Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Windows XP: Is Vista going to be the new Windows ME?
- 1/17/07 6:02 AM
YES - See what PC World and the Wall Street Journal say
by Paul3637 - 1/18/07 10:20 AM In reply to: Got a chuckle... by comicfanYou are right on. VISTA is solely change for the sake of change and runs many applications slower than XP. Further, until VISTA is adopted by IT departments in major companies, you will be forced to learn a "second language" for your home and work computers if you have VISTA at home ... and there will be very few experienced people to ask for help if you have a problem. Although both the DELL and Microsoft "VISTA READY" test sites say I am "good to go," I am going to pass on the upgrade and continue with XP. See my 1-18-07 post and one other in the VISTA forum at:
http://forums.cnet.com/5204-12546_102-0.html?forumID=133&tag=forum.fd
How very Chicken Little of you
by jackson dougless - 1/18/07 11:10 AM In reply to: YES - See what PC World and the Wall Street Journal say by Paul3637Vista may be different, but it'd hardly be like learning a second language. That would assume a rather serious learning disability on the part of the average person. The average computer user might be lazy enough that they don't want to put forth the effort, or arrogant enough to think they shouldn't have to, but those are both completely different from what you describe. I routinely deal with all different versions of Windows, Macs, and other *nix systems. Sure, every now and then I find myself trying to use an idiom from one platform on another, but it's hardly the end of the world when I do.
If anything, the transition from XP to Vista would be like already knowing Italian, and having to learn Latin. It would be a very quick and easy thing to do with a little bit of effort.
There are a whole host of good reasons not to upgrade to Vista, but you don't touch on a single one of them. None of this is directed specifically at you, because there are plenty of people who think exactly the same way.
Change, even if for the sake of change, is not always a bad thing. Change is good. Change bring progress. Even though progress is sometimes painful, it's the only way in which we can grow. Sometimes there are a few missteps along the way, and Vista is probably one of them, but every mistake is an opportunity to learn. The mistakes made with Vista could very well help Microsoft make the next Windows release a true successor to XP. And if it doesn't help Microsoft, maybe it will help Apple improve their operating system even further, and there's the chance that Linux developers could similarly learn from Microsoft's failings.
Vista may well prove to be the wakeup call Microsoft has been in dire need of for probably the last 6-7 years. They've gotten complacent in the wake of their success, and it's allowed competitors like Apple, Mozilla, and Linux to gain a foothold. Windows and Office preload sales are what is keeping Microsoft afloat. Virtually every other part of their business is hemorrhaging money like crazy, or barely breaking even. And those two markets are now starting to see some serious competition from Apple, Linux, and OpenOffice.
Time will tell...
This is merely my opinion based on past experiences
by DarCLew2 - 1/18/07 12:00 PM In reply to: How very Chicken Little of you by jackson douglessI had WIN98SE. Installed AOL but made certain IE was MSIE from Windows Security Updates Febuary 2004. Had found it 3 days ago and created a copy, no loner usable. Went to a Computer Show and I had AOL 6.0 but they were beta testing 7.0 which was a shock to me! 6.0 was still lousy for a year and all techs said: "Nothing is wrong." Three years later, http://lists.rootsweb.com stated it was fouled up. I was livid!! Do you really believe I'll hear an honest opinion?
Reason I mention this, sometimes companies push their products too far. Who are the testers for this? The consumers,the companies won't tell the truth. Lately, I'm seeing a surge to where we had monopolies.
Darrell Lewis
Maybe, but the sky is falling....
by comicfan - 1/18/07 1:10 PM In reply to: How very Chicken Little of you by jackson douglessI won't say I agree that it's chicken little of anyone to not want this change. Knowing the history of Vista, I too simply don't want this OS, at all. I didn't even think this way about ME. The saying, change is good even if painful was mainly adopted by marketing practices. Must things change? Yes. Is it always good? No. Vista is a slug of an OS that not only will get people to buy it, but bully them into upgrading every pc that can't run a Vista standard. Sure we can't be expected to run 512 forever but market forcing is a whole different matter. Although XP did this too, but the change was drastic, FAT32 to NTFS, a more stable system breaking from 9x "since ME was a failure to bridge over to ntfs", the whole shot, Vista is just glorified clutter.
Let's not forget, Microsoft was, "don't know if still is" fighting to keep 3rd party securities off the system. Is this change "if happens eventually" good? No, not in any respect possible. Not only would it bring down all 3rd party vendors to their knees, we would have to trust MS security. Are you prepared for that? I know i'm not. Would you then say, change is good even if painful? Vista is a step in the wrong direction, technically speaking Vista is actually older than or about equal to XP, I believe the idea started in 95. All MS is doing is recycling instead of creating. I am not the brightest tech in the forum or anywhere else and don't claim to be, but when I have tested Vista, I felt the OS was like throwing cheap paint on a rusty car.
You do bring up some good points though and I am not attacking you either, simply bringing into light , my opinion on this change. I don't like what MS is thinking with the kernel, perhaps the idea of not hiding certain reg keys and such isn't bad, i'll give it that since rootkits would have to hide in the open but there is always a way around that i'm sure and once again, they would be exploited. Other than some new features, Vista to me is just a system hog and provides nothing for me. The only thing better than ME is the NTFS, and the looks. Other than that, Vista is a sad attempt to keep techs from troubleshooting and users as well. I believe if they follow the Vista path, the next OS will be tech free\tweak free, putting many of us out. So in my opinion, no, this change is not good and the future with MS looks very dark. Excuse me while I go worship a penguin 
Paul
It's not quite that simple
by jackson dougless - 1/18/07 4:17 PM In reply to: Maybe, but the sky is falling.... by comicfanI'm not a fan of the Vista security model as it is implemented, but that whole story got blown out of proportion. The real problem was with how Symantec and McAfee chose to implement their AV products that was the root of the problem. Other, smaller, AV companies had no troubles at all getting their products working on Vista. Symantec and McAfee just wanted Microsoft to change to suit them, rather than the other way around.
I only defend MS on this one because the intent behind the changes is a good one. It was a change that is intended to make it much more difficult to get a rootkit onto a Vista system. Rootkits use the same "tricks" that AV programs use, so it's kind of a no win situation for Microsoft. If they close off access for rootkits, they invariably do the same for AV programs. There just aren't any ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Ultimately, I think Microsoft could have handled the situation far better than they did, but at the same time, was really only deserving of about 50-75% of the blame given to it.
And no matter what, Vista is ultimately a good thing in my mind. If it succeeds, then it must be good enough that switching to something better would be more trouble than it's worth in the long run. If it flops, which I think is far more likely, it does two things. It opens the door for Apple and Linux to gain an even stronger foothold in the market if they're able to capitalize on it, and it be like a good slap in the face to Microsoft. Telling them, if they listen, that their customers are unhappy with their current offering, and if they don't do better the next time around, they probably won't get another chance. So long as Gates, Ballmer, and Ozzie are still at the helm of Microsoft though, I don't know that the message would be heard. The three of them are too firmly rooted in the old Microsoft business model of the 1980s and 90s, before the Internet came along. They keep trying to jam that square peg into the new round hole, and refuse to face reality.
One of my other concerns, is whether or not Apple and/or Linux is equipped to fully exploit consumer and business outcry over Vista. Linux is far too fragmented, with a number of factions all doing their own thing, and Apple would never be able to meet production demands unless they reopened their clone licensing business. With the release of OpenSolaris, Sun has an interesting competitor for Linux, but still faces the same fragmentation at the GUI level... GNOME vs KDE, GTK vs Qt, etc. If Apple made a deal with the likes of Dell, HP, and Gateway, they could probably displace Microsoft in short order. But convincing those companies to do anything that would jeopardize their OEM agreement with Microsoft would be a very tough sell. You'd have to show convincing data that significant numbers of customers are ready to buy. Enough so that all the retooling required would be profitable.
I agree...
by comicfan - 1/18/07 5:51 PM In reply to: It's not quite that simple by jackson douglessand as you mentioned, with the 3 stooges running the enterprise, I feel they need to change as well or suffer for it. Or at least what suffering would mean to them. If Linux, Apple, or any other Open source were inserting intelligence, what they should do is plan ahead. While the group of techs I know may be smaller , we all agree that Vista is a terror and they too will be going to Open source. Apple screwed up years ago and could have been far bigger by now as some would argue, bigger than Microsoft. That's another debate about "what ifs" so I won't go there but the fact remains, would any OS provider be able to handle a flow of new users if MS botches that bad? And as you stated, would the companies go for a deal? The problem, Windows, if you like it or not, is more "let's say common" and therefore seems more user friendly to most. Many think Windows IS the computer. Open source or Apple would have to make quite an easy to use convincing OS to steal the MS spotlight for sure. The problem, and how MS gets away with FrankenOS like Vista, is that people are simply dependent on Windows and don't know much more. This makes me think it would be a good 7 to 10 years before anything could replace Windows completely "IF" that would even happen, and at a steady replacement pace, one pc at a time and through places like Dell.
I see it like this, most open source is free. Windows is expensive as hell. I haven't seen the price of OSX but hear that's up there too. So what we need is a software OS that will combine both worlds, and open source OS that is to most, just as user friendly or has commons with Windows, yet can't be free or expensive. If say, Linux was creating a new OS and charged say 70-99 dollars, hey, that's 200 less than XP and more affordable. While I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of everything when it comes to marketing, or much at all, I think we truly need some REAL competition. Vista has made me wish for other alternatives even more. I know about the free ones but they still aren't enough to stray windows from desktops, otherwise it would have happened. I see myself in a different field other than PC repair in the not too distant future, maybe just paranoid, don't know.
Paul
Many versions of Linux is just a new concept and is not bad.
by slim-1 - 1/26/07 12:23 PM In reply to: It's not quite that simple by jackson douglessSure it would be better for one office to have one desktop Linux but even if they didn't they are not that different to learn.
If you have an office of non techs you will have the same problem using Windows.
For instance anyone that takes longer than 1/2 day training to move from MS Office to OpenOffice was computer illiterate to start with.
Or MAYBE They Know Office REAL Well (NT)
by pmchefalo - 1/26/07 12:59 PM In reply to: Many versions of Linux is just a new concept and is not bad. by slim-1(:
I do advanced spreadsheets and databases in MS Office
by slim-1 - 1/28/07 10:08 AM In reply to: Or MAYBE They Know Office REAL Well (NT) by pmchefaloIt took me no training at all to use OpenOffice.
I have to use MS because of Excel macros & no Access like support in OpenOffice.
My wife has basic MS Office skills. When I went to train her on OpenOffice, she took one look at it and said "this is just like Office, I don't need you to teach me there is nothing to teach".
My point is with most Linux clones training is not needed with a person with basic computer knowledge.
A person that says the have basic computer knowledge and can't make the switch is a person that doesn't know computer basics. If they did they would hardly see a difference.
50 to 75% only?
by Catmoves - 3/3/07 12:01 PM In reply to: It's not quite that simple by jackson dougless"Ultimately, I think Microsoft could have handled the situation far better than they did, but at the same time, was really only deserving of about 50-75% of the blame given to it." You are joking of course. How about only 50-75% of your car's engine working correctly? Or that amount handling a Scuba diver's equipment? Or perhaps a lady only being 50-75 pregnant? Microsoft took six years to build a system that fails to accept standards that have been in use for long while. Don't misunderstand: I dislike virtually everything about Symantec's software. It's just that "fair is fair" needs to be applied somewhere. I can find no excuse for Microsoft on this one.
I never said the sky was falling./some depth here.
by Paul3637 - 1/18/07 6:39 PM In reply to: How very Chicken Little of you by jackson douglessy hablo bien el espanol (I speak fluent INGLES y ESPANOL)
My point was that it takes a lot of training to teach a large workforce to operate a new operating system. I cannot find any major benefit to adopting VISTA as soon as it comes out based on the information I gave in my original post(s).
I am just saying that the average person should not rush to judgement on the latest technology unless they want special VISTA features.
My extended warranties on both of my DELL computers expire in early 2009. When the first one "breaks down" - I plan to buy the industry standard, which by that time will be VISTA.
I do realize that VISTA will ultimately become the "state of the art" operating sytem afer they get all the bugs out of it. My guess is that it will take about a year. ------- In the meantime, I say "just hold off."
And by the way, the one thing we probably agree on is that there is NO point in getting an equivalent MAC for $1,000 extra when a hardware router costs $45 and a three year Trend Micro security suite with hardware firewall and Trend Micro anti virus and anti spy at $99 from DELL virtually eliminate any possible significant attacks.
Another myth
by jackson dougless - 1/18/07 7:12 PM In reply to: I never said the sky was falling./some depth here. by Paul3637There's really very little training that goes on in companies regarding computers. Virtually all of that is regarding applications used extensively within that company, not the base operating system. The rest, is accounted for by the IT staff which is tasked with coming up with a way to roll it out on dozens, to hundreds, possibly even thousands or tens of thousands of systems... All using a baseline configuration, and so as to be as little a disruption to people doing their jobs as possible. No small order.
Vista will also never have "all the bugs out", and that's just a fact of life. After about a year, there will probably be enough hotfix releases to warrant a service pack. Vista's code is an unwieldy beast, which is why it's so many years delayed and so many features short. It's like trying to find a couple of spelling errors in a 10,000 page manuscript. To make matters even more interesting, at least a dozen people are continually altering the manuscript. Adding bits here, removing bits there, etc.
People accept that things will just be fixed later nowadays instead of demanding better quality control from the start. On the one hand, I have to sit in awe at how Microsoft managed to affect that change in people's opinions. On the other hand, I am quite disgusted by the whole practice. It's one of the biggest reasons I switched to console gaming instead of PC gaming, and I'm horrified at the prospect of game consoles that come with hard drives in them for that reason.
Finally, I don't think we can agree on that last point. I like Macs. Sure they're expensive, but they're very high quality. I have never seen a PC that can take the kind of abuse a Mac can, and continue to run. They also tend to be much lower maintenance compared to Windows based PCs. They're not on the same "set it and forget it" level as Linux or FreeBSD, but they're still worlds beyond Windows. I also tend to prefer to focus my energies on eliminating the situational factors that lead to attacks, rather than just trying to deal with the aftermath. I can do that with AVG Free, Mozilla Firefox, Gmail, careful software selection, and my router's firewall. Kneecaps virtually every attack route, and aside from my router, all completely free.
Well, there is nothing better than a great debate.
by Paul3637 - 1/18/07 8:02 PM In reply to: How very Chicken Little of you by jackson douglessYour statement is a zero. I was just trying to help others with less than sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice. Neither you nor I have sufficient knowledge behind us to make a choice for other people. My personal opinion: VISTA for now is only for the top 3% of the people that feel they need to have the "latest version" of whatever is out there.
I agree to disagree...
by comicfan - 1/19/07 5:31 AM In reply to: Well, there is nothing better than a great debate. by Paul3637I agree that Vista decisions will ultimately be for everyone else but only 3% is not even close, it is far higher than that which didn't surprise me for a couple of reasons. People always want something new, this is the thought process these days, also, many people actually believe they HAVE to upgrade. I can't tell you how many people bring me a computer and have me repair it and say, well, I suppose i'll have to shell out money for Vista now, huh? I tell them no you don't HAVE to. Unfortunately, they don't understand and think their computer won't work if they don't. I understand not having complete knowledge of computers but how many will waste money thinking they must do this? It's like dual core all over again only at least with dual core you have a decent improvement. Then there are those who like Vista and will upgrade. Now let's kick in the large corporation factors, they will be installing this on every desktop they sell, people won't have much choice which is what peeves me the most. No, the percentage is far higher than 3%, if I had to take a guess, I would say "if everyone who could afford it" could buy it or will buy it, around 60% due to the factors above. This is only a guess but I can guarantee higher than 3%.
No matter what any of us think, the facts are going to be the same which we all agree...Vista WILL be out there, Vista will be on MANY desktops in not too long, people will buy it. Unless as I stated , there comes an OS that Open source could charge for so they had funding and made this OS even if more user friendly, hiding the mains for purpose that only experienced users could muck with the system while easy enough for less experienced to use like windows. I'm sure this could be accomplished. I would gladly pay 99$ for an open source OS that has a lot of functionality as opposed to windows. That's the grip, it's far cheaper, does what windows does, the programmers get their money, all are happy. If only.
Paul
So how does that work?
by jackson dougless - 1/19/07 6:30 AM In reply to: Well, there is nothing better than a great debate. by Paul3637You start off saying that you're helping people make an informed decision, then immediately turn around and say that you (nor I) are sufficiently informed to do this. You can't have it both ways.
I would also say that you have a rather low opinion of people's capacity to learn if you say it's only for the upper 3%. Just because educational standards have been slipping at an increasing rate the past 50 years or so in this country, doesn't have any effect on people's capacity to learn. Learned helplessness can be overcome if a person is willing to put forth the effort, and there isn't someone else around to do it for them.
People have been babied with Windows and all this "user friendly" crap for so long, I'm glad for the fact that Vista will be a bit of a culture shock to people. User friendly just boils down to removing options, and replacing them with Fisher Price style pictures and animations to placate people. I don't know about anyone else, but I stopped being impressed with that sort of thing shortly after I stopped wearing diapers.
Like already said, Vista is very shortly going to be released, and a lot of people will get it. Either via new systems or buying an upgrade. I doubt there will be a even a rate of 10% of people who are so unable to cope with the changes that they have to revert to something else. How many people will bump into the many new restrictions placed into the OS, and revert back to XP in protest/disgust will probably be considerably higher.
In the end, just because change is a frightening concept for you, doesn't mean it holds the same level of terror for everyone else. I, for one, enjoy change. It's not always for the better, but hindsight is always 20/20.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
