Not all developers can contribute equal value to your project, however.
That's the same regardless of open or closed source.
One of the big benefits to open source is that your developer base and your user base coincide a lot more.
I would say that's a net negative. You end up with software geared toward other software devleopers, not typical home users.
I wouldn't care to estimate the odds that if one customer wants a feature badly enough to code it, somebody else wants it badly enough to switch to your product for it, but they seem pretty good for something that's free.
I would think very low. You also make the assumption that closed source vendors aren't deliverying what their customers want. I don't think that's true, as there are lots of vendors out there and they'd be out of business.
I'd appreciate it if you'd follow your own advice and not take the conversation out of context and put words in my mouth. My point about things changing under the hood in that none of these changes were apparent to me when I used it.
Fair enough, but I'd like to point out that I don't see how you could notice any changes if you're only running "two or three windows applications."
The side-grade to XP from 2000 was entirely due to gaming, and the fact that lots of games will refuse to install and/or run on 2000 for no adequately explored reason other than "it's not XP".
Well the reason was 2000 was targeted at businesses, so they didn't put alot of effort in the DX for 2000. Conversely, XP was aimed at both home and business users, and because they wanted a single code base, its easy enough to to provide DX to both versions.
What I like about Kubuntu is that it doesn't get in my way.
Well, my experience was different (Mandriva with KDE). It got in my way so much I bought Windows.
The GUI is simpler and more customisable.
Hmm... the GUI is mostly the same, except there's lots more control panel items. So much so that I never knew quite which one would provide the customization I wanted. I could never get the K menu editing to work. Personally I have better things to do than customize my desktop, especially when Windows defaults work great for me.
Hibernate and suspend are more reliable.
I have never had problems with either on XP or Vista.
It keeps itself up to date without requiring reboots all the time (which, incidentally, are faster than Vista).
Hmm, I guess I'm not installing updates twice a day, so I don't care. I haven't had to wait for an update because it was required for me to do something I wanted. The updates have been security or reliablity, and I reboot when I'm done with my computer anyway. I find this argument pretty weak.
The battery lasts longer than Vista.
Can't comment; the only Vista laptop I have only ever had Vista on it, but it lasts as long as my other laptop with XP on it.
Cloning and backing up my partitions and/or home drive is easier than in Vista.
I guess you haven't tried Vista's Backup.
No activation.
Activation which takes three seconds? Honestly I can't see why anyone cares.
Native support for SSH.
I'd rather a graphic remote desktop over command line. I realize that's just my preference though.
I gave up my "I use Linux cos only 733t HaXx0rz like me can use it" years ago... If not liking Vista makes me an MS-hater...
Sometimes people change the rationalization they use. Not saying you're lying though, just saying you might want to think about that possiblity. Not liking Vista doesn't make you an MS hater, but not keeping an open mind when you evaluate it, which it doesn't sound like you really did, makes me wonder though. Honestly I used to have some of those same reasons for not wanting to use MS, but then I realized they were pretty silly.
now I just want something I can do my work in without any hassle. I just want to get my work done.
Heh... pretty funny, considering that's exactly why I moved from using Linux on my server, which I had done for 10 years, and linux on my desktop, which I had for three years, to Windows on both. Seriously, I'm not mocking you at all, I just find it really ironic.
So, you're extrapolating what everyone is doing based on what you are doing? Not saying you are necessarly wrong. I see computer development similar to car development. Look at the features being added today; most have nothing to do with getting you from A to B, but making it easier / more comfortable or safer. However the auto industry is still doing just fine, so I suspect MS has nothing to worry about either.
They may have learned a few key points about open source and its effectiveness, but they are leaving out one important part. The OPEN SOURCE.
Maybe the open source part really isn't the important part of building good open source software? The open part gets you developers that work mostly for free, but MS already has plenty of developers, so opening doesn't benefit them.
What brand wireless chip? I'd like to hear from you and the other posters telling me it "just works," because for every one of you I can find five other's that don't have wireless on Ubuntu.
I'm aware alot has changed under the hood, but 'fraid I still haven't noticed anything stunning about the way it behaves.
Yet you tried to pass it off as nothing has changed. Tell me, what was so impressive about XP that you wanted to upgrade?
Sorry. I'm content to use the infinitely inferior XP for the two or three windows apps I still find myself running.
Hmm... just an MS hater? You liked XP enough to upgrade, what do you like more about Ubuntu that you'd rather go that route instead of staying with XP?
...which brings us back to his original point. Not enough has changed for the better to make it economically viable for him.
Whoa there zippy, stop taking my words out of context. The OP was talking about his dislike of the UI, which hasn't changed much. But under the hood things certainly have changed quite a bit.
A few hundred bucks can be a lot of money with a family.
Yes, and what I said was it if IS a lot of money for a family, the heads of household probably aren't managing their money very well. In that case, choice of OS to install on the family computer should probably be a very low priority. Instead of playing with the computer, the HoH should be figuring out how to make their money situtation less volatile.
I have seven computers and that few hundred dollars starts to add up when you multiply it by the number of computers in the home. I seriously doubt I am all that unique in the amount of computers I have running, the computer is becoming much like the television before it.
You're an edge case. Most people have one, maybe two computers. Certainly not seven. You might be normal in the future, not now.
As for switching, did you buy computers that came with Windows already installed? If so, you threw away some of the money you paid. If not, fine. I never said everyone had to run Windows, I'm just saying I feel it's worth the price. My main point being that if you're paying $400 for Vista Ultimate, you're a fool, because it's trival to find it for much less.
(my kids are home schooled)
Please tell me you've been certified somehow..
I only buy two computers every 2-3 years. The old systems get recycled into new uses.
You probably buy them with Windows pre-installed them I'm guessing, if you're buying the whole thing at once. So its included in the price. If you're building your own.. maybe you should see how much it is to buy a base system that comes with windows and price out some decent upgrades seperately.
If Microsoft would offer Vista for 250 bucks and up to 5 installs, I would be more then happy to buy it. Just a side note, I don't pirate windows either, each copy I use is bought and paid for.
Well, you have to ask yourself do you really need the Ultimate edition? If its for mainly home use, the Home Premium version can be had for $100. Do you need home premium if you're kids are just using the machines for education? Then you can find home basic for $60. That's pretty close to the price you want to pay per copy. And that's full retail version, which means if you get a newer computer you can remove the copy from the computer you're discarding and move it to the next one.
Maybe I do. But I fail to see in the list of fiscal priorities, why an operating system of all things is something that I should pay that much money for.
I never said you should. Just don't lie about the cost to make your point.
I mean, if Linux costs me a $1 to download, and Vista is $400 list, then, is Vista 400 times better than Linux? It doesn't use 400 times less memory. It doesn't make my computer run 400 times faster. It doesn't make my computer have 400 times the features.
Again, you're lying about the price when I already proved its a fair bit less than $400. And where do you get your numbers from? You think that the price difference (which is 249, not 400 as you claim) means that it should perform that many times faster? What utter nonsense.
The value in my opinion is that you have 1) support 2) pretty much all hardware will work with MS OSes 3) there's a lot more quality software for Windows than Linux and support for said software is better and because i'm programmer 4) the platform is easier to develop for.
In fact, Ubuntu comes out of the box with MORE stuff than Vista does, because a Linux distro will give you all of the applications and features that are available to Linux. Granted, OpenOffice sucks compared to MS Office, but, Ubuntu gives you -everything-, even if it is not as good.
That's hardly an arguement; you get lots of extra software, but its not as good? Sounds like a reason to pay for Windows to me.. so I can get the best software.
I only got to your first paragrah before I repled.
Taken together, Microsoft's actions of the last few weeks : decreasing the price of Vista, giving away Visual Studio to Students, publishing specifications, all point towards an effort to attract developers to their platform. Even the channel partnerships that I railed about earlier are structured to attract developers. Clearly, Microsoft knows something that we don't know, and, I think it is that Linux development is starting to reach a critical mass for them to be really concerned about it. I wonder how much trouble Microsoft realizes it is in.
None of that is anything new. Fee or almost no cost versions of various MS products have been available to students in college for years now. Why would they ever stop trying to attract developers to their platform?
There is a demographic factor going on as well. A lot of we formerly reliable Windows zealots are now in our 30s and 40s, and suddenly money that would be spent on graphics cards and Windows upgrades is now getting plowed into our over-priced houses and our children. It's like, I would have stayed up in line to get Vista Ultimate the day it came out, but instead, I bought diapers, soy milk and a thomas the tank engine train set for my son. Having jonesed for some sort of an upgrade to my PC, I went with Ubuntu instead, and its pretty satisfying.
Well, if you're that hard up that a few hunderd dollars will screw you, it sounds like you have problems managing your money.
Linux has hit that point where, it may not be the best in terms of a consumer operating system, but its often good enough, and installing it just works.
Well, that's not been my experience, and why I went out and bough SBS 2003 and Vista for my computers.
Enough of the $400 figure. Its a bit more than half that amount. That's after a few seconds of searching; I was able to find a Full version for $165. OEM versions can be had for even less.
So you didn't save as much, and good luck if you ever want to use wireless with that Ubuntu computer. Price isn't the only thing you should consider when buying an OS. Not saying you mad a bad choice or anything, but you used at least one bad point of information to make that decision, and for me I'd rather pay than spend time trying to for Linux to work with various hardware / software.
I think that Apple actually sells a lot of upgrades.
Can you back that up with some numbers, such as % of apple users that buy OS upgrades?
I have not upgraded to Vista because of the cost to benefit ratio. For me it would be a lot of cost and probably a negative benefit.
Probably a negative benefit? Maybe you should try it. Personally I like the new features of Vista, and wouldn't want to go back to XP. I only have one computer that's not running Vista, and that's a laptop from 01 or 02 and I haven't checked specs.
Oh I see. You think it sucks, therefore it sucks. Keep in mind that the MS memoes never said that they believe the product "sucked," just that they thought the requirements were higher than they would like and that some of the new features broke compatability more than they should.
Of course that's an option too; I've been very happy with Vista on every computer I've used it on, and so have others in my company.
Which is the point of my posts in this part of the thread; everyone is taking this as "MS admits Vista sucks!" when that's not it at all.
A monopoly is a monopoly, regardless of who is running it -- which means all the bad stuff that monopolies do will still happen under the government.
No, it doesn't. I have city water, city electric, and now city internet, phone and TV. All are more reliable and provide better service than the "private" companies. If its government run, you have a vote and can make changes happen because the services are run by the government. Its much harder to get the government to make the private company to change than to make the government itself chagne.
I'd rather see something along the lines of the government outlawing exclusive franchaise agreements that keep second and third carriers out of the market in local towns rather than take over the business. You still have to worry about oligopoly problems, but at least there is a chance of competition driving up efficiencies.
But its not efficent to have multiple lines, and private business is ignoring what they were supposed to do. Here in Vermont, Adelphia / Comcast failed to provide service to rural areas (which was supposed to be in place at least 5 years ago), Verizon failed to provide any significant broadband. DSL, which doesn't even cover the entire city of Burlington (including the most populous part of the city). Phone quality is crap, and when I had verizon they couldn't even bill me properly. The only thing I get was disconnection notices, never my monthly bill. Of course they blamed the postal service, but THEIR bill was the only item not being delivered.
I'm not; I don't typically buy latest generation, usually one or two behind. Only recently am I thinking of getting latest generation for my new server.
we are talking about the 64MB wonders that they claimed it would run on.
Huh? Can you provide evidence of this? Here's the system requirements for home basic:
800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for Super VGA graphics
CD-ROM drive
Personally, its been quite a few years since most machines started being sold with 512MB. Only walmart brand PCs are / were shipping with 64MB. I don't recall Vista ready stickers until only about six months before the release. If you can show me such an ad that was selling a 64MB machine with a Vista Ready logo, I'll believe you, but somehow I doubt this was the case.
Two stickers could have been different, hell making one Black and White would have been enough to grab someones attention.
That would be quite confusing; it'd be easy to get the meanings backwards. Also, you have to know what Home Basic provides and what the other editions provide. Likely, most people wouldn't (and don't) bother checking. That's not MS' fault either. People in general should be doing more research before a purchase than they are.
So, what are the specs of this 'Older Computer'? Unless you are a time travel, all computers are older. Even then it would be older to your frame of reference. Being a reasonable person I assume you meant a few years old.
Well, it would have been simple enough to find the post to which I refered. But if you're not willing.. 1GB PC3200 RAM, AMD 3800+ X2, Asus MB, 120GB drive, Audigy 2 sound card, ChainTech GF 5700 FX.
Well, we have had many tests with Vista, and the end result is we won't be getting Vista for our organization any time soon.
Are you looking at recommended / minimum specs? I see no reason to avoid it if it comes pre-installed on a computer. We have some computers running Vista at my workplace and no complaints thus far.
Right, because they can force people to upgrade to Vista. Do you run a company? Would you ever scrap thousands of hours for which you paid people to work on your product?
What, you never heard of wireless? Seriously, I'm not an early adopter and I've had 802.11b since 2002. I guess I'm not lame enough to host a LAN torny..
I never saw any commericals at all with Vista Ready in them, so I can't comment on those. I can also understand deciding against having two similar stickers, I think that would have been confusing as well. What did the fine print say? Or was there none?
As far as the product not being ready goes, I have to disagree. I use it on a fairly older computer (see one of my other posts in this discussion) and it runs great. I also have it on a new laptop (bought with Vista Business, upgraded to Ultimate) and on my work computer. Its been exteremly stable, and I've noticed I haven't had any problems printing. XP printing though always seems to be a crap shoot.
I release people have had problems, but there's lots like me that haven't.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all developers can contribute equal value to your project, however.
That's the same regardless of open or closed source.
One of the big benefits to open source is that your developer base and your user base coincide a lot more.
I would say that's a net negative. You end up with software geared toward other software devleopers, not typical home users.
I wouldn't care to estimate the odds that if one customer wants a feature badly enough to code it, somebody else wants it badly enough to switch to your product for it, but they seem pretty good for something that's free.
I would think very low. You also make the assumption that closed source vendors aren't deliverying what their customers want. I don't think that's true, as there are lots of vendors out there and they'd be out of business.
Not really. 540J vs. 4320J. The squid is a neat idea, but its eight times LESS effective than this one.
I'd appreciate it if you'd follow your own advice and not take the conversation out of context and put words in my mouth. My point about things changing under the hood in that none of these changes were apparent to me when I used it.
...
Fair enough, but I'd like to point out that I don't see how you could notice any changes if you're only running "two or three windows applications."
The side-grade to XP from 2000 was entirely due to gaming, and the fact that lots of games will refuse to install and/or run on 2000 for no adequately explored reason other than "it's not XP".
Well the reason was 2000 was targeted at businesses, so they didn't put alot of effort in the DX for 2000. Conversely, XP was aimed at both home and business users, and because they wanted a single code base, its easy enough to to provide DX to both versions.
What I like about Kubuntu is that it doesn't get in my way.
Well, my experience was different (Mandriva with KDE). It got in my way so much I bought Windows.
The GUI is simpler and more customisable.
Hmm... the GUI is mostly the same, except there's lots more control panel items. So much so that I never knew quite which one would provide the customization I wanted. I could never get the K menu editing to work. Personally I have better things to do than customize my desktop, especially when Windows defaults work great for me.
Hibernate and suspend are more reliable.
I have never had problems with either on XP or Vista.
It keeps itself up to date without requiring reboots all the time (which, incidentally, are faster than Vista).
Hmm, I guess I'm not installing updates twice a day, so I don't care. I haven't had to wait for an update because it was required for me to do something I wanted. The updates have been security or reliablity, and I reboot when I'm done with my computer anyway. I find this argument pretty weak.
The battery lasts longer than Vista.
Can't comment; the only Vista laptop I have only ever had Vista on it, but it lasts as long as my other laptop with XP on it.
Cloning and backing up my partitions and/or home drive is easier than in Vista.
I guess you haven't tried Vista's Backup.
No activation.
Activation which takes three seconds? Honestly I can't see why anyone cares.
Native support for SSH.
I'd rather a graphic remote desktop over command line. I realize that's just my preference though.
A brilliant shell in the form of bash.
Did you try Powershell?
I gave up my "I use Linux cos only 733t HaXx0rz like me can use it" years ago... If not liking Vista makes me an MS-hater
Sometimes people change the rationalization they use. Not saying you're lying though, just saying you might want to think about that possiblity. Not liking Vista doesn't make you an MS hater, but not keeping an open mind when you evaluate it, which it doesn't sound like you really did, makes me wonder though. Honestly I used to have some of those same reasons for not wanting to use MS, but then I realized they were pretty silly.
now I just want something I can do my work in without any hassle. I just want to get my work done.
Heh... pretty funny, considering that's exactly why I moved from using Linux on my server, which I had done for 10 years, and linux on my desktop, which I had for three years, to Windows on both. Seriously, I'm not mocking you at all, I just find it really ironic.
So, you're extrapolating what everyone is doing based on what you are doing? Not saying you are necessarly wrong. I see computer development similar to car development. Look at the features being added today; most have nothing to do with getting you from A to B, but making it easier / more comfortable or safer. However the auto industry is still doing just fine, so I suspect MS has nothing to worry about either.
They may have learned a few key points about open source and its effectiveness, but they are leaving out one important part. The OPEN SOURCE.
Maybe the open source part really isn't the important part of building good open source software? The open part gets you developers that work mostly for free, but MS already has plenty of developers, so opening doesn't benefit them.
What brand wireless chip? I'd like to hear from you and the other posters telling me it "just works," because for every one of you I can find five other's that don't have wireless on Ubuntu.
I'm aware alot has changed under the hood, but 'fraid I still haven't noticed anything stunning about the way it behaves.
Yet you tried to pass it off as nothing has changed. Tell me, what was so impressive about XP that you wanted to upgrade?
Sorry. I'm content to use the infinitely inferior XP for the two or three windows apps I still find myself running.
Hmm... just an MS hater? You liked XP enough to upgrade, what do you like more about Ubuntu that you'd rather go that route instead of staying with XP?
Ok, I guess I don't understand what point you're trying to get across.
Wow, it's amazing how many /.ers purposefully throw away context when trying to bash MS.
...which brings us back to his original point. Not enough has changed for the better to make it economically viable for him.
Whoa there zippy, stop taking my words out of context. The OP was talking about his dislike of the UI, which hasn't changed much. But under the hood things certainly have changed quite a bit.
A few hundred bucks can be a lot of money with a family.
Yes, and what I said was it if IS a lot of money for a family, the heads of household probably aren't managing their money very well. In that case, choice of OS to install on the family computer should probably be a very low priority. Instead of playing with the computer, the HoH should be figuring out how to make their money situtation less volatile.
I have seven computers and that few hundred dollars starts to add up when you multiply it by the number of computers in the home. I seriously doubt I am all that unique in the amount of computers I have running, the computer is becoming much like the television before it.
You're an edge case. Most people have one, maybe two computers. Certainly not seven. You might be normal in the future, not now.
As for switching, did you buy computers that came with Windows already installed? If so, you threw away some of the money you paid. If not, fine. I never said everyone had to run Windows, I'm just saying I feel it's worth the price. My main point being that if you're paying $400 for Vista Ultimate, you're a fool, because it's trival to find it for much less.
(my kids are home schooled)
Please tell me you've been certified somehow..
I only buy two computers every 2-3 years. The old systems get recycled into new uses.
You probably buy them with Windows pre-installed them I'm guessing, if you're buying the whole thing at once. So its included in the price. If you're building your own.. maybe you should see how much it is to buy a base system that comes with windows and price out some decent upgrades seperately.
If Microsoft would offer Vista for 250 bucks and up to 5 installs, I would be more then happy to buy it. Just a side note, I don't pirate windows either, each copy I use is bought and paid for.
Well, you have to ask yourself do you really need the Ultimate edition? If its for mainly home use, the Home Premium version can be had for $100. Do you need home premium if you're kids are just using the machines for education? Then you can find home basic for $60. That's pretty close to the price you want to pay per copy. And that's full retail version, which means if you get a newer computer you can remove the copy from the computer you're discarding and move it to the next one.
Maybe I do. But I fail to see in the list of fiscal priorities, why an operating system of all things is something that I should pay that much money for.
I never said you should. Just don't lie about the cost to make your point.
I mean, if Linux costs me a $1 to download, and Vista is $400 list, then, is Vista 400 times better than Linux? It doesn't use 400 times less memory. It doesn't make my computer run 400 times faster. It doesn't make my computer have 400 times the features.
Again, you're lying about the price when I already proved its a fair bit less than $400. And where do you get your numbers from? You think that the price difference (which is 249, not 400 as you claim) means that it should perform that many times faster? What utter nonsense.
The value in my opinion is that you have 1) support 2) pretty much all hardware will work with MS OSes 3) there's a lot more quality software for Windows than Linux and support for said software is better and because i'm programmer 4) the platform is easier to develop for.
In fact, Ubuntu comes out of the box with MORE stuff than Vista does, because a Linux distro will give you all of the applications and features that are available to Linux. Granted, OpenOffice sucks compared to MS Office, but, Ubuntu gives you -everything-, even if it is not as good.
That's hardly an arguement; you get lots of extra software, but its not as good? Sounds like a reason to pay for Windows to me.. so I can get the best software.
I take it XP isn't user friendly in your opinion? Because really not much has changed between XP and Vista.
You know you can go to Windows classic UI right?
My computer used to be considered near the top of the pile...2.2 GHz Athlon64 overclocked to 2.7, 2 gigs of Corsair XMS DDR-400, a bios-modded x800
Huh? No, that's not true when we're up to 3 - 4 Ghz and two or more cores, and DDR 3 is starting to trickle out.
I only got to your first paragrah before I repled.
Taken together, Microsoft's actions of the last few weeks : decreasing the price of Vista, giving away Visual Studio to Students, publishing specifications, all point towards an effort to attract developers to their platform. Even the channel partnerships that I railed about earlier are structured to attract developers. Clearly, Microsoft knows something that we don't know, and, I think it is that Linux development is starting to reach a critical mass for them to be really concerned about it. I wonder how much trouble Microsoft realizes it is in.
None of that is anything new. Fee or almost no cost versions of various MS products have been available to students in college for years now. Why would they ever stop trying to attract developers to their platform?
There is a demographic factor going on as well. A lot of we formerly reliable Windows zealots are now in our 30s and 40s, and suddenly money that would be spent on graphics cards and Windows upgrades is now getting plowed into our over-priced houses and our children. It's like, I would have stayed up in line to get Vista Ultimate the day it came out, but instead, I bought diapers, soy milk and a thomas the tank engine train set for my son. Having jonesed for some sort of an upgrade to my PC, I went with Ubuntu instead, and its pretty satisfying.
Well, if you're that hard up that a few hunderd dollars will screw you, it sounds like you have problems managing your money.
Linux has hit that point where, it may not be the best in terms of a consumer operating system, but its often good enough, and installing it just works.
Well, that's not been my experience, and why I went out and bough SBS 2003 and Vista for my computers.
Enough of the $400 figure. Its a bit more than half that amount. That's after a few seconds of searching; I was able to find a Full version for $165. OEM versions can be had for even less.
So you didn't save as much, and good luck if you ever want to use wireless with that Ubuntu computer. Price isn't the only thing you should consider when buying an OS. Not saying you mad a bad choice or anything, but you used at least one bad point of information to make that decision, and for me I'd rather pay than spend time trying to for Linux to work with various hardware / software.
I think that Apple actually sells a lot of upgrades.
Can you back that up with some numbers, such as % of apple users that buy OS upgrades?
I have not upgraded to Vista because of the cost to benefit ratio. For me it would be a lot of cost and probably a negative benefit.
Probably a negative benefit? Maybe you should try it. Personally I like the new features of Vista, and wouldn't want to go back to XP. I only have one computer that's not running Vista, and that's a laptop from 01 or 02 and I haven't checked specs.
Oh I see. You think it sucks, therefore it sucks. Keep in mind that the MS memoes never said that they believe the product "sucked," just that they thought the requirements were higher than they would like and that some of the new features broke compatability more than they should.
Of course that's an option too; I've been very happy with Vista on every computer I've used it on, and so have others in my company.
Which is the point of my posts in this part of the thread; everyone is taking this as "MS admits Vista sucks!" when that's not it at all.
A monopoly is a monopoly, regardless of who is running it -- which means all the bad stuff that monopolies do will still happen under the government.
No, it doesn't. I have city water, city electric, and now city internet, phone and TV. All are more reliable and provide better service than the "private" companies. If its government run, you have a vote and can make changes happen because the services are run by the government. Its much harder to get the government to make the private company to change than to make the government itself chagne.
I'd rather see something along the lines of the government outlawing exclusive franchaise agreements that keep second and third carriers out of the market in local towns rather than take over the business. You still have to worry about oligopoly problems, but at least there is a chance of competition driving up efficiencies.
But its not efficent to have multiple lines, and private business is ignoring what they were supposed to do. Here in Vermont, Adelphia / Comcast failed to provide service to rural areas (which was supposed to be in place at least 5 years ago), Verizon failed to provide any significant broadband. DSL, which doesn't even cover the entire city of Burlington (including the most populous part of the city). Phone quality is crap, and when I had verizon they couldn't even bill me properly. The only thing I get was disconnection notices, never my monthly bill. Of course they blamed the postal service, but THEIR bill was the only item not being delivered.
I'm not; I don't typically buy latest generation, usually one or two behind. Only recently am I thinking of getting latest generation for my new server.
we are talking about the 64MB wonders that they claimed it would run on.
Huh? Can you provide evidence of this? Here's the system requirements for home basic:
Personally, its been quite a few years since most machines started being sold with 512MB. Only walmart brand PCs are / were shipping with 64MB. I don't recall Vista ready stickers until only about six months before the release. If you can show me such an ad that was selling a 64MB machine with a Vista Ready logo, I'll believe you, but somehow I doubt this was the case.
Two stickers could have been different, hell making one Black and White would have been enough to grab someones attention.
That would be quite confusing; it'd be easy to get the meanings backwards. Also, you have to know what Home Basic provides and what the other editions provide. Likely, most people wouldn't (and don't) bother checking. That's not MS' fault either. People in general should be doing more research before a purchase than they are.
So, what are the specs of this 'Older Computer'? Unless you are a time travel, all computers are older. Even then it would be older to your frame of reference. Being a reasonable person I assume you meant a few years old.
Well, it would have been simple enough to find the post to which I refered. But if you're not willing.. 1GB PC3200 RAM, AMD 3800+ X2, Asus MB, 120GB drive, Audigy 2 sound card, ChainTech GF 5700 FX.
Well, we have had many tests with Vista, and the end result is we won't be getting Vista for our organization any time soon.
Are you looking at recommended / minimum specs? I see no reason to avoid it if it comes pre-installed on a computer. We have some computers running Vista at my workplace and no complaints thus far.
Right, because they can force people to upgrade to Vista. Do you run a company? Would you ever scrap thousands of hours for which you paid people to work on your product?
What, you never heard of wireless? Seriously, I'm not an early adopter and I've had 802.11b since 2002. I guess I'm not lame enough to host a LAN torny..
I never saw any commericals at all with Vista Ready in them, so I can't comment on those. I can also understand deciding against having two similar stickers, I think that would have been confusing as well. What did the fine print say? Or was there none?
As far as the product not being ready goes, I have to disagree. I use it on a fairly older computer (see one of my other posts in this discussion) and it runs great. I also have it on a new laptop (bought with Vista Business, upgraded to Ultimate) and on my work computer. Its been exteremly stable, and I've noticed I haven't had any problems printing. XP printing though always seems to be a crap shoot.
I release people have had problems, but there's lots like me that haven't.
Me too, and I have less of a machine. 3800+ X2, 1gb ram, fx 5700 card. Plays doom3 just as well as xp did.