 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] dev null]
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> Btw, Microsoft is publishing the next version of Windows in mid-2009.
> So in a way you will be able to use Vista for less than a year before
> it becomes more or less obsoleted by Windows 7. Then you'll have to
pay
> even more money to keep up-to-date.
Academic discounts save you money! Besides, I'll probably wait until
2010 to buy Windows 7.
> (I'm really surprised by Microsoft's timing in this. Windows users
as
> a whole are not even close to migrating to Vista, and they already are
> publishing a new version of Windows. If anything, that will give
people
> even less motivation to buy Vista. Why buy Vista now, when you can
just
> perfectly use XP, and if you want to upgrade, just wait for a year and
> you'll get something even newer than Vista?)
AFAIK, they accelerated development on Windows 7 *because* people aren't
buying Vista.
Faced with complaints about Vista, they had two options to respond with:
1) Fine, we'll continue to sell you XP for *less* than Vista.
2) Wait another year, and we'll sell you W7 for *more* than Vista.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Something's not right here.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike the Elder [mailto:nomail@nomail]
> Posted At: Friday, November 14, 2008 12:18 PM
> Posted To: povray.off-topic
> Conversation: My own Vista impressions
> Subject: Re: My own Vista impressions
>
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> >...
> > I think people just like to complain about Microsoft for no good
> >reason at all.
> > ...
>
> Words fail me. A screen image disappoints somewhat less.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'no_results.jpg' (137 KB)
Preview of image 'no_results.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Something's not right here.
Threw me the first time too.
"or" is not the same as "OR" to google.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> 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.
Yeah. I'm sure DRM will make a lot of users very 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?
Actually, that's a valid question. What *is* the difference between
those two OSes?? I know that on one the desktop is a different colour...
did anything else change?
>>> 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.
Depends on whether by "sup-par" you mean a machine that really isn't up
to much, or whether you actually mean "any PC that's more than 20
seconds old". The former is acceptable. The latter isn't.
>> 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?
Now if it really *was* faster, people would notice that. And they'd like
it. Trouble is, they also notice when the reverse happens...
>> So you're saying the multitude of small improvements really does add
>> up to a larger whole then?
>
> Absolutely.
Fair enough them. I haven't used it personally, only watched other
people use it. Some of 'em like it, some of 'em hate it.
>> 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?
M$ has a long history of making changes that annoy the hell out of
users. I don't hear many people complaining that, say, KDE 4 is way more
annoying than KDE 3.
As to whether Vista specifically suffers from this... I don't know. But
Micro$oft's reputation preceeds them, shall we say.
>>>> I'd be pretty surprised if it actually works properly.
>>> Define "properly" for that situation. I've had a few interrupted
>>> installs, and it gracefully rolled back all changes for me so that
>>> nothing was left in a half-baked state. Is that "proper?"
>> I still have trouble with software that doesn't install properly
>> *without* a power interruption. :-S
>
> Which software?
How about, say... Micro$oft Office?
>> 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 :)
Well let's just put it this way: I won't be rushing out to buy it until
it becomes *significantly* cheaper. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Vista rewrote the whole TCP/IP stack AFAIK...
Yes - I do recall somebody complaining that all the bugfix work put into
the old stack has now effectively been lost, with the new stack having a
new and unknown set of bugs.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orchid XP v8 [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> >>>> 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.
>
> Yeah. I'm sure DRM will make a lot of users very happy. :-}
OK, in that specific case they were pretty much forced to by the MAFIAA.
I read a convincing argument that MS purposely sabotaged their own DRM
efforts in Vista so they could tell off the content companies and say,
"See? It doesn't work. Now stop being such dumba**es."
Unfortunately, I doubt that's what really happened - but it would have
been nice :)
> Depends on whether by "sup-par" you mean a machine that really isn't
up
> to much, or whether you actually mean "any PC that's more than 20
> seconds old". The former is acceptable. The latter isn't.
Well, *my* machine is certainly more than "20 seconds old." I bought
mid-range parts for it more than a year ago, and today you can put
together a machine roughly twice as powerful for $500.
> Now if it really *was* faster, people would notice that. And they'd
> like
> it. Trouble is, they also notice when the reverse happens...
It also depends what they target. AFAIK, the Windows developers
actually target a 30 second boot time. If it boots much faster, then
they look for more things they can do during bootup.
> M$ has a long history of making changes that annoy the hell out of
> users. I don't hear many people complaining that, say, KDE 4 is way
> more
> annoying than KDE 3.
No, but I've heard a *lot* of people say that Linux (of any variety!) is
significantly more annoying that Windows!
> How about, say... Micro$oft Office?
Can't comment, mine is running perfectly here.
> Well let's just put it this way: I won't be rushing out to buy it
until
> it becomes *significantly* cheaper. ;-)
That will be after the next version is released...
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> M$ has a long history of making changes that annoy the hell out of
> users. I don't hear many people complaining that, say, KDE 4 is way more
> annoying than KDE 3.
I do hear lots of people complaining about that. Have *you* tried KDE 4? It
makes more UI changes than XP->Vista did.
Most for the better, but it's still a lot of change that you have to get
used to. "KDE is revolutionary, GNOME is evolutionary"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> Vista rewrote the whole TCP/IP stack AFAIK...
>
> Yes - I do recall somebody complaining that all the bugfix work put into
> the old stack has now effectively been lost, with the new stack having a
> new and unknown set of bugs.
I recall reports of very beta versions of Vista having security bugs in the
TCP/IP stack that had been fixed in Windows 95. (like sending a fake ping
packet with source address 127.0.0.1 caused a kernel-mode infinite loop,
replying to its own ping, locking up your machine very badly)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now if it really *was* faster, people would notice that. And they'd like
> it. Trouble is, they also notice when the reverse happens...
I haven't seen any reviews of Vista complaining the actual released
version was slower. Of course if you turn on debugging in the OS, it'll
be slower.
> M$ has a long history of making changes that annoy the hell out of
> users. I don't hear many people complaining that, say, KDE 4 is way more
> annoying than KDE 3.
Except developers. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
