Simplify your laptop buying
Windows Vista: Windows Vista Bugs
Microsoft isn't all that bad...
by Mr Freeze - 3/15/07 3:53 AM In reply to: This scene sounds like Microsoft to a T by Larry Launstein JrSure, Vista is a very annoying operating system. And sure, Microsoft wants XP users to upgrade or else we are left behind in the dust. But think about it… Did you upgrade immediately when XP came out? Did anyone? If you did, what happened? Windows 98 drivers only you say? Well yes, XP sucked then, and owns most systems now. Vista will do the same, just give it time and keep your XP… if you don’t have XP, then buy yourself a copy for a reasonable OS price. If you’re cheap or don’t feel like giving a large percentage of your hard earn money to Microsoft, get the OEM Windows XP Home edition for 90 bucks (newegg.com is your friend). Just whatever you do, don’t switch to Mac, you’ll regret it. I own both, and love both. But Mac isn’t a primary machine! It’s a quick system to find what you’re looking for online or play 3D chess on your 5 minute smoke break. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the same, prove me wrong!
50 Pounds is a sufficient price to pay to ensure...
by agm4 - 2/16/07 9:57 AM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765I don't quite understand your beef, Sir (or Madame)...
1) Vista had been in Beta for over a year, and available to all manufacturers for testing with their hardware.
2) Vista was released to manufacturing in October, 2006. This was a full 4 months earlier than its general release to the Public. Why couldn't the various OEMs have started working on their drivers at that time?
3) Anytime Microsoft releases a hardware or software product, they have to go through hoops trying to ensure that their product does not cause everyone to start suing them for "illegal competition" of some sort.
4) There are THOUSANDS of various OEMS who would LOVE to sell their devices to Windows users. Why should Microsoft do their work, and produce drivers for them at Microsoft's own cost?
5) Microsoft has been publishing the needed material on Vista since the very beginning of its development. To say that Microsoft did not work with them is ludicrous at best, and an out-and-out lie at worst.
I personally believe that a large minority (the ones complaining the loudest about "non-cooperation") of OEMs simply fell for the F.U.D. constantly being circulated on the Web since the beginning by Microsoft haters. Because of this, they were not ready for Vista's release to manufacturing, or for its release to the general public.
The best example of this attitude toward Microsoft I can point to is iTunes/Quicktime for Windows not working in Vista. Apple should have been ready. But they fell for their OWN anti-Microsoft propaganda and refused to believe that Vista was working well by the time of the Beta 2 release, and almost finished by the time of the release of the Beta 2 Technical Refresh (some months before its release to manufacturing in October 2006.) Instead, they stuck their heads in the sand like ostriches, and simply refused to believe it would EVER be released to the Public.
Having used all three pre-manufacturing releases on an everyday basis, and now the finished product, I can attest to its almost-finished state by the time of the Beta 2 Technical Refresh update. There really isn't much difference between that release and the current release to the General Public. That release was sometime in July of 2006, at least 3 months previous to the release to manufacturing in October. So manufacturers have had (at very minimum) 7 months to prepare their drivers and software for release to the general public, even if they failed to test earlier releases.
In that light, to say that the manufacturers did not have enough time or resources to be ready for its release to the general public on January 30, 2007 is completely without foundation.
Donald L McDaniel
I Agree, Donald
by rmessg97 - 3/15/07 6:17 AM In reply to: 50 Pounds is a sufficient price to pay to ensure... by agm4I used to work in one of those OEM factories. When MS came out with upgrades, most of the time, hardware mfgs would send us a flash firmware upgrade. Those that didn't we wouldn't put in a new machine, we sold them on the wholesale market as not compatable with the current OS.
On another note, How many people would be screaming "MONOPOLY" again, if Microsoft went into the COMPUTER business, not just software.
Folks, if you don't want VISTA don't buy it; If you loaded it and it doesn't work, UNLOAD it and put it on the shelf until your HARDWARE mfg gets there s--- together;
IT'S NOT MICROSOFT'S FAULT IF YOUR ROXIO CD CREATOR VERSION 5 DOESN'T WORK; BLAME ROXIO OR THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TOO CHEAP TO UGRADE TO SOMETHING NEWER.
Jerome L. Kendrick
Microsoft user since 1983
Never used a MAC, Apples go bad
There are doers and observers...
by Zeppo - 2/16/07 11:13 AM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765You take the safe route, which is fine.
Many folks are doers and just jump in. The struggle to figure things out actually helps to increase their understanding about how their computer and OS work. Many of us doers build our own computers. But that's not for everyone. Computer users are a diverse group who take several different paths, none of which are wrong. 
The software was available to all
by wlczsf - 3/14/07 5:08 PM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765I'm no where near the inner circle of Microsoft, but I've been running various builds of Vista since 2004. The first Vista builds were released in 2003. That's 3-4 years of preperation that was available.
Also if you open any pre-vista certification book for the MCAD certification you'll find that there are certain registry keys and file locations that Microsoft had urged developers to leave alone because they would not always be available for modification. This is enforced under Vista and many programs that did not conform to these guidelines will not work on Vista without elevated priviledges.
Microsoft not at FAULT
by RRSAPP - 3/14/07 5:30 PM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765ALL hardware and application vendors knew about the new O/S for 5 year's . So I think they need to get it together
they did make beta available
by qaz111111 - 3/14/07 7:00 PM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765Anyone could get a beta copy... even you.
Apple is a Job(s) Well Done!
by lenfrank - 3/14/07 9:30 PM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765I'm writing this with my Apple iMac G5, which I've had for about a year and a quarter. Migrating from Mr. Gates' system to Mr. Jobs' was like climbing from the seventh level of Dante's inferno to the Gates of Heaven (don't confuse Bill Gates with the heavenly ones -- they're incompatible). I suspect that emblazoned above the entrance to Microsoft's HQ are the classic words, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here".
I too go back to Windows 3.x days. And I too have endured all the pains of the Microsoft way of life. Yes, Microsoft is at fault. And yes, that's why I abandoned the Redmond rascals.
Words fail me in describing the ease of using OS X, the ease of using the G5, and especially the ease of using Apple's technical support. All I can do is to paraphrase Dante: "Abandon Gates, all ye who Vista here...".
MS is NOT at fault - this time :)
by EC135CrewDog - 3/15/07 5:32 AM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765Vista was so late, and has so much added funtionality and it so H U G E - how much time is sufficient for someone to add a driver? MS has a product. If you want your product to be approved by and compatible with their product it is encumbent upon you to perform due diligence. That MS approved or compatibility banner on the shrink-wrap is expensive, but pretty much assures the consumer that what they bought works with the NEW OS.
If you bought a Windows 98 certified product, would you expect it to work seemlessly on a Mac? This is extreme, but still valid; if something is expressly made for one product and has not been upgraded to function with something that had not been invented when it was released, why do we expect it to work when applied to the new product - it doesn't make sense to expect such things.
How much time is considered "enough"?
by SirKronan - 3/15/07 9:54 AM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765Some major hardware and software vendors have had Windows Vista code for well over a year now, like nVidia for example, yet their cards have been among the most plagued for driver issues with Vista. So I ask you, how much time IS enough?
YOu are DEAD Wrong
by thesims2b - 3/15/07 1:13 PM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765I am not a Microsoft fan but Fair is Fair. Microsoft has released the code to developers 5 to 6 years ago for this Longhorh/Vista upgrade. They even released free copies of the Beta and RC1 and RC2 to the public. Why do so many people execpt Microsoft to write the drivers and software for the vendors. Then you would be crying and complaining that Micorsoft owns everything. Put the blame where it should be its the venodrs, the hardware manufactures and the software developers. If we as users had access the the Betas for free imagine what the vendors had. Get a Clue people. Its not Microsoft's Fault. I am not a MS FAN. I prefer LINUX and the MAC but you guys are way off on this one
Time
by 757addict - 3/15/07 2:56 PM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765I'm sure we all remember that XP came out back in October 2001 while Vista came out in January 2007. I think that a little over 5 years is plenty of time for the hardware and software vendors to make their products compatible with Vista. Even worse is that Vista was delayed, and they still haven't got compatible. I could understand the H/S vendors plight if the timeframe was the 18 months between ME and XP. There is no way that this is Microsofts fault UNLESS some evidence comes forth proving that MS didn't give out code or something that blocked compatibility. There is an extremely useful, seemingly little known from my expirence, program in XP called "Program Compatibility Wizard" (its in the Accesories menu under all programs) that has solved even compatibility issues with floppy disk programs for me. Idk if that was put into Vista, but I think it would help at least a few with the issues. But anyways, there is no excuse for any program to not work with vista, exspecially high end ones, because they had at least 5 yrs to work on compatibility, and they should know that every new PC is going to have it, so for their own survival they should have made it work for Vista.
757addict
PS Dec765, I would love to use your idea, but I have a laptop so I can't 
mac
by jys2000 - 2/16/07 6:54 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamjoin mac it's a better and faster OS
The Mac...
by Zeppo - 2/16/07 11:20 AM In reply to: mac by jys2000while a good computer has many limitations. It's very well suited to graphic designers and music lovers, but lacks the diversity of specific software available for Windows.
And yes, one can now run Windows on a Mac, which is a step in the right direction, but again, the Windows user is limited by the Mac hardware.
Besides, why would I need two computers to do one job? The Windows PC serves me very well. I started with the Mac back in 1984 and hung with it beyond the Mac IIci, but just could not get the software I needed that I could get for Windows. Now I'm on a Windows based system that can do everything a Mac can do and more.
Oh, yes...
by Zeppo - 2/16/07 11:23 AM In reply to: The Mac... by Zeppothe Mac does have style! And users pay for that...
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
%20Well%20Done!%20-%20CNET%20Windows%20Vista%20Forums&srcUrl=http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?messageID%3D2430551){kind=small}