software away for free" only works when income can subsequently be generated by some other good or service tied to that software.
That's never happened.
Hence the "potential".
Of course, that was really just an extreme example to make the point of how potentially unfair the GPL *could* be because it is designed primarily to influence third party (other people's) code rather than first party (your own) code.
Surely, if the GPL piece is 1%, writing it out is what you'd do.
And now we get the standard evasion to any criticism of the GPL - "if you don't like it, don't use it".
Consider the analogous situation regarding proprietary software.
We don't need to consider an analogy, we can compare directly. Nearly all closed-sourced shared libraries impose few - if any - restrictions to linking to them, and certainly none that require you to expose your source code.
It seems to me that the peril is far greater than that connected with the GPL. GPL folks don't have the Business Software Alliance advertising for disgruntled employees to rat on their employers, etc.
Instead they have websites encouraging people to "rat" on GPL violators, and/or asserting such violations take place.
But most folks think that charging money for proprietary software is fair. If that's fair, the GPL developers request for another form of payment, an exchange of software rights, should be just as fair.
The issue is not the concept, but the magnitude. Since GPL-licensed code can easily influence code far outside the scope of its actual use, it has the potential to be very unfair. Something like the LGPL, on the other hand, which cannot influence code outside its original scope, has far less potential to be unfair.
Companies like Microsoft and Apple have few(er) problems with the LGPL, because of this. It is not the "exchange of software rights" that concern them, per se, it is an asymmetrical exchange.
So, provide tax incentives to people who live close enough to walk (1 mile) or bike (3 miles) to work each day. Even if you don't walk or bike, you still get the tax incentive if you just choose to live close to work because you are saving lots of gas that way. I predict an even more massive rise in Downtown real estate prices in every city because of this.
Better plan. Incentives to let people work from home.
Ever hear of the suburbs? I would highly doubt that anywhere close to the majority of people live within a reasonable biking distance of work or school.
I bet a fairly large chunk of them live within biking distance of, say, the nearest train station though.
Even if they did, you have the little issue of snow and freezing temperatures. I'd also imagine grocery shopping, towing the boat, family vacations, or any errand that involves transporting cargo bigger than a toaster would be tough on bikes.
Which you need to do every day, right ?
The interesting thing about free markets is that it doesn't matter what the producers want.
Of course it does. No-one can buy a product that doesn't exist.
The consumers have said that software must be cheaper.
Consumers want everything to be cheaper. What's your point ?
I'm glad that not all companies are going to fight it til the end, and are instead showing signs of embracing it. Seriously, good for them!
No-one has ever produced even a remotely convincing argument (let alone evidence) that a) people won't pay for software and b) open-source methodologies are inherently superior.
This assertion doesn't really stand on its own, it's more like saying "nyah nyah" than an argument until you write down why you think GPL might be unfair.
Because just linking to a piece of GPLed code could potentially mean you have to GPL the entire codebase that links to it.
That is to say, even if the GPLed code makes up less than 1% of the end product, you may still be forced to GPL the other 99% that is your code.
This, of course, is because it is what the GPL is supposed to achieve - the GPL isn't about controlling your code, it's about controlling other people's code. That, however, doesn't make such situations any less unfair.
Be assured that I've handled such arguments before, they are easy to refute.
Of course, those "refutations" are almost certainly along the lines of "if you don't like it, don't use it".
If I were in charge of Microsoft and I decided that I wasn't going to let Free Software take my customers, I would: (a) redesign the entire kernel and OS from the ground up, [...]
What business justification is there to expend this massive effort ?
[...] and (b) create a secure enough product that the third party anti-virus/PC security software industry would be forced to dissolve due to the lack of need for their software.
Impossible.
AV software has nothing to do with OS security, it's there to protect the user from his own stupidity and/or ignorance.
Just a little bit of the many ideas that I came up with in my caffeinated brain within the last minute or so.
Well that explains a lot...
I like business. I love capitalism. I see Free Software being the logical end state of software development in a free market, and enjoy seeing these huge companies starting to realize it.
Open Source makes it near-impossible to make money developing and selling software, without tying it to some other product (hardware, support contracts, mandatory subscription services, etc). Hardly a situation a capitalist interested in maximising profit would like.
They still can't stand the GPL, it's too fair for them, [...]
Quite the opposite. Microsoft (along with other companies like, say, Apple) don't like the GPL because it has way too much potential to be massively unfair.
OTOH, a greater assurance of "fairness" is what makes the LGPL acceptable (hence why Apple are prepared to use LGPLed code).
I think civil rights would suffer even worse under the likes of Bill Gates because he cares little about the wants of his users when they pay him in an open market.
And you base this on...?
In other words, everything would run in a layer on top of the os and hardware that can move and scale to any device, machine, or location.
Is it called Ceylon ?
Lucky you. (Don't kid yourself, that's luck.)
I find that the better quality my hardware, the "luckier" I am.
Until you have to declare it while going through Customs...
It's still a lot cheaper. In fact, if you get a good deal on flights and are buying, say, a few thousand dollars worth of "stuff", it can end up cheaper to fly from here in Switzerland (or the UK, as I have friends there who do the same thing) to the US and shop there.
Import duties for most things in Switzerland is less than 10% - that's assuming you even get checked at customs.
Of course, then you'll see the real difference - spending the U.S. price plus tax, instead of the localized price plus tax. (What, you thought they included tax in the listed price?)
To give an example, a 16G iPod touch here in ZUrich costs CHF 580.-, which is about UDS560. A 16G iPod touch on apple.com is USD400. Decent clothes are (relatively speaking) cheaper still (and will come in reasonable sizes).
Another example is pushbikes, which for some reason they are crazily expensive in Switzerland. I know several people here who have saved well over CHF500.- by importing a bike from the US completely above boardand paying the full customs charges and duties.
Stuff in America is just cheap. This covers everything from consumer goods to services (10 minute taxi ride here can easily set you back USD40+ - it's about USD7 just in flagfall).
It's going to get even more dramatic over the next 1-2 years as the US$ continues to tank.
This is one of the ongoing problems I've found when asking questions about things inside the Mac. Many parts of the system seem to have several different names, depending on which app or doc you're looking at. I'm guessing that "Mac OS Extended (Journaled)" is a synonym for "HFS+", but I can't verify that, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong. And if I use the wrong abbreviation, the result is a discussion of my knowledge of Apple's confusing terminology, not of whatever question I was asking. This materially slows down the process of getting useful information.
Your filesystem is Journalled HFS+. There is also normal (unjournalled) HFS+. These are roughly analagous to ext3 and ext2 in the Linux world, respectively.
The other major filesystem OS X supports is UFS, which is the same UFS you'll find on Solaris or FreeBSD. This is its "UNIX filesystem" and will behave much like a filesystem you would bump into on any UNIX-esque system (eg: Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD).
HFS, to go back to your original post, is the very old MacOS filesystem dating back to the mid-80s. It is the Mac equivalent of FAT16, as another post said (albeit somewhat more advanced).
I'm sure this is all documented in Apple's support pagges, although I've never bothered to look. They are certainly pieces of information that you can find in 5 minutes with Google.
But for the purposes of this discussion, it's just one more example of why I objected to the recommendation of Mac OSX as a server for a small site with little net expertise. I've been using this Mac for going onto 5 years now, and I keep stumbling across such problems. You could argue that it's because I'm too stupid to learn the system. But note that if you say that, you're supporting my contention that OSX isn't suitable for people like me.
Yes, if you're after Linux or some other traditional style UNIX system, then OS X probably won't do you much good. That's because it's built to be as much UNlike a traditional UNIX system as possible.
And there is evidence that I'm not all that stupid. I've set up various sorts of network servers using linux, solaris, HP-UX, and various other unixoid systems. All have had their problems, but I haven't had nearly as many problems with any of them that I've had with OSX. If a dummy like me can set up a linux server in a few hours so that it works, but can't do the same with OSX after several years of futzing with them, the simplest explanation is that OSX is materially more difficult for such tasks that is linux.
No, it just means all you've got is a hammer, so everything looks like a nail.
Apple's "extensions" to the file system (caseless matching, extended properties, ...) also cause ongoing problems, mostly because they're not clearly documented anywhere that's easy to find. The reason behind this can apparently be summarized as "Don't worry your pretty little head about it." This can be a rather frustrating reply to someone who's trying to learn.
I don't know what you mean by this. The filesystem distinctions and terminology you were confused about can be trivially cleared up in a few minutes on Google (third result searching for HFS is a Wikipedia article answering all the questions you posted here). This says to me that you didn't bother trying.
So for a small shop with little net expertise, I'd still suggest that OSX isn't a good choice. Such people are more likely to be happy (or at least less frustrated) with a linux-based system.
A small shop with no expertise is going to run into the same problems with Linux. The difference is that the first few steps - which may very well be completed *without* running into any problems - can be trivially completed.
(I've looked over various people's shoulders when they were trying to set up a MS Windows-based server. I'd have to agree that OSX would be far better than that. The amount of swearing in such tasks can be truly impressive. But such people
Actually, these price diferences are true not only to software but hardware as well. And the value has nothing to do with the versions being localized.
In fact, the price difference applies across the board. Pretty much everything in American is just dirt cheap.
(Which is why, when we're passing through the US lat this year, we'll be arriving with two empty suitcases each and leaving with them stuffed full of clothes, electronics, and the like. The money saved over buying in Europe or Australia will pay for a non-trivial portion of the trip.)
We purchased a number of these machines because it seemed like an easy and cheap way to get a fileserver going that did both AFP and SMB, was AD-integrated, and could have its file store on a SAN.
Windows 2003 ?
Equivalent hardware (hotswap RAID (SCSI, I should add), redundant PSU, fiber channel card, GigE, dual processor machines in a 3U form factor (SuperMicro chassis) come out to about $1k less than an Xserve, on average. And when a part dies, like a backplane, I can BUY THAT PART. With Apple, you have to buy an entire parts kit, which comes with stuff you may not want.
I would be surprised if a 3U machine was *not* significantly cheaper than a 1U box. With computers, smaller == more expensive, remember ? Why are you buying parts to repair machines yourself ? Ever heard of a "warranty" ?
Back then, Apple gave vague, unspecific warnings that some Mac apps wouldn't work right on a caseless file system. Dunno if they claim to have fixed it. The PB is still running (and I'm typing on it right now), but it's mostly relegated to "network appliance" status. It no longer gets used for serious attempts at software or web-site development.
I think you are getting UFS and HFS+ confused. HFS+ has been standard on Macs since MaCOS 8.x - I doubt OS X even has a "regular HFS" driver in it.
If it's not FREE (as in GPL v3), it's not FREE.
Please use the correct terminology.
It's not GNU/Free.
My perfect laptop form factor would be a 12" non-widescreen with nVidia discrete graphics. Oh, and it would be even more awesome if it were a tablet and doubly awesome if I could rotate it into portrait mode.
Not quite sure why the discrete graphics is so important. It's not like you'll be playing any high-end games on a machine like that (which will inevitably have a form-factor requiring a relatively slow ULV CPU).
Lately they've been using core2 desktop processors and not mobile chips [...]
What ?
yep most people using Vista have older hardware that they really don't want to upgrade yet again just to gain some flashy stuff that does what their existing hardware could do.
The idea that "most people using Vista" are doing so on hardware that is 3+ years old, and was bottom end when bought, doesn't even pass the laugh test. Most people are getting Vista on new PCs, just like they got pretty much every previous version of Windows. Almost everyone upgrading existing machines will have hardware that a) is less than 3 years old and b) was not bottom-level when bought.
DX10 isn't all that big of a improvement over DX9.
How is it any less of an improvement than, say, DX9 over DX8 ?
the fact the moment Vista was released a completely hardware incompatible version of DX10.1 was introduced and made standard by MSFT has nothing to do with what most customers already have.
DX10.1 arrived with Vista SP1, more than a year after Vista's release. It (obviously) requires DX10.1 capable hardware. and does nothing more than make a few previously optional capabilities, mandatory. It is most certainly not "completely hardware incompatible", for any meaningful definition of the term.