http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/30/come-back-xp-forgiven

Is it just me, or are all these complaints about Vista the exact same 
things we heard about XP when moving from Win2k?

Ie, it's too slow, it uses too much memory, the graphics are pretty but 
slow your machine down way too much, it has features under the hood that 
noone notices, my peripherals don't work with it, etc.

Yet now, people love XP, and have written off Vista.

Personally, I think that 5 years from now, we'll see people complaining 
just as much about how Windows Next isn't nearly as good as Vista, and 
how MS is the devil because they want us to switch again away from our 
sleek, efficient and beautiful OS to a bloated, slow and incompatible 
new version.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/30/come-back-xp-forgiven
>
> Is it just me, or are all these complaints about Vista the exact same 
> things we heard about XP when moving from Win2k?


I was wondering that too, but I think the problems are more widespread and 
more "real". It seemed to me that the xp complaints came mostly from 
experienced users who were upset about losing features, having it break with 
old hardware, being slower, etc. Vista, however, seems to have problems even 
on new computers that come with it installed. My mom bought a laptop with 
Vista and has had to run system restore many times, and says it locks up 
frequently, plus other major problems. It sounds completely unuseable to me. 
That's only one case out of many, but I think there are deeper problems here 
than there were with XP.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> Is it just me, or are all these complaints about Vista the exact same 
> things we heard about XP when moving from Win2k?

Probably.

> Yet now, people love XP, and have written off Vista.

Nooo, I *still* think Windows XP is rubbish. :-P

Still, it's either that or Linux...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Ie, it's too slow, it uses too much memory, the graphics are pretty but 
> slow your machine down way too much,

And yet, if MS released a much lighter OS than ran perfectly fast on 
everyones machine, you'd have some people immediately complaining that it 
didn't make enough use of their hardware now, let alone in 5 years time.

> Personally, I think that 5 years from now, we'll see people complaining 
> just as much about how Windows Next isn't nearly as good as Vista, and how 
> MS is the devil because they want us to switch again away from our sleek, 
> efficient and beautiful OS to a bloated, slow and incompatible new 
> version.

Of course.  With a product that is used by so many people, of course there 
are going to be a lot of people complaining, no matter what MS does.  The 
funny thing is, if you ask the complainers what they think MS should do 
instead, they never can come up with any idea that will actually make MS 
much money.  They often say something like "they should just concentrate on 
making XP better" (ermm, isn't that called Vista?) or "they should just give 
up writing software" (and sack everyone?).

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> The funny thing is, if you ask the complainers what they think MS 
> should do instead, they never can come up with any idea that will 
> actually make MS much money.

I guess that's the problem then. Producing a superior product isn't 
profitable...

[Kind of like curing the common cold isn't profitable.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

I have complaints about XP, but it's my understanding
that very few of those issues are addressed in Vista,
instead there are a bunch of new issues.

Only 8% of developers are even working with Vista
as a target OS. 49% are still building for XP.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9969231-16.html

The reason to use XP was because that's what most
people were using. It's a trend thing, the longer that
people have been using an OS the harder it becomes
to switch. Switching costs more money, takes more
time, and more effort. The OEM path is the only
way for MS to force adoption of Vista.

Trying to force the market is risky. Linux is free,
so there always will be a price incentive for OEMs
to sell bare-bones computers, or to install Linux.

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:

> Vista, however, seems to have problems even 
> on new computers that come with it installed. My mom bought a laptop with 
> Vista and has had to run system restore many times, and says it locks up 
> frequently, plus other major problems. It sounds completely unuseable to me. 
> That's only one case out of many, but I think there are deeper problems here 
> than there were with XP.

FWIW, my dad bought me a brand new laptop as a graduation present. At 
the time, XP was still quite new. The laptop crashed within 14 SECONDS 
of being turned on for the very first time. This was not an isolated 
event either.

As the years went by, somehow the laptop seemed to crash less and less 
often. My newest PC runs XP and I don't think I've ever seen it crash at 
all. Apparently the result of all the billions of bugfixes M$ pumps out 
daily is that eventually, after many many years, the OS reaches a point 
where it will at least run reliably.

I *still* think it wastes far too many resources though... And let's not 
talk about security. [That one at least isn't 100% the fault of MS.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 
> FWIW, my dad bought me a brand new laptop as a graduation present. At 
> the time, XP was still quite new. The laptop crashed within 14 SECONDS 
> of being turned on for the very first time. This was not an isolated 
> event either.
> 

Sounds a lot like the crapware they load on the computers before they're 
shipped out. The XP updates may have overwritten a driver, or added 
stability fixes for known third party issues.

I used to do support for Compaq a long time ago. Now I don't trust 
bundled software. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/30/come-back-xp-forgiven

> Is it just me, or are all these complaints about Vista the exact same 
> things we heard about XP when moving from Win2k?

  There's one difference, though. When MS discontinued Win98 support in
favor of WinXP, there was no petition signed by over 200000 users sent to
Microsoft to keep the Win98 support going on. I think that's rather telling.

  Also I have the feeling that this time MS rushed the discontinuation of
the previous version of Windows in order to artificially boost sales of
the new version. IIRC when the Win98 line of Windows's was dropped, XP
was already quite stable and popular. Not so with Vista.

  (Btw, am I just being paranoid, or is one of the reasons for MS to so
quickly stop support for XP that the music and film industry is pressuring
MS to do so, in favor of the DRM technology in Vista? For some reason this
oppressive DRM technology caused a furor years ago, but nowadays nobody
remembers it anymore or talks about it. Why has everybody forgotten it?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:36:59 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/30/come-back-xp-forgiven
>
>> Is it just me, or are all these complaints about Vista the exact same
>> things we heard about XP when moving from Win2k?
>
>   There's one difference, though. When MS discontinued Win98 support in
> favor of WinXP, there was no petition signed by over 200000 users sent to
> Microsoft to keep the Win98 support going on. I think that's rather  
> telling.

But XP did everything that 98 did only better, the changeover was  
virtually seamless.

>   Also I have the feeling that this time MS rushed the discontinuation of
> the previous version of Windows in order to artificially boost sales of
> the new version. IIRC when the Win98 line of Windows's was dropped, XP
> was already quite stable and popular. Not so with Vista.

As I think I said elsewhere I think the problems are that Microsoft  
managed to produce an OS that really hit the mainstream when it was  
stable, worked with the majority of programmes already used, and didn't  
look much different from the previous version.

They then let it marinate in the user pool until everyone got used to it  
and are now 'forcing' people to switch to something that seems to fall  
over constantly, doesn't run any of 'my' software properly and  
everything's moved from where I want it to be.

>   (Btw, am I just being paranoid, or is one of the reasons for MS to so
> quickly stop support for XP that the music and film industry is  
> pressuring
> MS to do so, in favor of the DRM technology in Vista? For some reason  
> this
> oppressive DRM technology caused a furor years ago, but nowadays nobody
> remembers it anymore or talks about it. Why has everybody forgotten it?)

I think it's more shock therapy to get the markets moving.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> MS to do so, in favor of the DRM technology in Vista? For some reason this
> oppressive DRM technology caused a furor years ago, but nowadays nobody
> remembers it anymore or talks about it. Why has everybody forgotten it?)

Because they've taken to complaining about Vista in general instead? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

By the way, what *does* Vista offer over XP? Besides DirectX 10, that is.
In other words, why should anyone switch voluntarily?

  From what I have seen, the list of planned but later *dropped* features
is larger than the actual list of new features, compared to XP.

  I can't resist the urge to, once again, admire Apple as opposed to MS.
Each new version of MacOS X has been faster and lighter than previous
versions, and with new useful features. Most MacOS X users *want* to
upgrade to the later version. Usually they don't need to be forced.
(Sure, exceptions *always* exist, but this is my general impression.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (Btw, am I just being paranoid, or is one of the reasons for MS to so
> quickly stop support for XP that the music and film industry is pressuring
> MS to do so, in favor of the DRM technology in Vista? For some reason this
> oppressive DRM technology caused a furor years ago, but nowadays nobody
> remembers it anymore or talks about it. Why has everybody forgotten it?)

Because nobody buys music online?  I never will, at least.

My entire music collection (now approaching 20 gigs - I never thought 
I'd get this much!) is encoded from CDs.

I'm working on encoding my DVD collection, as well.

And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM!  Eat that, MAFIAA!

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM!  Eat that, MAFIAA!

Give it a few years and it will be illegal to own a digital audio or 
video device that does not enforce MAFIAA DRM policy. Eat that.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   By the way, what *does* Vista offer over XP? Besides DirectX 10, that is.
> In other words, why should anyone switch voluntarily?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Window_Manager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Imaging_Component
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Color_System

I didn't see mention of them in the wikipedia articles, but there are 
supposed to be great improvements in how Windows utilizes all types of 
memory (RAM, flash drives, and hdds).  Things like using available 
memory to preload your favorite programs, swapping data out to flash 
drives instead of magnetic drives, etc, as well as better memory 
partitioning and protection (OK, that parts in the "Security and safety" 
above).

>   From what I have seen, the list of planned but later *dropped* features
> is larger than the actual list of new features, compared to XP.

That's true of any software project, isn't it?  But realistically, you 
can't offer everything to everyone.

Besides which, some of the features just weren't good ideas.  I mean, 
making the entire file system a relational database?  IIRC, they didn't 
drop that one because of implementation problems, but because in 
practice it sucked.

>   I can't resist the urge to, once again, admire Apple as opposed to MS.
> Each new version of MacOS X has been faster and lighter than previous
> versions, and with new useful features. Most MacOS X users *want* to
> upgrade to the later version. Usually they don't need to be forced.
> (Sure, exceptions *always* exist, but this is my general impression.)

I recently had the opportunity to turn a white box PC into a Hackintosh, 
and the results were less than astounding.

OK, I can understand things not working quite right since it wasn't 
actually a Mac (though the main components were the same ones that Apple 
uses, CPU, GPU, etc).  But honestly, working with the OS itself... 
maybe I'm just at the point where I'm OS agnostic, and don't care what 
system the computer runs, as long as it does what I want it to do. 
After using it for a while on the white box, Mac OS X failed to impress me.

What *does* impress me is the rabid fervor of its fans.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> 
>> And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM!  Eat that, MAFIAA!
> 
> Give it a few years and it will be illegal to own a digital audio or 
> video device that does not enforce MAFIAA DRM policy. Eat that.
> 

Remember, remember, the 5th of November...

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:48:01 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Chambers wrote:
>
>> And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM!  Eat that, MAFIAA!
>
> Give it a few years and it will be illegal to own a digital audio or  
> video device that does not enforce MAFIAA DRM policy. Eat that.

Nah DRM will just become defacto on mainstream devices and they won't play  
any non-DRM content; and those devices that do play non-DRM conteny won't  
be authorised to play DRM content. If any of the anti-DRM's protest  
they'll just be called pirates.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> I didn't see mention of them in the wikipedia articles, 

Yeah. In general, there's a whole bunch of stuff that end-users rarely 
see. The whole protection bit, the whole secure-desktop-communication 
bit. Stuff like System Restore in XP, and other stuff that programs can 
use but which end-users don't really see (like transactional file 
systems) keep showing up.

There's really only so much an OS can do for a user. You can make the 
apps better, and Apple "improves" the OS by making better apps to come 
with it. If MS did that, people would start suing them for monopoly 
practices again.

So there's a number of things that either lead to better performance 
(like the memory management) or to easier programming, but not a whole 
lot you can do that the user is going to see vividly.

Of course, if it doesn't work, it's going to suck regardless of what 
it's *supposed* to do.

> making the entire file system a relational database?  IIRC, they didn't 
> drop that one because of implementation problems, but because in 
> practice it sucked.

Actually, it worked quite well for some systems. Like PR1ME, a business 
mainframe. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:486a4450@news.povray.org...

> Besides which, some of the features just weren't good ideas.  I mean,
> making the entire file system a relational database?  IIRC, they didn't
> drop that one because of implementation problems, but because in
> practice it sucked.

From what I heard from one of the devs some time back, was that WinFS was
dropped because the feature set they were given was too ambitious. Instead
of starting small and building on that, the project was scoped to do
everything at once. It was taking too long and producing too little and got
scrapped.

It was more a failure of management than of technology.

Wasn't a complete loss. Several of the senior devs got folded into the SQL
Server dev team and contributed to enhancements of the SQL storage engine,
including the FileStream feature.

Post a reply to this message

In article <op.udmbx0ogc3xi7v@news.povray.org>, 
phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk says...
> And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:48:01 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
 
> spake, saying:
> 
> > Chambers wrote:
> >
> >> And guess what... none of it is infected with DRM!  Eat that, MAFIAA!
> >
> > Give it a few years and it will be illegal to own a digital audio or 
 
> > video device that does not enforce MAFIAA DRM policy. Eat that.
> 
> Nah DRM will just become defacto on mainstream devices and they won't pla
y  
> any non-DRM content; and those devices that do play non-DRM conteny won't
  
> be authorised to play DRM content. If any of the anti-DRM's protest  
> they'll just be called pirates.
> 
What? Am I the only one that missed the news reports of "major" 
producers, including I believe Sony, giving up on a lot of the DRM and 
pulling it from products, because it a) pissed off customers, b) didn't 
work anyway, and probably c), in sony's case, got them in serious damn 
trouble when they had something that "could" work, but created worse 
security issues than it solved?

Must have completely imagined this trend, which is why iToons also 
mentioned recently considering (or already) abandoning it. lol

-- 
void main () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> From what I heard from one of the devs some time back, was that WinFS was
> dropped because the feature set they were given was too ambitious. Instead
> of starting small and building on that, the project was scoped to do
> everything at once. It was taking too long and producing too little and got
> scrapped.
> 
> It was more a failure of management than of technology.
> 
> Wasn't a complete loss. Several of the senior devs got folded into the SQL
> Server dev team and contributed to enhancements of the SQL storage engine,
> including the FileStream feature.

...says our resident MVP. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> 
>> From what I heard from one of the devs some time back, was that WinFS was
>> dropped because the feature set they were given was too ambitious. 
>> Instead
>> of starting small and building on that, the project was scoped to do
>> everything at once. It was taking too long and producing too little 
>> and got
>> scrapped.
>>
>> It was more a failure of management than of technology.
>>
>> Wasn't a complete loss. Several of the senior devs got folded into the 
>> SQL
>> Server dev team and contributed to enhancements of the SQL storage 
>> engine,
>> including the FileStream feature.
> 
> ...says our resident MVP. ;-)
> 
By the way, congrats on that :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/30/come-back-xp-forgiven 
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or are all these complaints about Vista the exact same 
> things we heard about XP when moving from Win2k?
> 
> Ie, it's too slow, it uses too much memory, the graphics are pretty but 
> slow your machine down way too much, it has features under the hood that 
> noone notices, my peripherals don't work with it, etc.
> 
> Yet now, people love XP, and have written off Vista.
> 
> Personally, I think that 5 years from now, we'll see people complaining 
> just as much about how Windows Next isn't nearly as good as Vista, and 
> how MS is the devil because they want us to switch again away from our 
> sleek, efficient and beautiful OS to a bloated, slow and incompatible 
> new version.
> 

I agree - that in several years Vista will be the mainstream.
Currently it is slow, takes up too much memory, is bloated with unused 
features, and a lot doesn't work with it.

But come new software, hardware, and a couple of service packs.....
It will be fast and snappy and you'll be glad of the features.


Like with XP, there are some drawbacks.

Who likes to 'activate' their copy of XP and the 'Genuine Advantage' 
program that MS put into place for those who got around activation - or 
those with legit copies that just got marked 'bad'.

Now Vista adds DRM and things like that.

None of these drawbacks are really in the best interest of the consumer 
- they are in the interests of big business.


My office now uses XP and likes it....  I remember that is was 2004 when 
I upgraded our systems to use XP.

When I order PCs now they come with Vista Business - which allows a 
legal downgrade to XP.  All in preparation to move to Vista one day when 
things settle down.



Tom

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> Who likes to 'activate' their copy of XP and the 'Genuine Advantage' 
> program that MS put into place for those who got around activation - or 
> those with legit copies that just got marked 'bad'.

> Now Vista adds DRM and things like that.

  Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more things
the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more things
> the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?

Yep. It's great to be able to pay money to be prevented from doing 
things! :-D

I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?

(Already I see M$ saying things to hardware vendors like "don't expose 
your customers to the dangers of software piracy by selling them PCs 
without Windoze preinstalled". Nice mentallity, eh?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?

> (Already I see M$ saying things to hardware vendors like "don't expose 
> your customers to the dangers of software piracy by selling them PCs 
> without Windoze preinstalled". Nice mentallity, eh?)

  In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.
It may be possible to build a PC which only runs Vista, period.

  OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?
> 
>   In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.
> It may be possible to build a PC which only runs Vista, period.
> 
>   OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.

How about if you design hardware so that it will only run "authorised" 
software - that is, software signed by a specific key? You could design 
a system so that in principle it can run any authorised software, yet in 
practice there is only one such authorised program...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:44:14 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?
>
>> (Already I see M$ saying things to hardware vendors like "don't expose
>> your customers to the dangers of software piracy by selling them PCs
>> without Windoze preinstalled". Nice mentallity, eh?)
>
>   In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.
> It may be possible to build a PC which only runs Vista, period.
>
>   OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.

Why? If that's how it's sold then what would be the problem legally? Even  
if you're talking some sort of perfect system that would prevent another  
OS to be run regardless of how either the replacement OS or the system was  
altered I don't see any legal reason against it.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >   OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.

> Why? If that's how it's sold then what would be the problem legally? Even  
> if you're talking some sort of perfect system that would prevent another  
> OS to be run regardless of how either the replacement OS or the system was  
> altered I don't see any legal reason against it.

  Monopoly laws in most countries have been created precisely to prevent
that.

  Sure, Apple owns its own product, the iPod, and Apple sells songs for
their own product, the iPod. Naturally Apple has all the right to make
their own product to play only the songs sold by Apple? Makes sense.

  Well, no. Apple has had problems with EU monopoly laws because of that.
They must allow songs by others to be played with the iPod.

  And besides, haven't you heard of the IE lawsuits MS had to endure?
Monopoly laws in action.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:32:32 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> >   OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
>
>> Why? If that's how it's sold then what would be the problem legally?  
>> Even
>> if you're talking some sort of perfect system that would prevent another
>> OS to be run regardless of how either the replacement OS or the system  
>> was
>> altered I don't see any legal reason against it.
>
>   Monopoly laws in most countries have been created precisely to prevent
> that.
>
>   Sure, Apple owns its own product, the iPod, and Apple sells songs for
> their own product, the iPod. Naturally Apple has all the right to make
> their own product to play only the songs sold by Apple? Makes sense.
>
>   Well, no. Apple has had problems with EU monopoly laws because of that.
> They must allow songs by others to be played with the iPod.

iPod's weren't sold with "only plays songs bought from the Apple store"  
written across them. People expected to be able to play their own music  
and got into a snit when they couldn't.

>   And besides, haven't you heard of the IE lawsuits MS had to endure?
> Monopoly laws in action.

Yes but in that case MS weren't preventing other browsers they were taking  
advantage of a dominance in one field to advance in another and shutting  
out the competition.

 From both these examples I don't see a connection with a one OS only PC.  
Why aren't Nokia being sued like Apple because I can't install the Sony  
Ericsson menu system on my mobile phone?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:39:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more
>   things
> the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?

It is, but AIUI, the original concept was that the system should be open 
by default (I understand that was a design requirement that Gates put in 
place).  Then they discovered that a default "allow" security policy was 
bad, so they started retrofitting.

The thing that I find somewhat ironic is that piracy (which I don't 
condone) is part of the reason that Windows is predominant on the desktop 
these days.  It's far from the only reason, but people wanted Windows but 
didn't want to pay for it, so they borrowed copies of it back in the days 
when DOS shipped with machines and pre-installation was something that 
was generally not done.

MS' answer to that growth is to make it more difficult to pirate.  I 
think it would be interesting if they made Windows *free* (as in 0 cost 
to the consumer) and allowed it to be copied.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:42:15 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?

I don't think the US DOJ or the EU commission would consider that 
appropriate under the current "agreements" in place due to the antitrust 
litigation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more things
> the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?

Kind of sucks when the customer isn't always the user, doesn't it? :-)

>   In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.

We have that. They're called cell phones. Or microwave ovens. Or iPhones.


Invisible wrote:
 > How about if you design hardware so that it will only run "authorised"
 > software

Yeah. This is the iPhone, and Apple is slowly moving the rest of their 
OS that direction.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

In article <486b862e@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?
> 
> > (Already I see M$ saying things to hardware vendors like "don't expose
 
> > your customers to the dangers of software piracy by selling them PCs 
> > without Windoze preinstalled". Nice mentallity, eh?)
> 
>   In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.
> It may be possible to build a PC which only runs Vista, period.
> 
>   OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
> 
What? You mean they are not already basically doing that with DirectX 
10? lol Seriously though, they are already making the hardware so its 
hard, or nearly impossible, to take full advantage of it (or work at 
all) without Windows. Putting a chip on the MB the way Apple initially 
did, so that only their OS would run on their boards, isn't that far of 
a stretch.

-- 
void main () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
>  From both these examples I don't see a connection with a one OS only 
> PC. Why aren't Nokia being sued like Apple because I can't install the 
> Sony Ericsson menu system on my mobile phone?

In that instance, it's because Sony Ericsson isn't making their menu 
system for Nokia phones, and Nokia isn't actively adding features to 
prevent them from doing so.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> MS' answer to that growth is to make it more difficult to pirate.  I 
> think it would be interesting if they made Windows *free* (as in 0 cost 
> to the consumer) and allowed it to be copied.

They would lose their biggest single source of revenue, and with it the 
incentive to develop it further.

Think Windows Vista is bad now?  Imagine how bad things would be 10 
years from now, if MS's development budget were slashed in half.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:59:20 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> MS' answer to that growth is to make it more difficult to pirate.  I
>> think it would be interesting if they made Windows *free* (as in 0 cost
>> to the consumer) and allowed it to be copied.
> 
> They would lose their biggest single source of revenue, and with it the
> incentive to develop it further.

I think the combined revenue for their applications probably either is 
(or could be) their largest source of revenue.

> Think Windows Vista is bad now?  Imagine how bad things would be 10
> years from now, if MS's development budget were slashed in half.

Depends on how they structure the business.  If the apps fed into the OS 
development stream and the apps were successful enough, then it could be 
self-reinforcing.

And it's hard for me to believe I'm saying this, since I advocate(d) 
breaking MS up and splitting the OS and apps into two separate entities.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think the combined revenue for their applications probably either is 
> (or could be) their largest source of revenue.

IIRC, Windows and Office are (respectively) their #1 and #2 earners. 
Everything else pales in comparison.  Their most successful products 
outside of these two make nowhere near as much money for them.

Of course, that was a few years ago, and things could have changed.

>> Think Windows Vista is bad now?  Imagine how bad things would be 10
>> years from now, if MS's development budget were slashed in half.
> 
> Depends on how they structure the business.  If the apps fed into the OS 
> development stream and the apps were successful enough, then it could be 
> self-reinforcing.

Yeah, but they wouldn't get paid for the OS, only for the Apps, so 
there's the temptation to focus on the apps and not the OS.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:56:09 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>>  From both these examples I don't see a connection with a one OS only  
>> PC. Why aren't Nokia being sued like Apple because I can't install the  
>> Sony Ericsson menu system on my mobile phone?
>
> In that instance, it's because Sony Ericsson isn't making their menu  
> system for Nokia phones, and Nokia isn't actively adding features to  
> prevent them from doing so.

But Apple just aren't making their phones to accept non-Apple bought music  
what's the difference?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> But Apple just aren't making their phones to accept non-Apple bought 
> music what's the difference?
> 

Personally, I see none.  So I don't know.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:00:55 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I think the combined revenue for their applications probably either is
>> (or could be) their largest source of revenue.
> 
> IIRC, Windows and Office are (respectively) their #1 and #2 earners.
> Everything else pales in comparison.  Their most successful products
> outside of these two make nowhere near as much money for them.
> 
> Of course, that was a few years ago, and things could have changed.

Possibly.  I know MOM is frightfully expensive (at least in large 
implementations) and at least when I was working with AD in a large 
environment, we were told it was absolutely necessary in spite of the 7-
figure price tag.

>>> Think Windows Vista is bad now?  Imagine how bad things would be 10
>>> years from now, if MS's development budget were slashed in half.
>> 
>> Depends on how they structure the business.  If the apps fed into the
>> OS development stream and the apps were successful enough, then it
>> could be self-reinforcing.
> 
> Yeah, but they wouldn't get paid for the OS, only for the Apps, so
> there's the temptation to focus on the apps and not the OS.

Depends on how the revenue was structured and fed back.  The part of my 
company I work for, we are a cost center - we get almost all of our 
funding from the product teams.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> But Apple just aren't making their phones to accept non-Apple bought 
>> music what's the difference?
>>
> 
> Personally, I see none.  So I don't know.
> 
> ...Chambers

The difference is the general view of a 'computer' versus that of a 
music device. A MP3 player that can only play certain MP3s is a waste of 
money to some people, but a computing device that only runs one OS is 
the norm. How many people out there even realize that they don't need a 
special computer to run Linux, that Windows is not the computer?

Cell phone contracts are pretty clear, the phone only runs programs they 
allow and only has access to certain networks. No average person 
purchasing one would expect it to run home made software and still work. 
Game consoles are another similar set up, they run only the software 
provided by the company. They occasionally send out patches that brick a 
device that is running unauthorized code. All pretty much out in the 
open, as they say you can only use their network and new 'upgrades' as 
long as you do not modify the device.

Apple just made the mistake of calling the ipod an mp3 player instead of 
a 'personal media device' or something.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Apple just made the mistake of calling the ipod an mp3 player instead of 
> a 'personal media device' or something.

Speaking of which, I saw in the bookstore a "iPods for dummies" book, 
including a tear-out page of shortcuts you can "store with your 
retracted headphones."  How loser do you need to be before you pay $15 
for a crib-sheet for an iPod? :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> Apple just made the mistake of calling the ipod an mp3 player instead of
> a 'personal media device' or something.

On the subject of licensed software and the tight grip the license holders have
on them, I wish ATRAC were an open standard and prevalent instead of MP3. It's
a much better algortihm, but Sony wants to keep it all to itself.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

I would like to love Vista. It has new features I like: the basic UI is
improved, account management is a lot more streamlined, the organization of
system/user files and folders is better IMO. But, it is slow and hangs or
crashes apps way too frequently. Also, I have the Vista UI on my XP machine
right now as a result of amateur conversions and 'skins'.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

> I would like to love Vista. It has new features I like: the basic UI is
> improved, account management is a lot more streamlined, the organization 
> of
> system/user files and folders is better IMO. But, it is slow and hangs or
> crashes apps way too frequently. Also, I have the Vista UI on my XP 
> machine
> right now as a result of amateur conversions and 'skins'.

So long as you have enough RAM, Vista seems quicker than XP.  Certinly here 
at work, apps that used to take up to a minute to boot up now take *way* 
less (like under 10 seconds most times).  Definitely an improvement for me.

But, I installed Vista on my home PC (only 1 gig RAM) and it was slow.  I 
upgraded to 2GB and it's fine now.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> So long as you have enough RAM, Vista seems quicker than XP.
> I installed Vista on my home PC (only 1 gig RAM) and it was slow.  
> I upgraded to 2GB and it's fine now.

I'm just loving the concept of "only 1 GB of RAM" - as if that's a 
"small" amount or something...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:15:01 +0100, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Chambers wrote:
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> But Apple just aren't making their phones to accept non-Apple bought  
>>> music what's the difference?
>>>
>>  Personally, I see none.  So I don't know.
>>  ...Chambers
>
> The difference is the general view of a 'computer' versus that of a  
> music device. A MP3 player that can only play certain MP3s is a waste of  
> money to some people, but a computing device that only runs one OS is  
> the norm. How many people out there even realize that they don't need a  
> special computer to run Linux, that Windows is not the computer?
>
> Cell phone contracts are pretty clear, the phone only runs programs they  
> allow and only has access to certain networks. No average person  
> purchasing one would expect it to run home made software and still work.  
> Game consoles are another similar set up, they run only the software  
> provided by the company. They occasionally send out patches that brick a  
> device that is running unauthorized code. All pretty much out in the  
> open, as they say you can only use their network and new 'upgrades' as  
> long as you do not modify the device.
>
> Apple just made the mistake of calling the ipod an mp3 player instead of  
> a 'personal media device' or something.

Exactly it's a perceptual thing; no-one expects a PS3 to play Xbox360  
software, no-one expects a Nokia phone to run the Motorola OS. Sell a  
device that's tied to a 'genre' and everyone expects it to work with all  
cases. It's not a monopoly case that you can't run a Wii game on an Xbox  
so why is it when you can't play certain types of music on your iPod?  
Because "Apple just made the mistake of calling the ipod an mp3 player"  
should have gone for iTune music player.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> I'm just loving the concept of "only 1 GB of RAM" - as if that's a "small" 
> amount or something...

Ermm yeh it is, even the cheapest Dell for under 300 GBP has 2GB of RAM.  My 
new desktop at work has 8GB and it's nothing special (about 900 GBP IIRC). 
And the cost for me to upgrade at home from 1GB to 2GB was a tiny fraction 
of the cost of a Vista license.  So yes, today, 1GB is a small amount.

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm just loving the concept of "only 1 GB of RAM" - as if that's a 
>> "small" amount or something...
> 
> Ermm yeh it is, even the cheapest Dell for under 300 GBP has 2GB of 
> RAM.  My new desktop at work has 8GB and it's nothing special (about 900 
> GBP IIRC). And the cost for me to upgrade at home from 1GB to 2GB was a 
> tiny fraction of the cost of a Vista license.  So yes, today, 1GB is a 
> small amount.

1. ...you mean Dell actually *sell* PCs for less than £800?

2. Last time I checked, 1 GB is about £180. That's not my idea of "cheap".

3. My motherboard (for an AMD socket-939 CPU) doesn't even *support* 
more than 4 GB of RAM.

4. Why in the name of God would you even *need* that much RAM anyway? 
(Apart from the fact that Vista wastes it all for you.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message