> -----Original Message-----
> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> Chambers wrote:
> >> "improvements" or just changes for the sake of changes. (Or changes
to
> >> make M$ customers happy, rather than M$ users...)
> > Why shouldn't they?  The customers are the ones who pay.
> We pay too.

That would make us customers, wouldn't it?  Which means that they're
making changes to make us happy.

> > Over time they added to it, such that SP2 was basically a new OS.
> I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

And what about OpenSuse 11 makes it a new OS, compared to OpenSuse 10? 

> > A lot of the stuff is under the hood; that is, it just does things
> > better, even though users won't necessarily notice the difference.
> Oh, I think quite a few people have noticed the new lack of speed. ;-)

As far as I can tell, the *majority* of those are people who have either
a) sub-par machines, or
b) faulty third party device drivers.

I'm not saying none of it's MS's fault; I'm saying most of it isn't.  My
own machine runs great, and I've seen Vista running great on several
other computers as well.  I have yet to witness the fabled slowness that
people complain about.

> No, in seriousness... Adding new features under the hood is very nice
> and everything. Just don't expect me to rush out and buy something
> where
> I "won't really notice the difference", that's all.

As I understand it, this is a common problem for developers.

Devs: Really!  We've cleaned up our codebase, making it use 20% less
RAM, thrash the HDD less, eliminated 70% of the known memory leaks, and
properly refactored the entire system!

Users: But it's just the same thing, though, right?  Why should we pay
for what we already have?

> > I guarantee Vista stands head
> > and shoulders above any version of NT ever published.  NT was great
> for
> > it's time, but people keep asking for more features, and MS
delivered
> > them in the form of Vista.
> 
> So you're saying the multitude of small improvements really does add
up
> to a larger whole then?

Absolutely.

> I have found from other M$ products that "improvements" are not always
> things you want. (E.g., the "improved" Start Menu that I keep having
to
> turn off...)

That can be the case with anything.  But then, we're not talking about
other products here, are we?

> >> I'd be pretty surprised if it actually works properly.
> >
> > Define "properly" for that situation.  I've had a few interrupted
> > installs, and it gracefully rolled back all changes for me so that
> > nothing was left in a half-baked state.  Is that "proper?"
> 
> I still have trouble with software that doesn't install properly
> *without* a power interruption. :-S

Which software?  With the multitude of 3rd party software I use (some
commercial, some open source) I don't think I've had problems with *any*
of it not installing well.

A bad installer would be a death-knell for most packages, as no one
would be able to use it.  As such, I've got a hunch that most developers
work hard to ensure their software installs nicely.

> Who knows? Maybe in another 5 years' time, they will have applied so
> many bug-fixes to Vista that it will actually become a tempting
> proposition. (Much like XP before it. When XP first came out, nobody
> wanted to touch it. Now even I want to get rid of our old NT
> systems...)

I'd say they're already there, but then I'm the one using it on my home
system :)

Anyway, from what I understand a lot of the problems people were having
were due to faulty 3rd party device drivers (video drivers especially),
a lot of which have been cleaned up in the past year and a half.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message