1. Hardware upgrades - I have to upgrade my 2 Gzh, 1 GB ram, 250 gb computer to be able to run Vista. Recommend Specs 2 GB ram, Aero graphics card. Minimum Specs: 800Mhz CPU, 512Mb RAM, DX9 graphics card. You don't "have" to upgrade at all, unless your graphics card is more than 6 years old.
2. A major loss in ease of system administering ability Wrong.
3. IE 7 - IE 7 doesn't work with everything a Systems admin needs, most times I have to use FF because all the stuff I work doesn't support IE 4. What does a 'sysadmin need' that requires a web browser but you can't run in IE?
4. Bonus - Made by Microsoft who is know less for innovation and more for viruses, theft, and bugs. Nice and subjective.
5. Ugly skin Subjective, I like it.
6. No general feature change, Leopard came with over 300 features where as Vista, like 20. You haven't bothered to do any research at all. Try these links to get you started:
Re:The best tools stay out of the way... (shill)
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 1
Yes, "we all know good and well" except nobody has ever provided a shred of proof. In fact, the existence of such astroturfing would be a great story to post, don't you think? So why, with their full knowledge of IP addresses and locations of every poster, hasn't there ever been a "M$ ASTROTURFS/. LOLZ" front page story?
Re:The best tools stay out of the way... (shill)
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Well, if it isn't the guy who put me on his 'Foe' list because I asked him to make a point rather than accuse people of being shills. I see you haven't changed your modus operandi much, huh?
Let's try this again - are you going to contribute or just name-call?
The numbers from your post and the numbers on your linked page are different.
Even better, they don't even run with real numbers. From the 'Methodology' page:
Sales figures are determined through two important methods: Data Sampling - VG Chartz gathers random data from a sample of the total number of retailers. Shipment information - VG Chartz has contacts with publishers who give their best estimates on number of products shipped. Because the number of retailers selling videogames is quite large, it is possible to attain statistically valid results from a small sample.
It then becomes a matter of working backwards by having:
The approximate number of retailers. Historical sales figures. Data from sales tracking agencies as reference points in accuracy. There are obvious limiting factors as well - few games have above a 40% attach rate, a game will never sell more than the console user base, publishers do not ship significantly more or less than they expect to be sold So, your numbers are not sales data, they're sales estimates. You would do well not to misrepresent your sources as factual.
What I can't figure out is why you're getting so much nastiness from something that was such a clever joke. Maybe because it's really not a clever joke. The same joke has been made about 5 times per Vista article since it was released.
In fact, scroll upwards from this comment. The 'upgrade to Linux' joke was made on this article two or three times already.
Does Microsoft say in big, bold letters on the SP3 download page that it'll break old documents, and you should do the conversion before upgrading? It won't there, because you linked to SP3 for Office XP. So no, you're not right. If you had linked the correct page, then you'll see there is a knowledge base article linked there: You receive an error message when you try to open a file or to save a file after you install Office 2003 Service Pack 3. In that document it explains what has been done regarding old formats.
SP3 breaking the ability to open old documents even contravenes what Microsoft has implicitly promised as far as being backwards compatible. Open XML is not Office 2003, so you're comparing apples to oranges.
The reason people call you a shill is because you quack like a duck, smell like a duck and look like a duck. Do I really have to spell this out again? I don't give a flying fuck what you people think of me. I'd rather be correct than a sheep.
Boo-hoo, poor Microsoft! "Financially unfeasible"... It's not like MS Office is the most popular and most expensive office software in the world... No, they have to release an update specifically to block existing code which nobody expects them to fix. You just proved my point. Nobody expects Microsoft to support this code, so they took steps to make sure that they're not held responsible for supporting it by disabling it's use. Seeing as this is a manual update, people using old documents are free to convert to a newer format before installing SP3. It's pretty simple.
On a less related note, you recently wondered why people call you a shill. Er, no. I've never been confused as to why people like you call me a shill. The fact that I'm willing to rationally discuss in favour of Microsoft, mainly. Trouble is, trolls like you take this as an attack on open source, which it's not.
What you'll actually find I said was "Stop accusing me of things you can't prove and actually argue the point".
Posters here are actually unable to conceive that I might write these comments of my own free will, because they're so entrenched in the doublespeak and groupthink that pervades Slashdot that they're slaves to it. Sorry to break it to you, but people are not intelligent because they parrot the 'lolhateM$' party line and get modded up for it.
The customer is always right Actually, the customer is capable of being incredibly wrong. Of course you can choose whether or not to tell them that. It doesn't change the fact that sometimes the customer doesn't know any better.
I think you're arguing something I didn't actually say.
What card were you using? I initially had Vista operating on a Radeon 9800. If it was a 9250 card or earlier, they don't fully support DX9 so they won't work.
Isn't that why both ODF and OOXML are just zipped up XML files? You could easily argue that Microsoft and open source are taking steps to move to a file format that won't just 'become' unreadable.
Unfortunately it does get to a point where fixing bugs in old rendering code becomes financially unfeasible for a company that actually has to pay for it's coders.
To be fair, the Red Hat 7-year support phase is 'errata only', i.e. mission critical bugs only, but I accept your point and thank you for the clarification.
To be honest, I haven't had a 2007 docx document save in.doc format, so I haven't seen the behaviour you describe... bit of an odd one!
Sorry, but Gutmann's article is based on zero actual use of the Vista system. He does no actual usage studies, no experimentation, no nothing. All he does is gather together forum posts about Vista and say "Well, if this is all correct then this should happen."
Unless, of course, you can link me to the actual empirical evidence that he collected that DRM in Vista behaves exactly as he says it does.
You're talking about them adding support to operating systems which are 6-7 years old. Apple just ended support for 'Classic' mode for OS9 in the new version, the changeover from which happened in March 2001. XP was only released 6 months later than that. Can you name a single open source vendor that will support you using a 7 year old version of their product? Of course you can't.
No DirectX 10.x API for WinXP or Win2k Vista uses a completely new display driver model, WDDM, which has features that are required for DirectX 10 that XDDM doesn't support (e.g. virtualized video memory).
No Support on your year-old PC for Full Windows Vista use. I don't think you know what you're talking about here. What do you mean by "doesn't support"? Full Windows Vista use can be achieved on any DirectX 9.0 capable graphics card, which is pretty much any card created since 2002. It also requires a 1GHz CPU, which have been available since the release of XP, as has the prerequisite amount of RAM.
No to the Sale of WinXP to OEM (non-Business) customers this month That's been extended to June.
Our clients have gone on to clarify, specifically, that the Office 2007 file formats are incompatible with the older MS Office versions and necessitate needless corporate updating for their thousands of internal users, Your clients are wrong. You can download a compatibility pack and readers for Office 2007 documents for Office 2003.
Given that Apple seem to end support after 6-7 years, and there's no evidence that any OSS offering will extend support that far back, why is there suddenly an outcry with Microsoft stopping support file formats which are now over a decade old?
Can it be that Vista is somehow self-optimizing, so you have to use it for a couple of weeks before it runs at acceptable speed? You're actually pretty close.
The 'SuperFetch' prefetch system in Vista actually learns which programs you load most often and preloads them in memory so they start quicker. It's pretty quick to release the memory too if it turns out you need it for something else.
Straw man. I love people who throw 'straw man' into arguments without knowing what it means. I'm sorry, but you're the one saying the Vista is a "turd sandwich", and the only reason you're giving is "there's no compelling reason to upgrade". Surely then, that could mean that Vista is as good as XP? Of course not, it has to be complete shit, because you apparently can't deal in greys.
It takes a special kind of stupid to raise an argument that was already shot down earlier in the conversation You do realise your 'argument' has zero factual basis and no source to back it up? It takes a special kind of stupid to cling to an argument which you can't even prove.
In fact, have a list of reasons to upgrade to Vista:
- Better security overall even with UAC disabled - Better indexing and search functions - The new Backup and Restore centre - The new Windows Games explorer including parental controls - Shadow Copy - BitLocker - ReadyBoost - ASLR - Improved DEP functions - Internet Explorer protected mode - Improved Group Policy settings - Aero
Of course, you could just do the research yourself - here's some Wiki links to get you started.
The windows indexer doesnt make searches fast and it runs constantly while chewing considerable resources. The Vista indexer only runs on idle CPU cycles. It can't 'chew considerable resources' unless those resources are actually physically available, in which case there's surely no issue with using them? If you're not using your CPU, what's the issue with the OS making use of it for you to make things faster?
Yes, it does make searches faster, and saying otherwise only suggests that you haven't used it at all.
This is all by the by, because what you did was ask me to name one thing that Vista does that is useful in idle time and I've easily done that, but you're absolutely determined to pick fault with something so don't let me stop you.
I suggest you read this link and then tell me that you Vista doesn't defrag in idle time. Also, indexing improves search speed, which I believe I mentioned. I'm sorry if I put two different things in the same sentence and you had trouble comprehending it, so maybe I should do this again for you.
Windows Vista defragments your hard drive in idle time which improves program loading speed and geenral hard-drive access times.
Windows Vista indexs your hard drive in idle time which makes the Vista search function perform faster.
Both use CPU time. There are other system operations that also occur in idle time, e.g. Superfetch functions and other system tasks. You only asked for one example, though. I suggest if you want a full accounting for every MHz that is being used on the poster's computer that you ask him for a screenshot of his task manager.
I'd agree with you if it was actually doing anything useful. Name one thing its doing though. Defragmenting and indexing your hard-drive to make it quicker to search and load programs.
Yes, because not mentioning a compelling upgrade reason is saying Vista is a turd sandwich. Oh, to live in a world like yours, where everything is either absolutely amazing or complete shit.
Enjoy your black and white absolutist world, moron.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
Yes, "we all know good and well" except nobody has ever provided a shred of proof. In fact, the existence of such astroturfing would be a great story to post, don't you think? So why, with their full knowledge of IP addresses and locations of every poster, hasn't there ever been a "M$ ASTROTURFS /. LOLZ" front page story?
Well, if it isn't the guy who put me on his 'Foe' list because I asked him to make a point rather than accuse people of being shills. I see you haven't changed your modus operandi much, huh?
Let's try this again - are you going to contribute or just name-call?
Even better, they don't even run with real numbers. From the 'Methodology' page: Sales figures are determined through two important methods:
Data Sampling - VG Chartz gathers random data from a sample of the total number of retailers.
Shipment information - VG Chartz has contacts with publishers who give their best estimates on number of products shipped.
Because the number of retailers selling videogames is quite large, it is possible to attain statistically valid results from a small sample.
It then becomes a matter of working backwards by having:
The approximate number of retailers.
Historical sales figures.
Data from sales tracking agencies as reference points in accuracy.
There are obvious limiting factors as well - few games have above a 40% attach rate, a game will never sell more than the console user base, publishers do not ship significantly more or less than they expect to be sold So, your numbers are not sales data, they're sales estimates. You would do well not to misrepresent your sources as factual.
Whoosh!
In fact, scroll upwards from this comment. The 'upgrade to Linux' joke was made on this article two or three times already.
(I'm sorry Slashdot, I couldn't let this one go.)
For what it's worth, they're still working on it for Windows 7.
Link here to an article about MinWin, which is also mentioned in the Windows 7 Wikipedia article.
What you'll actually find I said was "Stop accusing me of things you can't prove and actually argue the point".
Posters here are actually unable to conceive that I might write these comments of my own free will, because they're so entrenched in the doublespeak and groupthink that pervades Slashdot that they're slaves to it. Sorry to break it to you, but people are not intelligent because they parrot the 'lolhateM$' party line and get modded up for it.
I think you're arguing something I didn't actually say.
What card were you using? I initially had Vista operating on a Radeon 9800. If it was a 9250 card or earlier, they don't fully support DX9 so they won't work.
Isn't that why both ODF and OOXML are just zipped up XML files? You could easily argue that Microsoft and open source are taking steps to move to a file format that won't just 'become' unreadable.
Unfortunately it does get to a point where fixing bugs in old rendering code becomes financially unfeasible for a company that actually has to pay for it's coders.
People with more intelligence than you have tried to accuse me of being a shill.
Care to answer my point are you content to just name-call?
To be fair, the Red Hat 7-year support phase is 'errata only', i.e. mission critical bugs only, but I accept your point and thank you for the clarification.
.doc format, so I haven't seen the behaviour you describe... bit of an odd one!
To be honest, I haven't had a 2007 docx document save in
Sorry, but Gutmann's article is based on zero actual use of the Vista system. He does no actual usage studies, no experimentation, no nothing. All he does is gather together forum posts about Vista and say "Well, if this is all correct then this should happen."
Unless, of course, you can link me to the actual empirical evidence that he collected that DRM in Vista behaves exactly as he says it does.
Someone hasn't heard about MinWin.
Given that Apple seem to end support after 6-7 years, and there's no evidence that any OSS offering will extend support that far back, why is there suddenly an outcry with Microsoft stopping support file formats which are now over a decade old?
Seems to be bloody-minded hypocrisy.
The 'SuperFetch' prefetch system in Vista actually learns which programs you load most often and preloads them in memory so they start quicker. It's pretty quick to release the memory too if it turns out you need it for something else.
Like all things though, you can turn it off.
I'm pretty sure that was last year... and if I remember correctly, the donation was made to the ESA, so it won't count :)
In fact, have a list of reasons to upgrade to Vista:
- Better security overall even with UAC disabled
- Better indexing and search functions
- The new Backup and Restore centre
- The new Windows Games explorer including parental controls
- Shadow Copy
- BitLocker
- ReadyBoost
- ASLR
- Improved DEP functions
- Internet Explorer protected mode
- Improved Group Policy settings
- Aero
Of course, you could just do the research yourself - here's some Wiki links to get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
Yes, it does make searches faster, and saying otherwise only suggests that you haven't used it at all.
This is all by the by, because what you did was ask me to name one thing that Vista does that is useful in idle time and I've easily done that, but you're absolutely determined to pick fault with something so don't let me stop you.
I suggest you read this link and then tell me that you Vista doesn't defrag in idle time. Also, indexing improves search speed, which I believe I mentioned. I'm sorry if I put two different things in the same sentence and you had trouble comprehending it, so maybe I should do this again for you.
Windows Vista defragments your hard drive in idle time which improves program loading speed and geenral hard-drive access times.
Windows Vista indexs your hard drive in idle time which makes the Vista search function perform faster.
Both use CPU time. There are other system operations that also occur in idle time, e.g. Superfetch functions and other system tasks. You only asked for one example, though. I suggest if you want a full accounting for every MHz that is being used on the poster's computer that you ask him for a screenshot of his task manager.
Name one thing its doing though. Defragmenting and indexing your hard-drive to make it quicker to search and load programs.
Yes, because not mentioning a compelling upgrade reason is saying Vista is a turd sandwich. Oh, to live in a world like yours, where everything is either absolutely amazing or complete shit.
Enjoy your black and white absolutist world, moron.
Oh and by the way: DirectX 10.