Keep in mind, I said more than 50% of the time - not all of the time - and the market segment that I (CompUSA) caters to are people who dont necessarily fit in the computer saavy category.
While you haven't had to reinstall XP, that doesnt really count for anything. As you pointed out "Joe-sixpack is more likely to click on random "bad things"."
Keep in mind, WinXP Home & Media Center weren't written for just the IT Professional, System Administrator, Programmer, Power User, Computer Guru.
The majority of the WinXP market is the "Home User", or "I use it at work, but pretty much only know how to work on my Pictures, Word and Excel files - and surf the web" type of user. These people do not know how to properly maintain a system to ensure security, stability and reliability.
Windows is sold and marketed to everyone - it should be written taking that into account. At the CompUSA I work at, half (or more) of our "repairs" are virus/spyware removal, corrupted file systems, missing files, Windows Updates hosing a driver because someone downloaded an old but "certified" driver from Windows Update, and on and on. Yeah, it keeps me employed - but it doesnt make it right and...
...thus your statement in no way invalidates those of the post you replied to
Yeah, I would expect very few/.ers to have the type of problems you say you haven't. I'd expect most of us fit in the same category as you... but we are the minority as the wide majority of computer users aren't as computer saavy as us.
Both of your points are correct... yours is just from the wrong angle.
Look at the crash statistics for airplanes... very few. Plop one of us in the cockpit and see how many planes are falling out of the air. Why? Planes are designed to be flown by trained, experienced people. Yeah, all (most) of us have probably flown in planes, know where the cockpit is, have an idea of how everything works - but that isn't enough.
Planes are built for a market where the expectation is the operator has the technical expertise and training to fly one safely. Computers and (Windows) Operating Systems are not sold to, marketed to nor designed for people with the corresponding technical expertise - they are marketed to "Joe sixpack" who has flown in planes a whole lot, maybe watched a History Channel special on the building and flying of a 747, maybe even understands all the principles - but really only knows enough to be dangerous once that (WinXP) plane is powered up.
Perhaps... as I am sure is the case with a bunch of people - the effort and cost isnt worth the savings. Though one would be amazed at just how much they can cut power in their home (enough to more than half your electric bills) by analyzing power consumption and acting on it. Some things are simple and dont require any gadgets to determine that you'll save money, like get rid of incandescent lights wherever possible (switch to flourescents or LED lights where possible), and spend the extra money on a high efficiency refrigerator and freezer (they cost twice the price but use 1/3-1/2 the power). With the savings possible, maybe it's worth the cost of analyzing each device, though a lot of savings can be done without the expense of such devices.
The devices are very well suited to determining stuff such as power loss over your AC lines (by adding up usage for each device and comparing it to your total house usage).
For a lot of people it is probably not an issue... like living in a small to mid sized apartment with a fridge/freezer, a total of 5 room lights throughout and some small appliances and convienience items like a stereo. In a big house though, or a house with TVs in each room, etc... perhaps.
Because the labels are irrelevant except to advise you of the unit's maximum power consumption. Most consumer electronics, appliances, etc use a different amount of power depending on what they are doing at the time. For instance, your 500W stereo doesnt use nearly that much with the volume on 1/4... your fridge doesnt use it's maximum, even with the compressor on, unless it meets certain criteria... your computer doesnt use the amount of power your power supply is rated for (they use anything from drastically less, to a bunch more and its almost time to go to CompUSA to buy an new one because I've been overloading this one).
The other big factor is time at peak current draw. (extreme example) if you leave your fridge open in the middle of an Arizona summer, it will use faaar more power than with the door closed in a cold house during a 24 hour period. Same scenario with using a stereo at 1/4 volume - or full volume over the same time period.
And even if the labels were accurate as to what a device were drawing all the time they were in use, then the person would need to jot down every time the fridge started and stopped, every time he turned on and off his stereo, etc.
Besides being able to determine what items in your house are power hungry, many people have found (due to mis-calibrated meters, fraud, quality of wiring, etc) that monitoring usage on all your appliances and your house's incoming line can be a great tool for creating an energy savings plan.
For instance, using wiring that is 2-4 gauge larger (ie: smaller number - 10 instead of 14 or 12) will decrease electricity "usage" noticeably on long wire runs or runs with heavy loads.
Cutting usage of unnecessary devices or replacing power hungry devices with energy efficient ones is also possible using such tools to create a proper evaluation and plan.
Also, many devices, as they age, start consuming more power (especially things with motors, as the windings/winding insulation wear down and more energy is being turned into heat instead of motion).
To answer the original poster's question, there are devices on SmartHome and dozens of other sites (including Solar and Alternate Energy sites) that will do what you request.
True - but those are all context based. By definition (whichever you choose) the proper wording would be new(ly) found exploits, et al - as in the definitions you cited, there are modifiers such as "new crop " for the area" and "visit new places" is based off the perspective of who it is targeted towards (visiting New York might be visiting a new place to you, but not to me). The same with "a steady flow of new money" which is also based off the perspective of who the new money is flowing to/from.
We all know there are a plethora of not-yet-found exploits in Windows. They aren't new, nor are they new in any perspective related to me or my computer experience (or lack thereof). Hence my point... the wording most widely used is misleading while "newly found vulnerability" would be more accurate in both portraying that the exploit has existed for quite some time, and that it has just been found.
I just believe a more accurate portrayal is needed when it comes to computers and related things so that those who are not quite that computer saavy dont get misconceptions about what is really going on.
This is kind of akin to stretching the definition of "Genuine" in an earlier post regarding MS' usage of the word.
...Is why these exploits and vulnerabilities are labelled "new".
They aren't new. Maybe they have just been found, but on a product that's been out so long, the exploits have been too (unless of course they were introduced by a fix or update recently). I know it's just improper usage of the English language - kinda like the "new" planets we've found (that have been around for billions of years).
The problem is, this creates a misconception in the casual user's mind as they think the exploit is new instead of just discovered.
Or maybe they ignored it since it will probably drive up and hang on to the user base of Halo... then when the net effects of it arent creating such a result or is conflicting with their attempts to market similar (planned?, existing?) features through their gaming/online services / new releases, they put their foot down.
Sound kinda like doing nothing about "leaked" versions of Vista - until after the release when they have used up its marketing and exposure worth and want people to buy the "finished" version?
Ugh... asleep at the keyboard. The 3rd part of my post was that same magazine rated AVG (free) as far better in the next issue (if you do the comparison by looking at the stats from each article - they didnt).
There's also the printed mag that came out at the same time with a program by program comparison (which it was #7 of 10, scoring horrendously against many threats that #1-6 crushed it on).
It's not like Windows Live OneCare is getting great reviews by anyone who's doing a comparison based off what threats it stops and which ones it doesnt. Even Ziff-Microsoft publications rated it #7th out of 10 a month after its release.
Cute:-) With Vista, that's what we are supposed to do... but dont worry, you can send your MiL to our store, because we wont... cant tell you which one though - we all still need our jobs there - at least for a little while (and after that, you probably dont want to send her there anyway).
-Robert
PS: I know it was meant to be somewhat humourous - even if based in truth - but it will also soon become the reality at many retailers.
Very true - though often it is because most retailers have upper management that understands business and doesnt fully understand the products they sell.
I know in our store, (besides our tech manager - and finally after years, our sales manager) there isnt a single manager that understands computers on anything more than a "this is how you turn it on/off" level. Upper management is worse than store level management. But the company, like most, wants management who understands the numbers and how to make them work (ie: profit) and like many companies doesnt understand that requires an understanding of what you sell and service.
It would be a little different if all we did was sell machines... basic computer knowledge in the management level might be enough (though many managers dont even have that - ever fix a printer jam - in your sleep since most of these "newfangled" printers tell you where the paper is, and how to remove it? Our management cant) - but we do installs and recommend hardware and software - cant know what to sell/recommend/buy from our vendors/current trends without some higher understanding of computers/software - as well as management experience.
Thus in many cases it's not the stores (management) hyping the products (in their eyes), it's them being sold on the products by these corporations and forcing the grunts to push products that management has ridiculous expectations of. Vista is definitely an example. MS used to have product rollout meetings with the management, techs and sales people, but after the techs and knowledgable salespeople kept shooting down their statements ("faster than WinPrevious", "full 32bit (win95)", etc), they started to include only upper management. It's often all video teleconference at each store so anyone can attend, but now is only for management who dont know what claims are real and which ones arent.
And when the managers come out (like the latest Vista one), they are sure Vista will make your machine run much faster, have no security issues and have a ton of new features. They wont listen to us when we give them our input, after all, we're just the ones who have had to do countless Restores/Virus removals on countless customer units, ran Vista betas, ran One(thingisforsureMSdoesnt)Care and watched systems get infected with viruses that AVG, McAfee and Norton all detected...
They're sold... and MS wouldnt lie to them, would they?
The point I guess I am trying to make is you are correct that it happens, but it is upper management who believes the hype and requires the grunts to push the products (not just Windows - I am referring to anything really). Many of the salespeople only know what they are told or read on the box... so, they believe as well... and us techs are the ugly stepkids for pointing out the glaring inaccuracies - especially in lieu of the potential profits that the vendors couple to the hype they feed upper management. Flash some $$$ in front of managements' eyes and I'm guessing that even if you have doubts about some of that hype, they dissappear quickly - especially when your job counts on you making money off what's there.
Hi David,
No, I'm not. Every company wants vendors to push their products. But Epson doesnt try to take the ink cartridge and paper revenue out of the store by making a button on your printer that you can press to have new ink and paper installed in your printer without ever visiting the store. And yes, companies do similar things - but not to nearly the level MS is attempting with this release. The code that isnt in the betas that will be in the final release is designed so you never have to leave home or even think about selecting a piece of software for your Vista computer. MS will select it, sell it to you and install it all while you are comfortably sitting in front of your machine. It will create issues with others competing with their sales model as well as decrease software and software install revenue in the store - which we are forced to make up by pushing Vista to everyone - not just those who come in wanting it. We have to push Vista on everyone who comes in for a repair - so we can register it, submitting all the customer's info to MS and their partners, with CompUSA as the point of purchase so that when people do purchase things online, we make up for the lost revenue because of the deal MS made with us and other resellers.
The point is, this strategy does a few things... (1) It increases Vista upgrade installs (or is supposed to) because we have to try to push it on everyone (we dont do that with XP now, nor are we required to - if you need it, we will recommend it - if that Win2000 machine is doing what you need we wont). (2) In decreasing our software and software install revenue, we are back at item #1 so we get credits from MS for additional software that is now being bought online instead of in-store, (3) in having this strategy in place, MS is trying to increase the Vista upgrade market by "forcing" us to "force" Vista upgrades on everyone so we can maintain some of our addtl software sales via their credit system, and (4) yeah, they have promoted it to the store in a way that makes it seem like we'll (CompUSA - surely not me) make more money from necessary upgrades to run Vista and the increase in OS upgrade installs.
Our choice with Vista is shoot ourselves in the foot (less in store non-OS software installs and sales, but we make money on hardware upgrades and OS installs - as well as credits for those systems when the user buys a program online from MS) or shoot ourselves in the head (dont push Vista, still lose the software market - though at a slower but increasing pace (as older machines die and are replaced with Vista ones) since the upgrade path slows down, and dont get the hardware sales and install revenue).
You are correct - but keep in mind, we currently make money off every installation of WinXP we do as well. There isnt any difference there between current OS line and future (Vista) OS line. The major differences are we can make a lot less money on additional software revenues.
Currently, if we install XP on a system, there's a good chance we can get installs on Norton/McAfee/SomeAV and SpySweeper/etc as well... so, CompUSA makes money on the software sale and the installation service. MS's new model - which they oddly havent advertised yet (though have told resellers to coerce us to push Vista) is set up so that if you need AV and AS (which everyone with an Internet connection does) allows the user to buy either a MS product online (and pushes the user to do so) or buy products from MS partners online - and not just for utilities such as AV/AS. That means a big decrease in sales revenue as well as install revenue. The only way CompUSA (and I am guessing any other retail from what they have communicated to us) is if we do the OS install and register Vista with CompUSA as the point of purchase for Vista.
That's why it isnt a stretch. It's not OS install revenue we are losing - I am presuming (for the case of my previous post) that people upgrading from Vista will be of a similar quantity as those who upgraded to XP. It's future installs and future non-OS products that we will be losing money on.
Our problem in the tech shop (as techs) is that many people who come in and are already sold on upgrading to Vista have ridiculous expectations of it: like increased performance, lots of new features, etc. We don't see any of this being true - though MS (through marketing, stretching the truth, ads people are misperceiving or people's unfamiliarity with the way computers really work) has been convincing people upgrading to Vista will do all of those.
I'm not going to debate those points any further than: (1) an OS with more resource requirements (memory, HDD, CPU, video requirements) is NOT going to run faster, (2) yeah, there are arguably new features - but most of those have been licensed from third parties and are readily available cheaply - or even from free - and with #1 being true, it makes #2 an irrelevant reason to upgrade to Vista... and finally (3) the Vista recommendation tool is going to recommend Vista on most anything - in many cases with "minor" upgrades (yeah, some might be minor - though some only SEEM minor - like "gee, upgrade your video card - in that HP that comes with only a 250W short length ATX PS - ooops, guess you have to find a 5" long (not 5.8"+) 400/500/600w PS so that it supports that new video card"... or "upgrade that CPU from 1.x MHz to a higher one - ooops... different socket style on the new ones... change the mobo as well, get a new video card, replace that underpowered PS")... most customers who come into our tech shop would be better off buying a new machine with Vista on it.
And yeah, CompUSA is looking at this as advantagous to them because there will be an increase in upgrade hardware and hardware upgrade install revenue... but we personally (at our shop) won't tell a customer it's a good deal to spend $500-600 on a 2, 3, 5 year old machine when a new one with Vista starts at that price.
Corporate, being highly computer illiterate just sees the increase in $$$ and doesnt understand/see the absurdity of offering the customer such a "solution".
MS is making big deals with resellers to push Vista to non-Vista computer users. I work for a CompUSA in NY, and we are soon going to be required to do a Vista analysis on every machine that comes in for service to "advise" the customer of all the "reasons" they should be replacing XP/NT/etc with Vista: "multimedia advantages", "better performance", "better security", "the neat UI experience", and infinitum. Will we? Well, not at this store (we WILL have to run the stupid thing, but we won't be recommending it - which alone can get us into trouble). MS also has deals with resellers where we get credits (towards what, corporate hasnt been clear about - but they make it sound very important to our future business model) for each copy of Vista we activate for a customer and choose CompUSA as the place of purchase. These credits are accrued for each online purchase through MS and their partners of any additional software the consumer buys.
All in all, it might not be what the customer wants, but MS is ensuring that resellers are doing their best to convince customers that. With their new online software purchasing model, resellers are seeing a need to do this so they get some sort of revenue (credits) for lost software sales that are supposedly going to be done online through MS and their partners.
Remember, reality doesnt matter... marketing and pressure on resellers does - most people arent computer saavy enough to know whether they are being sold a boat or a boat anchor we've tied around their neck.
Virii is a security issue (you are correct) that can create numerous stability issues (I am correct). And it has nothing to do with my opinion of MS. A virus that modifies the registry or core Windows components can create stability issues.
I would tend to agree with you - mostly. On a properly maintained machine I'd agree - except for NTFS file system errors (often caused by the bundled third party drive management utils like the "MS" defrag tool).
Now, on an "improperly" maintained machine, I find an equal amount of bluescreens and crashes to be due to virii and spyware that's corrupted an XP install/taken over critical services/etc.
The question is, should we not count those in the total because the end-users should be "properly" maintaining their machines (ie: patches, AV and AS software, a real firewall, etc) - or do we count those towards the total # of crashes/BSODs and hold MS responsible because they released an OS that had so many unresolved issues (after all, many of the buffer overflow/underrun issues have existed in the code since the NT4/2000 days)?
The unfortunate thing about this debate is that depending on what you believe the end-user/MS is responsible for, no matter what you assert, you are correct (based off your assertations).
I'm not arguing either side, btw. I'm just pointing out that either answer is "right" depending on the base premise behind it - which many here and elsewhere differ on (and is yet another debate in it's own right).
LeBlanc said Microsoft has made performance and stabilisation tweaks that testers requested after Beta 2.0, and the latest test version of the OS - which could be the final one before Vista is released to manufacturing - is solid enough for regular use.
I'm baffled. Does this mean that the performance and stability issues in earlier builds (and XP) were only there because we forgot to request them to be removed/fixed?
Looks like it's time to make a Christmas list of other things that MS should have done in Vista already, that I guess we all forgot to request!;-)
Thats called innovating. They are supporting standards while also making new ones.
I am baffled by your post... perhaps you were really tired when you posted it. Discontinuing support of existing standards while implementing support for your "standards" only, isnt = innovation.
And innovation isnt = supporting standards while making new ones.
And making new standards isnt necessarily innovation - and usually in MS's case, far from it - it's usually (in their case) copying someone else's ideas for their own proprietary implementation.
No matter how I read it, I cannot make any sense of your reply to my post.
By your logic we would still be using text based OSes.
This part I dont understand either. But as it is based on the rest, maybe that's why.
"This is obviously a drawback for those designers who work with PHP, JSP, and other non-ASP.NET platforms, making it difficult for Microsoft to expand its reach beyond the ASP.NET users.'"
I think what this is designed to do is ensure that other Open (or even not so open) standards are used in decreasing frequency as MS pushes people to this package that's designed to work with their server platforms. After all, if you are running a MS web server on Windows Server 2### or XP Pro, designing pages with this is "ideal", so why spend the time using/learning/running PHP/JSP/etc when you have an all in one app to integrate it all for you?
My opinion is its another attempt by MS to leverage their market share (in installed servers) to gain a bigger foothold in other areas (ie: kill PHP/JSP/etc).
The reason I say that is: (1) This is a tactic that has been happening for years (and is ancient news)
(2) This has been something AOL has been sued numerous times over (ie: class action lawsuit in NY, $1.2m in fines to name one). They are in violation of numerous laws in many (all) jurisdictions where they operate in such fashion, so:
(3) Who cares? Don't sign up for AOL - enough (rightly) bad press about their customer (dis)service issues, continued billing and refusal to cancel accounts has been circulating for a decade now. Everyone talks about getting a reliable, fast internet service (provider) with good customer service; and even AOL talks about such factors in their ads and commercials as a reason to choose them. Who in their right mind, even if they hadn't heard the horror stories on the web and in various computer mags, would choose AOL because *AOL* (and probably ONLY AOL) say they are the best/fastest/have great customer service/antivirus tools. You don't buy a GM (Ford/Toyota/Honda, et al) because GM says they are the best, do you? Research what you buy - ESPECIALLY something with a term commitment.
For instance... ketchup - which WAS a trademark owned by HJ Heinz... "catsup" is the generic term. Now "ketchup" is also considered a generic name for the product.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind, I said more than 50% of the time - not all of the time - and the market segment that I (CompUSA) caters to are people who dont necessarily fit in the computer saavy category.
While you haven't had to reinstall XP, that doesnt really count for anything. As you pointed out "Joe-sixpack is more likely to click on random "bad things"."
Keep in mind, WinXP Home & Media Center weren't written for just the IT Professional, System Administrator, Programmer, Power User, Computer Guru.
The majority of the WinXP market is the "Home User", or "I use it at work, but pretty much only know how to work on my Pictures, Word and Excel files - and surf the web" type of user. These people do not know how to properly maintain a system to ensure security, stability and reliability.
Windows is sold and marketed to everyone - it should be written taking that into account. At the CompUSA I work at, half (or more) of our "repairs" are virus/spyware removal, corrupted file systems, missing files, Windows Updates hosing a driver because someone downloaded an old but "certified" driver from Windows Update, and on and on. Yeah, it keeps me employed - but it doesnt make it right and...
Yeah, I would expect very few /.ers to have the type of problems you say you haven't. I'd expect most of us fit in the same category as you... but we are the minority as the wide majority of computer users aren't as computer saavy as us.
Both of your points are correct... yours is just from the wrong angle.
Look at the crash statistics for airplanes... very few. Plop one of us in the cockpit and see how many planes are falling out of the air. Why? Planes are designed to be flown by trained, experienced people. Yeah, all (most) of us have probably flown in planes, know where the cockpit is, have an idea of how everything works - but that isn't enough.
Planes are built for a market where the expectation is the operator has the technical expertise and training to fly one safely. Computers and (Windows) Operating Systems are not sold to, marketed to nor designed for people with the corresponding technical expertise - they are marketed to "Joe sixpack" who has flown in planes a whole lot, maybe watched a History Channel special on the building and flying of a 747, maybe even understands all the principles - but really only knows enough to be dangerous once that (WinXP) plane is powered up.
-Robert
Very good points - as well as looking into heat pumps/geothermal units to assist in home/water heating & cooling. -Robert
Perhaps... as I am sure is the case with a bunch of people - the effort and cost isnt worth the savings. Though one would be amazed at just how much they can cut power in their home (enough to more than half your electric bills) by analyzing power consumption and acting on it. Some things are simple and dont require any gadgets to determine that you'll save money, like get rid of incandescent lights wherever possible (switch to flourescents or LED lights where possible), and spend the extra money on a high efficiency refrigerator and freezer (they cost twice the price but use 1/3-1/2 the power). With the savings possible, maybe it's worth the cost of analyzing each device, though a lot of savings can be done without the expense of such devices.
The devices are very well suited to determining stuff such as power loss over your AC lines (by adding up usage for each device and comparing it to your total house usage).
For a lot of people it is probably not an issue... like living in a small to mid sized apartment with a fridge/freezer, a total of 5 room lights throughout and some small appliances and convienience items like a stereo. In a big house though, or a house with TVs in each room, etc... perhaps.
The bad thing, as history has proven, is that MS is probably going to gain from this by having access to the streamlined code that Verizon makes.
I'm wondering if that was an aspect of their deal that MS was counting on or, now just looking forward to?
Because the labels are irrelevant except to advise you of the unit's maximum power consumption. Most consumer electronics, appliances, etc use a different amount of power depending on what they are doing at the time. For instance, your 500W stereo doesnt use nearly that much with the volume on 1/4... your fridge doesnt use it's maximum, even with the compressor on, unless it meets certain criteria... your computer doesnt use the amount of power your power supply is rated for (they use anything from drastically less, to a bunch more and its almost time to go to CompUSA to buy an new one because I've been overloading this one).
The other big factor is time at peak current draw. (extreme example) if you leave your fridge open in the middle of an Arizona summer, it will use faaar more power than with the door closed in a cold house during a 24 hour period. Same scenario with using a stereo at 1/4 volume - or full volume over the same time period.
And even if the labels were accurate as to what a device were drawing all the time they were in use, then the person would need to jot down every time the fridge started and stopped, every time he turned on and off his stereo, etc.
Besides being able to determine what items in your house are power hungry, many people have found (due to mis-calibrated meters, fraud, quality of wiring, etc) that monitoring usage on all your appliances and your house's incoming line can be a great tool for creating an energy savings plan.
For instance, using wiring that is 2-4 gauge larger (ie: smaller number - 10 instead of 14 or 12) will decrease electricity "usage" noticeably on long wire runs or runs with heavy loads.
Cutting usage of unnecessary devices or replacing power hungry devices with energy efficient ones is also possible using such tools to create a proper evaluation and plan.
Also, many devices, as they age, start consuming more power (especially things with motors, as the windings /winding insulation wear down and more energy is being turned into heat instead of motion).
To answer the original poster's question, there are devices on SmartHome and dozens of other sites (including Solar and Alternate Energy sites) that will do what you request.
-Robert
True - but those are all context based. By definition (whichever you choose) the proper wording would be new(ly) found exploits, et al - as in the definitions you cited, there are modifiers such as "new crop " for the area" and "visit new places" is based off the perspective of who it is targeted towards (visiting New York might be visiting a new place to you, but not to me). The same with "a steady flow of new money" which is also based off the perspective of who the new money is flowing to/from.
We all know there are a plethora of not-yet-found exploits in Windows. They aren't new, nor are they new in any perspective related to me or my computer experience (or lack thereof). Hence my point... the wording most widely used is misleading while "newly found vulnerability" would be more accurate in both portraying that the exploit has existed for quite some time, and that it has just been found.
I just believe a more accurate portrayal is needed when it comes to computers and related things so that those who are not quite that computer saavy dont get misconceptions about what is really going on.
This is kind of akin to stretching the definition of "Genuine" in an earlier post regarding MS' usage of the word.
...Is why these exploits and vulnerabilities are labelled "new".
They aren't new. Maybe they have just been found, but on a product that's been out so long, the exploits have been too (unless of course they were introduced by a fix or update recently). I know it's just improper usage of the English language - kinda like the "new" planets we've found (that have been around for billions of years).
The problem is, this creates a misconception in the casual user's mind as they think the exploit is new instead of just discovered.
Or maybe they ignored it since it will probably drive up and hang on to the user base of Halo... then when the net effects of it arent creating such a result or is conflicting with their attempts to market similar (planned?, existing?) features through their gaming/online services / new releases, they put their foot down.
Sound kinda like doing nothing about "leaked" versions of Vista - until after the release when they have used up its marketing and exposure worth and want people to buy the "finished" version?
Just my opinion - right or wrong.
-Robert
Ugh... asleep at the keyboard. The 3rd part of my post was that same magazine rated AVG (free) as far better in the next issue (if you do the comparison by looking at the stats from each article - they didnt).
Shoulda included these since my post isnt a troll
June 13 2006 - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1976149,00.as p
There's also the printed mag that came out at the same time with a program by program comparison (which it was #7 of 10, scoring horrendously against many threats that #1-6 crushed it on).
It's not like Windows Live OneCare is getting great reviews by anyone who's doing a comparison based off what threats it stops and which ones it doesnt. Even Ziff-Microsoft publications rated it #7th out of 10 a month after its release.
Cute :-) With Vista, that's what we are supposed to do... but dont worry, you can send your MiL to our store, because we wont... cant tell you which one though - we all still need our jobs there - at least for a little while (and after that, you probably dont want to send her there anyway).
-Robert
PS: I know it was meant to be somewhat humourous - even if based in truth - but it will also soon become the reality at many retailers.
Very true - though often it is because most retailers have upper management that understands business and doesnt fully understand the products they sell.
I know in our store, (besides our tech manager - and finally after years, our sales manager) there isnt a single manager that understands computers on anything more than a "this is how you turn it on/off" level. Upper management is worse than store level management. But the company, like most, wants management who understands the numbers and how to make them work (ie: profit) and like many companies doesnt understand that requires an understanding of what you sell and service.
It would be a little different if all we did was sell machines... basic computer knowledge in the management level might be enough (though many managers dont even have that - ever fix a printer jam - in your sleep since most of these "newfangled" printers tell you where the paper is, and how to remove it? Our management cant) - but we do installs and recommend hardware and software - cant know what to sell/recommend/buy from our vendors/current trends without some higher understanding of computers/software - as well as management experience.
Thus in many cases it's not the stores (management) hyping the products (in their eyes), it's them being sold on the products by these corporations and forcing the grunts to push products that management has ridiculous expectations of. Vista is definitely an example. MS used to have product rollout meetings with the management, techs and sales people, but after the techs and knowledgable salespeople kept shooting down their statements ("faster than WinPrevious", "full 32bit (win95)", etc), they started to include only upper management. It's often all video teleconference at each store so anyone can attend, but now is only for management who dont know what claims are real and which ones arent.
And when the managers come out (like the latest Vista one), they are sure Vista will make your machine run much faster, have no security issues and have a ton of new features. They wont listen to us when we give them our input, after all, we're just the ones who have had to do countless Restores/Virus removals on countless customer units, ran Vista betas, ran One(thingisforsureMSdoesnt)Care and watched systems get infected with viruses that AVG, McAfee and Norton all detected...
They're sold... and MS wouldnt lie to them, would they?
The point I guess I am trying to make is you are correct that it happens, but it is upper management who believes the hype and requires the grunts to push the products (not just Windows - I am referring to anything really). Many of the salespeople only know what they are told or read on the box... so, they believe as well... and us techs are the ugly stepkids for pointing out the glaring inaccuracies - especially in lieu of the potential profits that the vendors couple to the hype they feed upper management. Flash some $$$ in front of managements' eyes and I'm guessing that even if you have doubts about some of that hype, they dissappear quickly - especially when your job counts on you making money off what's there.
-Robert
Thanks DragonWriter... I get a bit wordy at times (too much coffee? or is there such a thing?) You summarized it very nicely for me.
:-)
-Robert
The point is, this strategy does a few things... (1) It increases Vista upgrade installs (or is supposed to) because we have to try to push it on everyone (we dont do that with XP now, nor are we required to - if you need it, we will recommend it - if that Win2000 machine is doing what you need we wont). (2) In decreasing our software and software install revenue, we are back at item #1 so we get credits from MS for additional software that is now being bought online instead of in-store, (3) in having this strategy in place, MS is trying to increase the Vista upgrade market by "forcing" us to "force" Vista upgrades on everyone so we can maintain some of our addtl software sales via their credit system, and (4) yeah, they have promoted it to the store in a way that makes it seem like we'll (CompUSA - surely not me) make more money from necessary upgrades to run Vista and the increase in OS upgrade installs.
Our choice with Vista is shoot ourselves in the foot (less in store non-OS software installs and sales, but we make money on hardware upgrades and OS installs - as well as credits for those systems when the user buys a program online from MS) or shoot ourselves in the head (dont push Vista, still lose the software market - though at a slower but increasing pace (as older machines die and are replaced with Vista ones) since the upgrade path slows down, and dont get the hardware sales and install revenue).
-Robert
Hi AsylumX,
You are correct - but keep in mind, we currently make money off every installation of WinXP we do as well. There isnt any difference there between current OS line and future (Vista) OS line. The major differences are we can make a lot less money on additional software revenues.
Currently, if we install XP on a system, there's a good chance we can get installs on Norton/McAfee/SomeAV and SpySweeper/etc as well... so, CompUSA makes money on the software sale and the installation service. MS's new model - which they oddly havent advertised yet (though have told resellers to coerce us to push Vista) is set up so that if you need AV and AS (which everyone with an Internet connection does) allows the user to buy either a MS product online (and pushes the user to do so) or buy products from MS partners online - and not just for utilities such as AV/AS. That means a big decrease in sales revenue as well as install revenue. The only way CompUSA (and I am guessing any other retail from what they have communicated to us) is if we do the OS install and register Vista with CompUSA as the point of purchase for Vista.
That's why it isnt a stretch. It's not OS install revenue we are losing - I am presuming (for the case of my previous post) that people upgrading from Vista will be of a similar quantity as those who upgraded to XP. It's future installs and future non-OS products that we will be losing money on.
Our problem in the tech shop (as techs) is that many people who come in and are already sold on upgrading to Vista have ridiculous expectations of it: like increased performance, lots of new features, etc. We don't see any of this being true - though MS (through marketing, stretching the truth, ads people are misperceiving or people's unfamiliarity with the way computers really work) has been convincing people upgrading to Vista will do all of those.
I'm not going to debate those points any further than: (1) an OS with more resource requirements (memory, HDD, CPU, video requirements) is NOT going to run faster, (2) yeah, there are arguably new features - but most of those have been licensed from third parties and are readily available cheaply - or even from free - and with #1 being true, it makes #2 an irrelevant reason to upgrade to Vista... and finally (3) the Vista recommendation tool is going to recommend Vista on most anything - in many cases with "minor" upgrades (yeah, some might be minor - though some only SEEM minor - like "gee, upgrade your video card - in that HP that comes with only a 250W short length ATX PS - ooops, guess you have to find a 5" long (not 5.8"+) 400/500/600w PS so that it supports that new video card"... or "upgrade that CPU from 1.x MHz to a higher one - ooops... different socket style on the new ones... change the mobo as well, get a new video card, replace that underpowered PS")... most customers who come into our tech shop would be better off buying a new machine with Vista on it.
And yeah, CompUSA is looking at this as advantagous to them because there will be an increase in upgrade hardware and hardware upgrade install revenue... but we personally (at our shop) won't tell a customer it's a good deal to spend $500-600 on a 2, 3, 5 year old machine when a new one with Vista starts at that price.
Corporate, being highly computer illiterate just sees the increase in $$$ and doesnt understand/see the absurdity of offering the customer such a "solution".
-Robert
All in all, it might not be what the customer wants, but MS is ensuring that resellers are doing their best to convince customers that. With their new online software purchasing model, resellers are seeing a need to do this so they get some sort of revenue (credits) for lost software sales that are supposedly going to be done online through MS and their partners.
Remember, reality doesnt matter... marketing and pressure on resellers does - most people arent computer saavy enough to know whether they are being sold a boat or a boat anchor we've tied around their neck.
-Rob
Virii is a security issue (you are correct) that can create numerous stability issues (I am correct). And it has nothing to do with my opinion of MS. A virus that modifies the registry or core Windows components can create stability issues.
I would tend to agree with you - mostly. On a properly maintained machine I'd agree - except for NTFS file system errors (often caused by the bundled third party drive management utils like the "MS" defrag tool).
Now, on an "improperly" maintained machine, I find an equal amount of bluescreens and crashes to be due to virii and spyware that's corrupted an XP install/taken over critical services/etc.
The question is, should we not count those in the total because the end-users should be "properly" maintaining their machines (ie: patches, AV and AS software, a real firewall, etc) - or do we count those towards the total # of crashes/BSODs and hold MS responsible because they released an OS that had so many unresolved issues (after all, many of the buffer overflow/underrun issues have existed in the code since the NT4/2000 days)?
The unfortunate thing about this debate is that depending on what you believe the end-user/MS is responsible for, no matter what you assert, you are correct (based off your assertations).
I'm not arguing either side, btw. I'm just pointing out that either answer is "right" depending on the base premise behind it - which many here and elsewhere differ on (and is yet another debate in it's own right).
LeBlanc said Microsoft has made performance and stabilisation tweaks that testers requested after Beta 2.0, and the latest test version of the OS - which could be the final one before Vista is released to manufacturing - is solid enough for regular use.
I'm baffled. Does this mean that the performance and stability issues in earlier builds (and XP) were only there because we forgot to request them to be removed/fixed?
Looks like it's time to make a Christmas list of other things that MS should have done in Vista already, that I guess we all forgot to request! ;-)
Thats called innovating. They are supporting standards while also making new ones.
I am baffled by your post... perhaps you were really tired when you posted it. Discontinuing support of existing standards while implementing support for your "standards" only, isnt = innovation.
And innovation isnt = supporting standards while making new ones.
And making new standards isnt necessarily innovation - and usually in MS's case, far from it - it's usually (in their case) copying someone else's ideas for their own proprietary implementation.
No matter how I read it, I cannot make any sense of your reply to my post.
By your logic we would still be using text based OSes.
This part I dont understand either. But as it is based on the rest, maybe that's why.
-Robert
I think what this is designed to do is ensure that other Open (or even not so open) standards are used in decreasing frequency as MS pushes people to this package that's designed to work with their server platforms. After all, if you are running a MS web server on Windows Server 2### or XP Pro, designing pages with this is "ideal", so why spend the time using/learning/running PHP/JSP/etc when you have an all in one app to integrate it all for you?
My opinion is its another attempt by MS to leverage their market share (in installed servers) to gain a bigger foothold in other areas (ie: kill PHP/JSP/etc).
-Robert
The reason I say that is:
(1) This is a tactic that has been happening for years (and is ancient news)
(2) This has been something AOL has been sued numerous times over (ie: class action lawsuit in NY, $1.2m in fines to name one). They are in violation of numerous laws in many (all) jurisdictions where they operate in such fashion, so:
(3) Who cares? Don't sign up for AOL - enough (rightly) bad press about their customer (dis)service issues, continued billing and refusal to cancel accounts has been circulating for a decade now. Everyone talks about getting a reliable, fast internet service (provider) with good customer service; and even AOL talks about such factors in their ads and commercials as a reason to choose them. Who in their right mind, even if they hadn't heard the horror stories on the web and in various computer mags, would choose AOL because *AOL* (and probably ONLY AOL) say they are the best/fastest/have great customer service/antivirus tools. You don't buy a GM (Ford/Toyota/Honda, et al) because GM says they are the best, do you? Research what you buy - ESPECIALLY something with a term commitment.
-Robert
For instance... ketchup - which WAS a trademark owned by HJ Heinz... "catsup" is the generic term. Now "ketchup" is also considered a generic name for the product.