Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Business 2.0 Says 'Boycott Vista' 756

amyandjake writes "Business 2.0 has a story about Vista's delays, the amount of time wasted by Microsoft bringing Vista to market, and the fact that it doesn't seem to have any compelling features for upgrading. The last paragraph of the story says 'Boycott Vista. Keep your old Windows XP PC around. Don't buy a new one. That's the only way we have to let Microsoft know Vista is an overhyped, late, and pointless update to XP — a perfectly fine operating system.'" Relatedly, torrensmith writes "Paul Thurrott is at it again with his seemingly never-ending supply of information about Windows Vista. This time, he discusses the things he dislikes about the program, in the article The Dark Side of Windows Vista RC1."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Business 2.0 Says 'Boycott Vista'

Comments Filter:
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:51PM (#16068113) Homepage Journal

    I'm not buying another version of Windows. I don't care how good they say it is. I was told Windows 95 would be awesome, it was suffering incarnate. I was told Windows 98 would be great, they started putting in irritating behaviour and it was still a pain to do things with. I was told Windows XP would be great, it's widely credited with being worse than Windows 98.

    Next for me is either Mac or just throw everything I don't have in Linux into Linux. At least that way I stop paying a tax every few years to enrich people who have been very careless with security while at the same time trying to control everyone's market by bundling everything under the sun into it.

    I think Vista could be the best thing Microsoft ever did for Apple or Linux.

  • by IPFreely ( 47576 ) <> on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:54PM (#16068136) Homepage Journal
    That's the same thing I said about XP, and the reason I stayed on Win2k way after XP was the norm.

    Sooner or later, it will have something that you need and can't get on XP, or you will get a new PC that has it bundled (or you are not on windows anyway so you aren't part of this conversation :) )

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:54PM (#16068139)

    That was a bit harsh, perhaps, but you have to remember that the Media Center UI that debuted in the October 2006 CTP (see my review) was also absolutely horrible.

    This guy is one forward-looking pundit!

  • by americamatrix ( 658742 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:02PM (#16068190) Homepage
    I'll tell you what really grinds my gears -

    People saying Vista is going to be a terrible OS just because of so called computer 'gossip' they heard [hello juding a book by its cover]! I went a TechNet meeting last week on Vista. After sitting in an auditorium for 4 hours, listening and watching what Vista can do, I can't wait to upgrade.

    Vista has matured greatly since Beta 2 (as I had run Beta 2 and am currently running Pre-RC1 right now and RC1 will be installed later tonight). I would greatly appreciate people actually installing it and then saying why its no good after they have something to back-it-up with.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:03PM (#16068200)
    You already have a Vista machine. The one in front of you, you've been testing for the past five years, MS boy.

    -ps: What's this new attitude in slashdot? People say $opinion and then say "I'm definitelly going to buy that". One philosopher said "often the example is more persuading than arguments". Instead of arguing logically, people these days put up themselves as the example average customer. *that* is hype.
  • by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:19PM (#16068324)
    Hmm. Win2K still seems to be huge in the corporate world from what I've seen traveling around. I think the gratuitous random UI changes that simple cause support headaches and lack of compelling reason to upgrade is the cause of that. I still really don't see any major reason to go to XP from 2K (other than XP booting a little faster.)
  • by RobertM1968 ( 951074 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:23PM (#16068346) Homepage Journal
    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.


  • by carpeweb ( 949895 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:24PM (#16068355) Journal
    OK, I get that it's bundling; and I get why that's "bad".

    But, isn't burning a CD or DVD essentially I/O? (OK, maybe just O.) IANASA, but that sounds a lot like a basic OS function to me. Yeah, I know it's a direct competitor to existing "products". Existing products that exist because a basic OS function was ... overlooked?

    I'm trying not to be a smart-ass about this (but I was never very good at restraint). So, is it ok for MS to bundle basic OS functions with their OS?
  • by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:25PM (#16068362) Homepage Journal
    I went back to Windows 2000.

  • by Zaphod2016 ( 971897 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:35PM (#16068430) Homepage
    From DOS 6.22 through Win XP; I was a M$ junkie. I even went so far as to become MCSE cert. and to attend various M$ propaganda shows here and there. I was one of those guys who justified my addiction by saying "everyone has it" or "I know how to use M$ stuff- I'm too set in my ways to change".

    But it wasn't OSX, *Nix or even the delays of Vista that turned me off to Heir Gates- it was the Internet. As soon as I realized that 90% of my "mission critical" activities were all web-based (email, research, development) I realized that it really didn't matter which desktop I used- they all connected to the same Internet.

    Once I got past that hurdle, I found the courage to play with various linux distros and ended up on a Mac running OSX. In retrospect, I can see perfectly well that all of these options are superior to windows (for my needs, perhaps not yours). However, I was unwilling to even explore my other options because I had trapped myself into a proprietary mindset- something even more dangerous than a proprietary format.

    Having played with these various OSes, I can see that each of them has "borrowed" from each other; features that prove popular in one almost inevitably find themselves to the others. Just like a favorite make/model of car, there is no "wrong" answer, only preferences and favorites. I think the "masses" are begining to understand this, just as they understand a choice between pickup truck or sports car (good for different things).

    And this is why Vista is "doomed"- the dreaded Microsoft Monopoly preys on the ignorance and confusion of the masses. And yes, most people over the age of 40 are mildly retarded in terms of computers. But these dinosaurs are quickly being replaced by a new generation, the first generation "raised on the Internet", the first generation of which 90% are proficient and experienced with a home PC. The confusion factor shrinks more every day, directly proportionate to the decline in M$ market share.
  • by Carlyle ( 993954 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @04:06PM (#16068643)
    What I worry about is there being 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista. I think it just confuses the market. I use the computer for software development, business, media editing, and gaming. I would like to get the 64 bit version of Windows Vista for the expanded memory capability, and the signed drivers. What scares me away though is the fact that there is a 32 bit version of Vista.

    Are the people who make my development software, business software, media software, and games going to develop their products for both versions of the operating system? Will I have to worry about compatibility issues? If my current library of software, hardware, and games work with the 32-bit version of the Vista operating system will they also work with the 64 bit version?

    Can we really expect hardware manufacturers to make top quality drivers for both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista? Will it take longer for hardware manufacturers to produce drivers now since they have to provide two versions? Why didn't microsoft make a single unified driver model for the 32/64 bit versions of Vista? As I understand it, Apple has done this.

    I wish they had just made a 64 bit version of Vista, and focused on giving it a good Windows on Windows emulation for 32 bit apps and backwards compatibility. The only reason I can see for having a 32-bit version of the OS is because Intel currently ships Core 2 Duo chips that are only 32-bits.

    Usually I've always upgraded to the latest version of windows as soon as it was released to retail, but I intend to wait several months before I make a purchase. Now I feel forced to wait until I hear all reviews about compatibility and stability, and opinion articles about 32 bit versus 64 bit. I plan to buy a whole new machine to ensure full compatibility with the new OS and to take advantage of it's high end features.

    I like a lot of what I've seen about the architecture of Windows Vista and the new features they have added, what I don't like is the uncertainty of the compatibility. If I buy the 64 bit version of Vista will I be screwed by compatibility issues, and slow hardware driver releases? Will I be able to play my games or am I buying a Beta machine?
  • by Mistshadow2k4 ( 748958 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @04:07PM (#16068646) Journal
    It still is a perfectly fine operating system. Some apps require XP, but those are in the minority; most still work fine with 2k. And having expereinced both 2k and XP, I can tell you that 2k is actually more reliable. I've used XP for months now -- my husband wanted it because a few games he adores won't run on 2k -- and it has only locked up on me twice (which is actually as good as most *nix distros I've tried). But 2k was more reliable still, with lock-ups even fewer and some apps being more stable, despite the fact that some of those apps were developed after XP came out.
  • by doormat ( 63648 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @04:11PM (#16068673) Homepage Journal
    Thats the only thing I like about XP vs 2k. XP can boot much faster. I'm using an old 600Mhz celeron laptop (#@!$% Apple fix my MacBook already) running 2k and it takes almost 5 minutes to get to a working desktop.

    But booting faster isnt worth $99 or whatever to get a copy of XP.
  • by atarione ( 601740 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @04:22PM (#16068755)
    they have already boycotted XP in large part... when i look around at various places the workstations seem to almost always be running win2k not XP... as 2k is in extended support ending (according to m$ 2010) can business users boycott vista? Assuming corporate customers are not willing to move the desktops to XP or Vista what does m$ do at that point... stick to the plan and end support for 2k ??? running the risk that corp customers look at other options?

    Vista's UI is different enough that end user training is going to seem necessary if your going to have to do that anyway. maybe it is the perfect time to look at moving to *nix desktop enviroments or something.

    my question with XP pro in a corporate network setting is what exactly does it bring that is useful to the table over 2k? not much really more stuff to turn off to keep people from wasting time and improved wifi support i guess...and somewhat better boottime.

    with vista it seems there would be even more bloat /timewasting stuff to disable /remove.
  • Re:Flaimbait this is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Al Dimond ( 792444 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @04:36PM (#16068853) Journal
    I've read that some people did studies using actual stopwatches and found that using the mouse for things like selecting text and moving your input cursor is faster than using the keyboard on average. Using the keyboard is faster for some things, but mostly it's that using the keyboard feels faster than using the mouse. Sometimes when I'm bouncing around in Vim I realize that some of my operations would be much quicker easier if I used the mouse (Vim, of course, has a mouse language but I'm not all that familiar with it). It feels like there are more situations where the keyboard is quicker, but when the mouse is quicker it's a *lot* quicker. But I don't have stopwatch numbers to back that particular feeling up. It's hard to test things like that without a bunch of test subjects.
  • by EndlessNameless ( 673105 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @04:49PM (#16068944)
    MS often bundles the software in an attempt to corner the market and stamp out competitors. Actually, if you bother to understand the law at all, this sort of behavior is exactly what must be done in order for a company to be guilty of being an abusive monopoly (for the record being a monopoly isn't illegal, it's abusing the monopoly that is).

    *That* is why people get nervous when they start adding new apps to their OS. You can't find a computer on the shelf anywhere that has a DVD-RW drive but doesn't have any DVD burning software. There are a number of third-party apps, and all of the manufacturers supply one or the other on the machines that need it. Manufacturers pick something that is reasonably priced and works, and users can upgrade it, replace it, or use it as-is depending on what they want. The problems with this approach are few and far between. Linux-style bundling usually gives you a few options for each app. For instance, even though there is a default option to expedite the installtion, you can usually choose between OpenOffice and Abiword for word processing.

    Microsoft is throwing in everything and the kitchen sink in an attempt to convince users that an upgrade is worthwhile. I will grant that this is different from the monopolistic abuses of the past, but it's still equally stupid. Read the article; all of those apps are half-assed at best (and this opinion comes from a traditional MS fanboy). A poor design decision isn't any better than an illegal business strategy.

    I can't speak for others, but I've gotten off the bus. XP is the last version of Windows I'll be using unless Vista's successor somehow turns things around.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08, 2006 @04:57PM (#16068996)
    Save for a few clued in geeks but who cares about that demographic anyway?

    Otherwise how do you boycot buying new computers which will all come with Vista preloaded? There is no viable alternative.

    If anything, MS will collapse under its own weight and Vista just might be that one brick to many that shatters the shins of this giant and when the big bastard falls it is going to fall fast and hard.

    Sure. A little boycot certainly wouldn't hurt and getting the word on the street that Microsoft is Anti-Consumer would help even more but ultimately it will be Investors finally realizing that the company is not worth the stock price and pulling their money out while they still can. From there on it is the domino effect. Those who wait to long to divest will lose large.

    That's the achilles heel of Microsoft. Investors realizing that M$ has lost 30% of it valuation since Jan 02, that the company has not recoved from that loss in six years and one more slip sends M$FT into a death spiral. By the time any investor realizes that the day of reakoning has arrived via news reports is the day they get to watch their investments evaporate before their helpless eyes.

    If M$FT investors are a nervous lot, they should be. The great hope is that Vista gives M$FT just enough of a bounce to trigger a face saving sell off. Save what you can while you can. Conversly, if M$FT gets no bounce from a Vista release then Vista, the last great hope for short term recovery and one last opportunity for a burst of profit taking, is a failure.

    Nobody believes that Vista is going to give Microsoft its old legs back. Investors as well as Geeks know that Vista is nothing more than XP Service Pack 3 with additional Eye Candy and Enhanced End User Digital Restrictions and that virtually nobody will be lining up outside the local big box to buy this trojan'd pig at the stroke of midnight on launch day.

    It is inevitable that the stock price will continue to decline with speed of that decline the only true remaining variable to fuss over. Dividends have been lackluster and will continue to be so no matter how much Microsoft may attempt to pump it up to some semblance of normalcy.

    A consortium of Wall street investors have begun mulling the idea of buying the company out and gutting it as the better alternative to an otherwise future found bleak at best and disasterous at worst. Microsoft the bloated behemouth consumes way to much working capital to simply maintain its enormity given the products and services it actually produces and provides and there are no new vistas on the horizon that will justify the expense of it'self any further.

    The only way Microsoft staves off the inevitable for a few more years is if Vista is wildly successful and nobody, not even Microsoft, envisions that happening. Microsoft as we have known it is a goner. The only question that remains is exactly when but the day that Vista officially ships into consumer space, the countdown begins. Bump the bubble or bust, investors do not want to get caught long on this one.
  • by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkidd@viate x a s . com> on Friday September 08, 2006 @05:01PM (#16069011) Homepage
    Microsoft is in the business of making operating systems (and other things). Their last OS was released almost six years ago (will probably be six years at least once Vista ships). They want to sell an upgrade and they've waited that long to do it.

    I don't really know of course but I suspect that a number of the same people who call Vista overhyped and bloated are Mac fans. Mac fans who are perfectly willing every year and a half or so to plop down $129 for the latest Mac OSX upgrade.

    If you send a message to Microsoft that XP is fine and you don't want an upgrade then all you get is Apple, charging for what should be service packs. Sure, Mac OSX upgrades are bigger deals than service packs but that's what XP SP3 would become - a slightly beefier than a service pack upgrade with a pricetag.

    Businesses will just upgrade when they get the chance anyway. I don't see what the point of boycotting Vista is...
  • by DCGregoryA ( 993060 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @05:01PM (#16069013)
    I don't really care about Vista. I deal with server systems, what desktop users are using...bleh, don't really care.

    That being said :

    1) You cannot judge a software's performance by betas.

    2) Windows has always been large, but honestly I can't say that my typical Linux desktop that I actually *use* winds up being any smaller. My working Windows machines typically wind up being about as big as my working Linux machines. Windows has never been about customizability, its about working for people who are complete idiots.

    3) The admin user should be able to disable that UAC garbage. Frankly, I've never had a problem with Windows security, because I use things like permissions and limited user accounts on my home computers as well as in the office. If you're handing out admin privileges to everyone that touches your box, you're doing something wrong from the get-go. You wouldn't do that on Linux and you shouldn't do it on Windows either, even though Windows makes it easier. Microsoft defaults to that on XP Home edition and such because its too confusing for your "average" user otherwise. For those people, disabling UAC may as well be "constructing a rocket to fly to space".

    I'm not sure I agree with you about Windows security system. It isn't should just have different distros for different users. You'd be surprised how many people don't want to mess with security at all. On the other hand, for those users who want a secure box, they should have that option more readily available and with less configuration. Additionally, the real problem with Windows isn't even Windows, its the software developers that use registry & system folders for everything and don't follow good software design principles. Applications should be capable of running once you copy the folders...unfortunately, few in the Windows world are that simple to deploy.

    Re: ASP vs PHP. PHP is garbage compared to ASP .Net. PHP is better than original ASP though (VBScript is terrible). Just my 2 cents.
  • Re:Flaimbait this is (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SmurfButcher Bob ( 313810 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @05:07PM (#16069053) Journal

    So, perhaps you can name a SINGLE "useful new feature" that is worth $170k in new desktops across my enterprise. And when I say "useful", I mean it'll earn that $170k BACK somehow.

    Please, name one. And, "Solitare 2007" doesn't cut it.
  • Re:Another issue (Score:4, Interesting)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @05:17PM (#16069112)
    but I have a feeling that Vista users will experience some of the same kinds of pain they've already endured with XP.

    Exactly. It reminds me of The Onion's article on "World Death Rate Hovers at a Steady 100%" Microsoft says Vista will revolutionize security and make it (nearly) tamper-proof. When you look at how that's been promised in some form for every single OS they've released, and then later proven wildly false, you have to see a pretty consistent pattern.
  • by lattyware ( 934246 ) <> on Friday September 08, 2006 @05:28PM (#16069185) Homepage Journal
    After switching to Linux, Ubuntu to be exact, I have booted into windows about 3 times. Once to get some settings I needed, once to convert some video (I later found I program to do what I needed under Linux, and once by accident.

    Frankly, I don't care. I won't buy Vista, because it has nothing I want. Linux does the job, doesn't cost loads, and is better in so many ways. I'm no linux fanboy, but I will use the overall best thing for me, and that in Linux. I'm not going to ask people to Boycott it. I'm just going to use what I find best, and encourage others to do the same, aswell as telling them all the options.
  • Re:Flaimbait this is (Score:4, Interesting)

    by boingo82 ( 932244 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @05:39PM (#16069245) Homepage
    But it is sort of because XP has bad shortcuts. I spent 4 years on OS9, and even though it's not my operating system of choice, I am super-fast at it thanks to shortcuts. The most helpful thing was setting up all my directories so each started with a different letter. To open a photo file, I would hit cmd-o cmd-d p enter d enter f enter enter ENTER, the p, d, and f navigating through the folders. I knew every directory's location in relation to the desktop and had aliases set up from folder to folder to speed things up. I knew the cmd-down and cmd-up way to navigate folders in finder. I could (and did) operate the machine for 45 minutes without once touching the mouse.

    XP doesn't let me do that. I actually am MORE experienced on XP, and it is my preferred OS, but I'm not as fast at it. To my knowledge there's no handy "go-up-a-folder" shortcut or "go-to-desktop" shortcut when in the "open" or "save" dialog. There ARE shortcuts, but none are the ones I used most frequently. Navigating folders/files by keystroke alone is more tedious.

  • by asuffield ( 111848 ) <> on Friday September 08, 2006 @06:25PM (#16069475)
    Win2K still seems to be huge in the corporate world from what I've seen traveling around. I think the gratuitous random UI changes that simple cause support headaches and lack of compelling reason to upgrade is the cause of that.

    Actually, the major reason for this is because if you're doing the whole Active Directory thing, using it to its fullest extent, then having both Win2K and XP systems on your domain is a disaster. There's a whole pile of complicated compatibility and migration issues when you get beyond the basic functionality, many of which don't have good solutions. Microsoft's only answer is "upgrade to XP". The corporate world is unamused by the idea that they should deploy XP across the entire company all at once (which is guaranteed to cause disruption to business for weeks until the IT crew get all the problems worked out), so with that plus no compelling reason to upgrade, a lot of them just didn't bother.

    Microsoft don't really care, because most of the large corporates are paying them a huge annual fee regardless of what they run. It's the home users who they need to pressure to upgrade.
  • by IronChef ( 164482 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @06:36PM (#16069540)
    However, I was unwilling to even explore my other options because I had trapped myself into a proprietary mindset- something even more dangerous than a proprietary format.

    I used to work at Microsoft. I was a lowly orange badge contactor, but I was there for a couple of years alltogether--long enough to get a peek at the corporate culture. Maybe my area was special, but from what I saw the "proprietary mindset" applied to the people making those products too. I encountered many developers and IT guys who didn't seem to understand that there was a whole world of computers beyond Windows.

    It's OK to use Windows. It's even OK to like Windows. But it seems like any computer professional should understand the rest of the ecosystem (eg Unix), at least in general terms. These guys just had a big blind spot though.

    What a strange place.
  • Re:Flaimbait this is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SmurfButcher Bob ( 313810 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @07:08PM (#16069660) Journal
    > I would say the TCP/IP improvements,

    No value; existing network is tuned as good as it gets.

    > productivity gains from improved UI,

    I've yet to meet one SINGLE user who spends *ANY* time in the OS UI. Result: 0. Users spend time in app-land, not the desktop. And again, a new improved "open/save" common-dialogue doesn't cut it. On a good day, a fancy new dialog might change an 8 second process... to a 7 second process. It'll be years before we see our $60 at that rate; you're also ignoring the cash required to pay me to roll this stuff out, which is one hell of a lot more than $60 a shot.

    > the revamped security model,

    Again, not relevent - it does not allow for the relaxation of any legacy tactics... at the end of the day, it's just more eye-candy that accomplishes nothing, just another layer of complexity that must be managed yet provides no value. "Revamped"... you mean, "not yet debugged". You know, like WMTimer priv escallation design flaw stuff.

    > and the general reliability improvements you'll get from Vista

    Sorry to take exception to this one, rofl... that would be a negative value. We're already at a 2-nine uptime (if we *ignore* black tuesday) with XP and 2K; any "crashes" are generally a result of bad behavior in userland, which has no bearing on the OS. You're asking us to start back at square-one, and you're retroactively giving credit to the stability of WVSP6a before we've even hit SP1, yet. Sorry, but "reliability improvements" are long, long ways away.

    So, you gave it a good amateur try... but I'm still waiting for an actual reason that puts money on the table, which includes User's Time.

  • Re:Flaimbait this is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HermMunster ( 972336 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @07:25PM (#16069727)
    What is being said in that article is nothing. The bulletted list lists nothing specific that could not have been included in XP. Essentially he's confirming that the 10000 programmers were wasting alot of our time, and theirs. Virtually everything listed could have been incorporated into windows xp and in fact a great many of them probably. The idea that we should upgrade because of dialog boxes or network discovery or ipv6 is downright insane.

    99% of the stuff they promised to make into VISTA is gone. The compelling reason to upgrade is because Microsoft will make it non-compelling not to via whatever tactics they can find once they disciver that people are not willing to pay for new dialog boxes and a pretty interface.

    Some of the things that guy wrote about in his prior slashdot article are obviously open to personal tastes. I've seen the new interface and I love how pretty it is but the fact remains that Microsoft's programmers don't know how to do 3d code well. They are using features that are unnecessary thus forcing you to buy a newer graphics card. Another major problem lies in that most of the machines that were sold from the likes of Dell (most particularly), HP/Compaq, Gateway, eMachines, etc aren't capable of using the Aero interface, specifically for that reason.

    I installed Vista on a geforce 5200 card with 128mb of video ram and the OS refused to enable the interface. On a 6800gt it worked. The point is that even a card capable of playing most of the modern games in the past 3 years won't even display rather minor effects of a glass-style 3d interface which is a far cry from the number of polygons that geforce 5200 card could generate.

    The drivers suck for this for alot of hardware. I wound up using old XP drivers because none were provided for components that were well provided for under XP. Copying a file or a series of files takes excessively long periods of time. Wireless cards essentially function a a fraction of their abilities. Any networking seems to take excessively long periods of time.

    These are the compelling reasons--you give vendors something more to sell you.
  • Re:Flaimbait this is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SmurfButcher Bob ( 313810 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @08:07PM (#16069865) Journal
    # I'll just lump UAC, the more-secure IE7 running in protected mode, Mandatory Integrity Control, Session 0 isolation, BitLocker drive encryption, Address Space Layout Randomization,and, oh, a handful of other security features into this one little bullet point. Properly taken advantage of, these could deliver that $170k of ROI all by themselves, in the form of less 3rd-party security requirements, managment of same, and management of security incidents.

    All of this is irrelevent or already covered by a competent and tested solution. You'd really retire tried and tested legacy "security measures" for brand new, immature, untested ones? No, the legacy layers stay intact for quite some time... long enough that they effectively never go away, because they stay until every other legacy piece goes away. And by then, Vista will be the thing we're upgrading *from*.

    # Speech recognition that works. Not sure if you want a cube-farm full of blabbering knowledge workers, but hey. I can see some orgs using this to good advantage.

    You have a new definition of "works". I do have a cube farm; not only does the fun SRE not work that well for realtime production usage, but it's several orders of magnitude slower than typing.

    # IPV6, much better wireless support, saved network profiles.

    Uh... I've got installs of NT4 with IP6. "Wireless support", again... last I checked, (a) who cares in a desktop world, and (b) "better" defined as "sucks less". Saved profiles? As opposed to the original prism drivers from a century ago?

    # mklink -- create, modify and delete junctions, hard links, and symbolic links.

    Are you new? We've had this since day 1 of NTFS!

    # Completely re-written image-based installation will make deployment a lot easier. It'll also make it a snap to move an employee from old computer to new computer, preserving all apps and settings without extra frobbing by IT staff (or the user!)

    That will be a nice feature; too bad it goes against deployment costs, which are only required AFTER the deployment is justified. "We need to upgrade to Vista, because we'll save money by the method of deployment! In fact, if we deploy enough copies... we'll actually turn a profit! We can setup an automated batch job to repeatedly deploy Vista to a single machine, over and over, and make a fortune off the money we save!" My wife uses that same argument about buying junk we don't need that's "on sale". Bzzzt... and then there's Ghost.
    As for legacy app migration, aside from most of this already being handled by conditional GPOs and things like X-Setup, such migration will only work as well as the legacy software's copyprotection allows. In other words, it won't... massive frobs will still be required, and in fact existing 2k/xp kludges will need to be redesigned because we're now on... Vista. (This last part doesn't really matter, though; the kludges would eventually need adaptation anyway, once Vista is deployed as a replacement... but we're not talking replacement, we're talking upgrade. Very, very, big difference.)

    # Deadlock detection should remove most hang conditions. User-mode drivers should also be worthwhile in this respect.

    How that applies to our devices remains to be seen; most users never encounter such deadlocks, unless something got fudged. And if that's the case, then they have bigger issues. Then there's the whole FUD surrounding the signed driver/module/whatever issue, which has yet to be de-FUDded to anyone's satisfaction.

    # New task manager can perform specific actions in response to system events, or even multiple triggers.

    If you're talking about what I think you are, again... we've had this since NT4. Just not from MS.

    # Restart Manager should make most reboots a thing of the past.

    Our only major outages seem to mysteriously occur on the 2nd Tuesday of each month, even with 2K3R2... our uptime is actually worse than we had when the backline was NTS4. Will those "mysterious outages" be going away? No?

    # Service
  • Re:OK... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @08:49PM (#16070024) Homepage
    "XP is a perfectly fine operating system. I haven't had any of my boxes crash... "

    Statements like this really do suggest the negative effect that Microsoft has had on computing. Users now are "perfectly" satisfied if their OS doesn't routinely crash. What should be a basic assumption has become a lauded feat.

    So you're saying that the beta/experimental drivers in Linux, often based on reverse engineering and no actual documentation doesn't crash? I've managed to do it. Also the latest KDE (running Debian etch) doesn't seem 100% stable to me, though I suppose the whole DE taking a nosedive doesn't count either. Or do they somehow not "count" and only the core of the kernel counts or what's decleared stable counts? In that case, you'd better count the numbers the same way in Windows too. And that's not counting all the basic mainstream hardware that doesn't work, such as newer ATI cards. I don't even want to go into how limited your choices of hardware is with the Mac.

    What you have missed is that what was a major advantage for Mac/Linux has become a mental masturbation, users don't care if their uptime is measured in weeks or years because they don't run 24/7 for weeks or years. It's like arguing about SACD vs MP3 to someone who listens to music on their iPod earbuds.

    My linux and mac installs don't crash either. Nor do they have a spyware virus problem (or even need for software to prevent such). But that's just what they do to not suck.

    My machines don't have a virus or spyware problem either, so for a geek they're still squarely equal. Most of the Linux users are geeks (or are managed by geeks), and don't suffer from the "clueless root" issue. As for Mac, I think it's because they use a lot of built-in software or buy serious software - what gets most Windows users are the "free" screensavers, "free" IM icons or "free" porn images not to mention "free" warez and "free" cracks. Those same users would gladly install and get hosed by the same apps all over again on Mac.

    From usable CLI to functional least-rights users to better software (no Quicksilver, Textmate or iLife for PC) and on ad infinitum, they also do a tons of things that MS just can't offer.

    Luckily there's a few other companies than MS producing software for Windows, quite many in fact... not everything on a Windows box needs to be iSomething. Hardly any of the software I use regularly is made by Microsoft. Though I suppose if you are running MSIE and MS Outlook and MS Office and so on all day, well then you can't have worked very hard at finding replacements.

    If you're happy with the "accomplishment" of not crashing, good for you. I've experienced more and I've come to expect more.

    Yes, I'm quite happy that Windows seem to mostly have that accomplished with Windows 2000. That means that *everyone else's* products run stable on top of it. Whatever Microsoft is otherwise doing I don't care if they dress up Windows in a clown suit and a full complement of sound themes (as long as they can be disabled that is), as long as they don't mess with the stability. Beyond that, the OS is a very small part of my computer experience and that's exactly how I think it should be.
  • by Score Whore ( 32328 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @09:37PM (#16070145)
    web rendering and javascript library....

    Here's a short list of "OS" apps that'll be dead:

    iChat AV
    Help Viewer
    Software Update

    Look's like it's not as casual a thing as you want to make it out to be. Then there's a list of several dozen known add-on applications from apple and third parties. The reality is, if you pull WebKit you will not have what people consider a working mac.

    The OS providing a HTTP, JavaScript, and HTML subsystems is good for the consumer even if it's bad for Netscape Corp.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09, 2006 @05:08AM (#16070934)
    That's a bit of an exaggeration.

    I've found most applications run in XP's limited user role. So I run all my game, internet, multimedia, and misc. boxes that way. I've run into very few problems; "runas" actually works fine most of the time.

    The one category of software that sends me screaming to Administrator mode, however, is developer tools; IDEs, compilers, SDK, and the like. They gave me so much trouble early on that I simply gave up and have been running my programming XP boxes in administrator mode ever since. Yeah, it's a cop out - no excuses.

    If you are curious about what I mean, or just want to do a little cursing at MS and/or Borland, download a copy of Turbo Delphi for .NET, then install and run it from a limited account account ("runas" only, no logging in as adminitrator). It's fun. I promise.
  • Re:Flaimbait this is (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Masloki ( 41237 ) on Saturday September 09, 2006 @01:11PM (#16071875) Homepage
    Your ROI calculations actually raise two interesting points. At the company I work for where IT supports operations, our formula is a bit harsher. How will this IT upgrade help us net (cost of upgrade * cost of doing business) + incremental sales. (As that isn't totally clear, here is an example). The way it works is say you want a new software package at $1000. We have a 10% (not true value) profit margin on sales. We have to sell $10,0000 worth of merchandise to cover your purchase. For it to stand a chance of being approved, you want the $10K bump plus at least another $20K incremental. Now for Vista to be justified across 2000 computers at $100 volume upgrade pricing, that is $20,000. Double it for testing and implementation, $40,000. Sales to support cost = $400,000, plus incremental benefit = $1.2 million. Another way to consider the incremental is evey project should net a strong positive ROI. For your project, it has to be in the top projects on total ROI because implementation resources are limited.

    Now, your post claims nearly all the features of Vista are minimal, which I agree with. With OS X upgrades, each release has improved transactional performance. Every time a file was opened, it took a little less time than the previous OS release. Each release increased 'teh snappy'. An OS X upgrade would be much easier to justify.

The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. -- Blaise Pascal