"2. Ease of install: image based installs are not complex. You're supposed to just put the DVD in, boot, type the license, and it's done in about 3-4 mins."
Doubtful. Most OEM's run Sysprep after the image is applied - and the average 4GB+ image takes more than 5 minutes to apply. My main point is that by doing this, you would actually be doing harm to the OEM's - who seek to deliver "a PC", not "a brick". Ever bought a Mac? Plug it in, turn it on, and go. It's what all OEM's wish for. And most Windows-bundling OEM's strive for. Doing this would make their lives harder and make the first user experience for every new PC consumer shittier than it needs to be. "Unbundling" isn't the answer. Requiring every OEM to have a checkbox saying "no OS, I don't need one, thanks" is better. Consider it like an unlocked cellphone - god knows there's been enough chatter about that on/. lately. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. But don't make the 99.5% of consumers who would rather run Windows (or simply wouldn't care) get crapped on as far as their experience with their new PC so the extreme minority can run linux.
This is an absolutely yummy idea. I don't see this adding any financial or time complexity to the already complex task OEM's face of building out thousands of machines each day. And then the tens (perhaps even hundreds) of customers every month who want linux get to install it too - and they get to bless the average technophobic user with a stripped PC, hunting for drivers... Yeah. Awesome.
Anyone who actually thinks that linux is ready for the desktop needs to spend more time with the average computer user. It is not ready for the average consumer.
You're not stupid. The average consumer doesn't want to install their own OS. The average consumer cannot install their own OS. The author of the post makes several assumptions that the average consumer is just as much of a tech-loving, curious prosumer as he is. They aren't.
It depends on the type of organization it was, and where it was founded. Like it or not, forming a corporation or LLC is often done to specifically shield founding/leadership individuals from liability of the company. And to a large extent, it does.
It was a snide comment - but FWIW, the BIOS (or EFI, in the case of the Itanic or the Mac) isn't a boot loader. Take a look at how Windows or any modern OS works - the kernel isn't ever initialized from the BIOS - there are always one or more helpers along the way actually doing the heavy lifting.
The biggest 32-bit only problem was a driver for an old Canon laser printer. (No Linux driver either.) Canon even says on their website they aren't going to put out a 64-bit driver-- too old a printer, not worth their time. Yet somehow Canon did find time to make a new driver for that printer for 32-bit Windows Vista, hmmm.
Assuming you're talking about XP x64... the number of people ever running XP Pro x64 has already long since been passed by the number of people running any version of Vista (heck, probably those just running Vista Home). Companies provide drivers where there is a compelling demand.
You can't download music or video to it without iTunes and a computer... kinf of makes sense why they'd require it. If you don't plan on watching video or listening to music on it, perhaps you should reconsider spending $500+ on a phone whose main reason for being is just that...
It's an app which your iPhone connects to in order to activate and sychronize... there are drivers involved.
Even if they could have, why would they (bear in mind I am writing this from a Dell laptop which I use everyday, that runs XP x64 - so I would be SOL too). x64 XP has been a market test. Vista x64 deployment is a novelty for now - not supporting it means less work for vendors to develop and test. If Microsoft cared about x64 deployment, they'd be pushing harder for ISV's to develop for it.
I don't find it surprising that they'd mandate iTunes. It's an iPod. It has to sync somehow or you lose 90% of the utility of the device...
Au contraire... virtualization is quite intended and useful on the desktop. Tiny, easy to use implementations like the VMware player make it quite viable...
While it's not a competitor to the Media Center PC, it is pretty nearly a direct competitor to the Media Center Extender (of which the Xbox 360 is the only one of the three worth diddly). And the AppleTV is not a very good one at that - bad res for HD users (a key improvement of the Xbox 360 over earlier extenders) and very constrained role. The Media Center Extender is quite powerful, and becomes an extension of 99% of the functionality of a Media Center PC (versus just playing back already downloaded music or video as a cheap Dlink device can do).
Don't challenge the hackers. It's great that Windows Vista has some built in low-level security protections. It's also great to see that Michael is discounting the significance of UAC. And he should - most people will wind up turning it off. But I think that attempting to say that Vista is fire retardant is most likely going to serve as a method to encourage hackers and script kiddies to try and set fire to it. Saying "because it's Vista means the exploit isn't as bad" is a horrible argument. It's an OS, and an exploit is an exploit.
In short I don't think Michael should assume. When you assume, well, you know.
My mom always said (Forrest Gump inferrence somewhat intended), "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade". It's true. This is actually how the microwave oven was born, as well as many other inventions.
When XP first shipped, it did indeed have a 64-bit version. But it was only for the Itanic. X64 support isn't technically in "XP" itself, but rather it was added to Windows Server 2003 SP1, which shipped support for a client version as well, the one you linked to. A minor point, but one I thought was worth mentioning.
You're kidding, right? 95% of consumers never crack the documentation that comes with software. Not shipping a manual is better for the environment (and of course saves Microsoft money, too). In the end, Microsoft will publish a book on Vista too. For the rare consumer who would actually take the time to crack it, good deal. For the rest of the world, it's several million unread "books" that won't be thrown away.
UAC is so amazingly, fundamentally flawed. Has been from the beginning. As you noted, it's susceptible to user numbness. It's also susceptible to the dancing pigs phenomenon, something mentioned by Microsoft's own Steve Riley (see http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns /secmgmt/sm0405.mspx, and search for the words "dancing pigs".
Mac has issued a salutation. Allow or deny? Comedy gold, and yet Apple hit the nail on the head.
My expectation is that at least 50% of Windows Vista consumers will turn UAC off entirely, and the remaining 50% will ignore it (psychologically disable it) to the point that it may as well be disabled - especially applies in the enterprise computing world where Joe won't be allowed to turn it off, but still wants to do whatever he wants. Meaning that in the default configuration of users as hobbled admins, every Vista user is then an admin. Just like they are in XP. Really validates 5 years of hard work on security.
Hardware + software = device. No amount of mindless drooling by Gartner "analysts" will change that. Sure, the OS may get smaller, and Nathan Myhrvold's much feared vision of the "Megaserver" (see here) may be fulfilled - oh wait, it already has. But at the end of the day, a device with some semblance of UI presentation to get the "'net goo" off of the Interweb tubes to the glass will still be required. And to print. And to play audio, video, and store info locally. Because at the end of the day, sure you can store stuff up in the cloud. But it has to come down at some point or another in order to be useful enough to even keep. Hence, an operating system (or embedded OS, whatever) is necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
"2. Ease of install: image based installs are not complex. You're supposed to just put the DVD in, boot, type the license, and it's done in about 3-4 mins."
/. lately. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. But don't make the 99.5% of consumers who would rather run Windows (or simply wouldn't care) get crapped on as far as their experience with their new PC so the extreme minority can run linux.
Doubtful. Most OEM's run Sysprep after the image is applied - and the average 4GB+ image takes more than 5 minutes to apply. My main point is that by doing this, you would actually be doing harm to the OEM's - who seek to deliver "a PC", not "a brick". Ever bought a Mac? Plug it in, turn it on, and go. It's what all OEM's wish for. And most Windows-bundling OEM's strive for. Doing this would make their lives harder and make the first user experience for every new PC consumer shittier than it needs to be. "Unbundling" isn't the answer. Requiring every OEM to have a checkbox saying "no OS, I don't need one, thanks" is better. Consider it like an unlocked cellphone - god knows there's been enough chatter about that on
Um. Didya read the post I replied to?
It's not that hard for you. You should spend some time watching real consumers using software. I think you'd be very surprised.
Oh and if they can't do it themselves, that's good. Save money to spend money. Good argument.
This is an absolutely yummy idea. I don't see this adding any financial or time complexity to the already complex task OEM's face of building out thousands of machines each day. And then the tens (perhaps even hundreds) of customers every month who want linux get to install it too - and they get to bless the average technophobic user with a stripped PC, hunting for drivers... Yeah. Awesome.
Anyone who actually thinks that linux is ready for the desktop needs to spend more time with the average computer user. It is not ready for the average consumer.
You're not stupid. The average consumer doesn't want to install their own OS. The average consumer cannot install their own OS. The author of the post makes several assumptions that the average consumer is just as much of a tech-loving, curious prosumer as he is. They aren't.
It depends on the type of organization it was, and where it was founded. Like it or not, forming a corporation or LLC is often done to specifically shield founding/leadership individuals from liability of the company. And to a large extent, it does.
It should convince you that the Mac is going to make it. Linux will never be the standard for home users. Not gonna happen.
It was a snide comment - but FWIW, the BIOS (or EFI, in the case of the Itanic or the Mac) isn't a boot loader. Take a look at how Windows or any modern OS works - the kernel isn't ever initialized from the BIOS - there are always one or more helpers along the way actually doing the heavy lifting.
Of course - it is a core component of PXE, used to network boot/network install numerous OS's, including the Mac OS.
This is the boot loader. Anyone in doubt, read Mac OS X Internals by Amit Singh - note the bootx reference.
The biggest 32-bit only problem was a driver for an old Canon laser printer. (No Linux driver either.) Canon even says on their website they aren't going to put out a 64-bit driver-- too old a printer, not worth their time. Yet somehow Canon did find time to make a new driver for that printer for 32-bit Windows Vista, hmmm.
Assuming you're talking about XP x64... the number of people ever running XP Pro x64 has already long since been passed by the number of people running any version of Vista (heck, probably those just running Vista Home). Companies provide drivers where there is a compelling demand.
You can't download music or video to it without iTunes and a computer... kinf of makes sense why they'd require it. If you don't plan on watching video or listening to music on it, perhaps you should reconsider spending $500+ on a phone whose main reason for being is just that...
driver app
It's an app which your iPhone connects to in order to activate and sychronize... there are drivers involved. Even if they could have, why would they (bear in mind I am writing this from a Dell laptop which I use everyday, that runs XP x64 - so I would be SOL too). x64 XP has been a market test. Vista x64 deployment is a novelty for now - not supporting it means less work for vendors to develop and test. If Microsoft cared about x64 deployment, they'd be pushing harder for ISV's to develop for it. I don't find it surprising that they'd mandate iTunes. It's an iPod. It has to sync somehow or you lose 90% of the utility of the device...
Au contraire... virtualization is quite intended and useful on the desktop. Tiny, easy to use implementations like the VMware player make it quite viable...
While it's not a competitor to the Media Center PC, it is pretty nearly a direct competitor to the Media Center Extender (of which the Xbox 360 is the only one of the three worth diddly). And the AppleTV is not a very good one at that - bad res for HD users (a key improvement of the Xbox 360 over earlier extenders) and very constrained role. The Media Center Extender is quite powerful, and becomes an extension of 99% of the functionality of a Media Center PC (versus just playing back already downloaded music or video as a cheap Dlink device can do).
Don't challenge the hackers. It's great that Windows Vista has some built in low-level security protections. It's also great to see that Michael is discounting the significance of UAC. And he should - most people will wind up turning it off. But I think that attempting to say that Vista is fire retardant is most likely going to serve as a method to encourage hackers and script kiddies to try and set fire to it. Saying "because it's Vista means the exploit isn't as bad" is a horrible argument. It's an OS, and an exploit is an exploit.
In short I don't think Michael should assume. When you assume, well, you know.
Exactly. Oh wait. You misunderstood. The microwave and the lemonade were unrelated...
My mom always said (Forrest Gump inferrence somewhat intended), "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade". It's true. This is actually how the microwave oven was born, as well as many other inventions.
Indeed. He thought he had failed, but continued his research with a stiff upper lip.
When XP first shipped, it did indeed have a 64-bit version. But it was only for the Itanic. X64 support isn't technically in "XP" itself, but rather it was added to Windows Server 2003 SP1, which shipped support for a client version as well, the one you linked to. A minor point, but one I thought was worth mentioning.
You're kidding, right? 95% of consumers never crack the documentation that comes with software. Not shipping a manual is better for the environment (and of course saves Microsoft money, too). In the end, Microsoft will publish a book on Vista too. For the rare consumer who would actually take the time to crack it, good deal. For the rest of the world, it's several million unread "books" that won't be thrown away.
SEE? I told you... They fall for the dancing pigs every time. Sure, you can see them here.
Sorry, did I miss something? I was too busy clicking "Allow" 7 times to notice which one was bad. None of them were bad, were they?
UAC is so amazingly, fundamentally flawed. Has been from the beginning. As you noted, it's susceptible to user numbness. It's also susceptible to the dancing pigs phenomenon, something mentioned by Microsoft's own Steve Riley (see http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns /secmgmt/sm0405.mspx, and search for the words "dancing pigs".
Mac has issued a salutation. Allow or deny? Comedy gold, and yet Apple hit the nail on the head.
My expectation is that at least 50% of Windows Vista consumers will turn UAC off entirely, and the remaining 50% will ignore it (psychologically disable it) to the point that it may as well be disabled - especially applies in the enterprise computing world where Joe won't be allowed to turn it off, but still wants to do whatever he wants. Meaning that in the default configuration of users as hobbled admins, every Vista user is then an admin. Just like they are in XP. Really validates 5 years of hard work on security.
Hardware + software = device. No amount of mindless drooling by Gartner "analysts" will change that. Sure, the OS may get smaller, and Nathan Myhrvold's much feared vision of the "Megaserver" (see here) may be fulfilled - oh wait, it already has. But at the end of the day, a device with some semblance of UI presentation to get the "'net goo" off of the Interweb tubes to the glass will still be required. And to print. And to play audio, video, and store info locally. Because at the end of the day, sure you can store stuff up in the cloud. But it has to come down at some point or another in order to be useful enough to even keep. Hence, an operating system (or embedded OS, whatever) is necessary.