It's not 5 network connections. It's 10 uncompleted outbound connections per second. You can have as many connections as you want. And if you're talking about limiting the number of people who can access shares concurrently on home systems, that's to guarantee network performance for the client machine (as it's not a server, chances are someone's using it). There are versions of windows that are engineered to support more simultaneous connections through having tweaked software installed, all of which cost money to develop, and costs to support. It's the same with remote users - XP and Vista client PCs are not servers, and the licensing model (one desktop user per installation) reflects that. More people logging in degrades the performance of the computer. They are artificial, definitely, but they're there for a good reason. If you want a computer that can do all that other stuff, go and buy a version of Windows Server 2003. It has a far more useful set of features for someone wanting to run a server, compared to the workstation versions that have a far more use set of featuers for desktop computers. Most folks find it useful to be able to spend as much money as they need to on the features they want, without having to pay extra for features they won't use. Apple appears to want to simplify the experience, which also simplifies the pricing structure, putting everyone on the same rung of the ladder.
1. For most users, when Automatic Updates is enabled, it installs them in the middle of the night, and rebooting is not a problem. It makes sense, as it doesn't impact the user. 2. Hibernate. 3. And it's 4 hours on Vista, not 30 seconds.
Some granularity to the configuration process could be used, though. It sounds like you can change one setting and solve all your problems (that is: "Download updates but let me choose whether to install them" - it won't interrupt you only to tell you it has new updates. And it does that once).
Why don't you have your windows update set to install when you're not in front of your computer? Mine does it at 3am, and I've yet to have such issues:) Aaaah the joys of Windows Update.
There's "switch" which implies changing your operating system, and then there's "switch" as in changing your OS and being able to do everything you previously could on your old OS after the switch. Linux is definitely in the former, but not the latter, unfortunately. It's getting closer every day, but as long as that.1% of things people do can't be done on Linux, then that is no panacea.
Seriously. That is one cluster-fuck of bad code upon bad code upon some kind of pasta dish upon bad code. Disgusting. The worst part is, all the forked projects are just as bad. Yikes.
I hear you. I'm a developer, but as I develop web applications, Vista is a good thing for me (as IE7 is far superior to IE6). I think Vista is a good step forward for home and office workers alike. It offers a new slew of features to speed up using a computer, such as its intelligent caching, being able to use flash memory as intermediate memory, support for hybrid drives, sideshow, etc. As we're currently seeing with multiple-core CPUs, these new technological advances take time for folks to adjust to, and when they're present and not being used, they do indeed cause problems. I'm thinking that when this stuff has been used more, it's only going to get quicker, and impressively so.
And as for choices on the desktop, if you want to play games and use Adobe software, there are none:)
It sounds like "the truth":) Vista pre-loads commonly-used applications into memory so when you want them, you can run them quickly. If an application needs that memory, it is handed over to the application, so it doesn't mess with that application. It's a great idea. Applications do load ridiculously fast, and the hard disk isn't used as much as on other OSs I've used. What's the point of having 4GB of ram and only having a bit of it used at any one time? If the rest can be used to speed up tasks, and freed when needed, everyone wins.
It's called "relaxing", and happens sometimes during the day and sometimes when I work late:) Currently I'm enjoying the new UT3, CoD4 demo, and both UT2004 and CoD2.
When you move the window when the video is playing, the video does not tear or "lag" behind the window's position. Also, you get to see the video on alt-tabbing, and even in the task bar's application view (not to mention Flip 3D). The quality is not necessarily from the rendering mode chosen, but from how that application is displayed in the GUI. Video playback is excellent in XP - with a decent copy of FFDShow and decent drivers, however video playback seems to not be as tightly integrated into the GUI. Also, the multimedia priority stuff they've stuck in there makes it harder for anything on the computer to screw with playback. It's all about perception, I guess.
1. with my (legal) copy of one of the release candidates on my old PC 2. another time a few months ago with an Acer notebook 3. and on my current PC, a couple of months ago.
Each time everything was installed perfectly. No hunting around for drivers.
Good point about the hardware. I thought the DirectX 10 VMR was supposed to be of better quality and efficiency than using the overlay?
The memory useage is indeed far improved over that of XP. That seems to be something they've really worked at. The speed that applications start up is a great indicator of that.
That's very fair and deserved criticism. It is pretty ridiculous that ICS wasn't working correctly, but then that's no great surprise - ICS always has been somewhat flakey, with strange problems that defy definition or correction. That is definitely something they should fix. The routing and remote access service seems to be one that doesn't play well with others.
I've yet to hear anything critical about Vista that wasn't either ill-informed, overblown, or complete guesswork. My own personal experiences of using it clearly do not represent those of the various people complaining about it. Remember we don't hear much from the "it's working fine for me" crowd, as they have no reason to tell anyone.
And as for it being a cube heater, you'd have to try pretty hard to be even more incorrect. The machine I've got is a Dell Vostro 200, one of those slim boxes, and it runs practically silently all the time, and doesn't kick out much more heat than any other PC I've used (even Linux ones *shock*). Compare it with the hulking great G5 sitting next to it, which sounds and feels like a Harrier with engine difficulty, and you'd understand just how quiet and cool this machine is.
Nice try:) I'm wrote it because that's the truth. I do not, have not, or ever will, work for Microsoft. I'm no Microsoft fanboy. I don't own a Zune but an iPod. Every single server I host customers' web sites on runs Linux of some description. If it's similar to what Redmond says would happen to users, then I guess they knew what they were talking about, at least for this user.
Improvements to the GUI, lots of new hardware support, fast user switching, remote assistance, built-in CD burning, ClearType, Remote Desktop, ACPI (with hibernation support, sleep modes), greatly-improved boot times, major kernel improvements. And that's just from a cursory glance at the Wikipedia article.
I think it's great. All the eye-candy is performed on the GPU, and the talk about it being DRM-with-a-GUI is nonsense - it performs perfectly as a media player, with astounding video quality (thanks to everything being rendered through Direct3D, and real emphasis placed on media quality). I use Vista at work on my Dell. It only has an X1300 slim-line GPU, but that's good enough to run 2x22" screens at 1680x1050. It runs all the software I want (Adobe stuff, apache, mysql, games, iTunes, etc.), and is never slow. It does "use" a lot of resources, but it does so intelligently. If it wants to use up all my memory, it does so to improve performance, and if applications need it, it is relinquished. I can see how some folks would interpret that as it being full of bloat, but it's just intelligently using the system's available resources.
I don't know why people don't like it. I've got nothing but great things to say about it. Obviously it's not going to be popular with "people who are highly-appreciative of Linux on the desktop" (to choose my words carefully), or those who don't like Microsoft for any particular reason, or "people who are highly-appreciative of OSX on their Macs" (again, choosing words carefully). But, if you've been using Windows for years, and you get on with the differences in the ways Vista works to XP, Vista isn't scary or rubbish or hiding in your cupboard waiting to pounce, it works great.
But that's just my opinion, obviously. I'm sure someone will come along and tell me how I'm all kinds of wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be excellent, but fatally flawed if such assertions are made. Come on, he's clearly talking out of his ass :)
It's not 5 network connections. It's 10 uncompleted outbound connections per second. You can have as many connections as you want. And if you're talking about limiting the number of people who can access shares concurrently on home systems, that's to guarantee network performance for the client machine (as it's not a server, chances are someone's using it). There are versions of windows that are engineered to support more simultaneous connections through having tweaked software installed, all of which cost money to develop, and costs to support. It's the same with remote users - XP and Vista client PCs are not servers, and the licensing model (one desktop user per installation) reflects that. More people logging in degrades the performance of the computer. They are artificial, definitely, but they're there for a good reason. If you want a computer that can do all that other stuff, go and buy a version of Windows Server 2003. It has a far more useful set of features for someone wanting to run a server, compared to the workstation versions that have a far more use set of featuers for desktop computers. Most folks find it useful to be able to spend as much money as they need to on the features they want, without having to pay extra for features they won't use. Apple appears to want to simplify the experience, which also simplifies the pricing structure, putting everyone on the same rung of the ladder.
How dare MSFT let people choose to not pay for features they don't want! The bastards!
That's more to do with those same developers not being able to fix bugs revealed by .NET updates :) Blame where blame's due, surely :)
1. For most users, when Automatic Updates is enabled, it installs them in the middle of the night, and rebooting is not a problem. It makes sense, as it doesn't impact the user.
2. Hibernate.
3. And it's 4 hours on Vista, not 30 seconds.
Some granularity to the configuration process could be used, though. It sounds like you can change one setting and solve all your problems (that is: "Download updates but let me choose whether to install them" - it won't interrupt you only to tell you it has new updates. And it does that once).
Why don't you have your windows update set to install when you're not in front of your computer? Mine does it at 3am, and I've yet to have such issues :) Aaaah the joys of Windows Update.
There's "switch" which implies changing your operating system, and then there's "switch" as in changing your OS and being able to do everything you previously could on your old OS after the switch. Linux is definitely in the former, but not the latter, unfortunately. It's getting closer every day, but as long as that .1% of things people do can't be done on Linux, then that is no panacea.
No third parties on Linux? I stopped reading your post right there. Linux is third parties.
It does tell you. If you still have a problem with it, then turn it off. No-one, not even MS, is forcing you to use it.
Exactly. They've already got gigs of MS software on their computer - getting a few megs more a month isn't going to make them stop using it...
Don't try arguing reality in any discussion involving Vista. For the great strenghts of the Slashdot crowd, Vista seems to bring out the nutters :)
Seriously. That is one cluster-fuck of bad code upon bad code upon some kind of pasta dish upon bad code. Disgusting. The worst part is, all the forked projects are just as bad. Yikes.
If you did yum -y update; shutdown -r now; on a distro released a few years back it might take a bit longer than an hour, surely :)
I hear you. I'm a developer, but as I develop web applications, Vista is a good thing for me (as IE7 is far superior to IE6). I think Vista is a good step forward for home and office workers alike. It offers a new slew of features to speed up using a computer, such as its intelligent caching, being able to use flash memory as intermediate memory, support for hybrid drives, sideshow, etc. As we're currently seeing with multiple-core CPUs, these new technological advances take time for folks to adjust to, and when they're present and not being used, they do indeed cause problems. I'm thinking that when this stuff has been used more, it's only going to get quicker, and impressively so.
:)
And as for choices on the desktop, if you want to play games and use Adobe software, there are none
It sounds like "the truth" :) Vista pre-loads commonly-used applications into memory so when you want them, you can run them quickly. If an application needs that memory, it is handed over to the application, so it doesn't mess with that application. It's a great idea. Applications do load ridiculously fast, and the hard disk isn't used as much as on other OSs I've used. What's the point of having 4GB of ram and only having a bit of it used at any one time? If the rest can be used to speed up tasks, and freed when needed, everyone wins.
It's called "relaxing", and happens sometimes during the day and sometimes when I work late :) Currently I'm enjoying the new UT3, CoD4 demo, and both UT2004 and CoD2.
When you move the window when the video is playing, the video does not tear or "lag" behind the window's position. Also, you get to see the video on alt-tabbing, and even in the task bar's application view (not to mention Flip 3D). The quality is not necessarily from the rendering mode chosen, but from how that application is displayed in the GUI. Video playback is excellent in XP - with a decent copy of FFDShow and decent drivers, however video playback seems to not be as tightly integrated into the GUI. Also, the multimedia priority stuff they've stuck in there makes it harder for anything on the computer to screw with playback. It's all about perception, I guess.
It happened:
1. with my (legal) copy of one of the release candidates on my old PC
2. another time a few months ago with an Acer notebook
3. and on my current PC, a couple of months ago.
Each time everything was installed perfectly. No hunting around for drivers.
Good point about the hardware. I thought the DirectX 10 VMR was supposed to be of better quality and efficiency than using the overlay?
The memory useage is indeed far improved over that of XP. That seems to be something they've really worked at. The speed that applications start up is a great indicator of that.
That's very fair and deserved criticism. It is pretty ridiculous that ICS wasn't working correctly, but then that's no great surprise - ICS always has been somewhat flakey, with strange problems that defy definition or correction. That is definitely something they should fix. The routing and remote access service seems to be one that doesn't play well with others.
I've yet to hear anything critical about Vista that wasn't either ill-informed, overblown, or complete guesswork. My own personal experiences of using it clearly do not represent those of the various people complaining about it. Remember we don't hear much from the "it's working fine for me" crowd, as they have no reason to tell anyone.
And as for it being a cube heater, you'd have to try pretty hard to be even more incorrect. The machine I've got is a Dell Vostro 200, one of those slim boxes, and it runs practically silently all the time, and doesn't kick out much more heat than any other PC I've used (even Linux ones *shock*). Compare it with the hulking great G5 sitting next to it, which sounds and feels like a Harrier with engine difficulty, and you'd understand just how quiet and cool this machine is.
Nice try :) I'm wrote it because that's the truth. I do not, have not, or ever will, work for Microsoft. I'm no Microsoft fanboy. I don't own a Zune but an iPod. Every single server I host customers' web sites on runs Linux of some description. If it's similar to what Redmond says would happen to users, then I guess they knew what they were talking about, at least for this user.
I installed Vista on my PC, and it detected everything first time. Yay for anecdotal evidence! We just cancelled each other out!
Improvements to the GUI, lots of new hardware support, fast user switching, remote assistance, built-in CD burning, ClearType, Remote Desktop, ACPI (with hibernation support, sleep modes), greatly-improved boot times, major kernel improvements. And that's just from a cursory glance at the Wikipedia article.
I think it's great. All the eye-candy is performed on the GPU, and the talk about it being DRM-with-a-GUI is nonsense - it performs perfectly as a media player, with astounding video quality (thanks to everything being rendered through Direct3D, and real emphasis placed on media quality). I use Vista at work on my Dell. It only has an X1300 slim-line GPU, but that's good enough to run 2x22" screens at 1680x1050. It runs all the software I want (Adobe stuff, apache, mysql, games, iTunes, etc.), and is never slow. It does "use" a lot of resources, but it does so intelligently. If it wants to use up all my memory, it does so to improve performance, and if applications need it, it is relinquished. I can see how some folks would interpret that as it being full of bloat, but it's just intelligently using the system's available resources.
I don't know why people don't like it. I've got nothing but great things to say about it. Obviously it's not going to be popular with "people who are highly-appreciative of Linux on the desktop" (to choose my words carefully), or those who don't like Microsoft for any particular reason, or "people who are highly-appreciative of OSX on their Macs" (again, choosing words carefully). But, if you've been using Windows for years, and you get on with the differences in the ways Vista works to XP, Vista isn't scary or rubbish or hiding in your cupboard waiting to pounce, it works great.
But that's just my opinion, obviously. I'm sure someone will come along and tell me how I'm all kinds of wrong.