Revisiting Microsoft's Vista: Beta 2 Release

[pohopo]

Weedpacket wrote:

Which it never claimed to be and was never intended to be. If that's what you were expecting, then you should have looked at the article's title before reading it.

Meanwhile, on the last page of the article I found:And that's how magazines work.

I know that which is why I made my comment and I said it because the topic gave me the impression that this was an objective review. Objective in that it was good enough of a review to make a decision on whether to go with Vista or switch to OS X.

Merve wrote:

That doesn't mean that I'll switch to Vista as soon as it comes out. I'll take my time to switch; wait for all the major bugs to clear.

Or maybe I'll just a get a Mac.

I will probably wait about 2 months after release as they should have Service Pack 2 by then. And Vista with bugs will probably be more secure then Windows 2000/XP right now.

And I already have a Mac, but I like having both.

[vaaaska]

Mac's run OSX, Windows and Linux simultaneously...who needs to worry about software and games?

It's rumored that Apple is about to move into the gaming market...I don't think they will create a new box just for gaming but rather develop and/or aid popular game development for OSX. They've been hiring alot of game developers lately.

[Weedpacket]

pohopo wrote:

I know that which is why I made my comment and I said it because the topic gave me the impression that this was an objective review. Objective in that it was good enough of a review to make a decision on whether to go with Vista or switch to OS X.

Ah, sorry; I thought you were criticising the article rather than criticising the idea of making a decision based on the article (though the reviewer already reckons that overall OSX is nicer than Vista). It sounds like Vista is going to have to have some seriously whizzbangy advantages over OSX for Rodney H. to change his mind (maybe some of them are trivial to you, but maybe they're not to Rodney; maybe the nontrivial ones are the showstoppers).

I've heard the "version confusion" criticism elsewhere already - picturing the joy that can come from trying to buy a PC from Generic Furniture & Applicance and having the customer service staff there trying to explain the difference between versions while customers try and figure out which one they want.

But one big gripe from that article refers to the minimum system requirements. 128MB graphics card? How many of these installations (er, "seats") are going to be in offices? How many of those offices will be running software that requires 128MB graphics cards? If they're running Vista - all of them. 98% of buisness software usage consists of forms that users fill in and go on to the next page. In fact, the Microsoft paradigm for Windows application development revolves around the "form". Having pretty semitransparent glass borders to said forms is not going to do anything positive for business productivity (and how much graphics memory does OSX need?).

[vaaaska]

And what about security? Isn't it going to be that you buy Vista AND THEN pay another $50 bucks to purchase into the MS security program? Ummm, what have we been saying around here for years about business plans?

With regards to min. requirements, I believe I've read that system with lower power builds will still be able to run things...they just won't get all the extras. I (more of my bias slipping out) have a nearly 8 year old Mac that runs the newest stuff faster than it did under OS9 (sorry I keep repeating this from thread to thread).

Call me redundant...call me redundant. 😉

[goldbug]

Jason Batten wrote:

What about software and games?

I realize that you're probably just stirring the pot/trolling, but seriously man, it's not 1995 anymore. I very rarely, if ever, find myself looking for a bit of software for the Mac, and come up empty--and many times the software is free and of good quality, usually the same cannot be said for the Windows counterpart. Keep in mind that the "software rift" goes both ways. There's been times when I've found myself using Windows and wishing I had some real equivalent of software that's available for the Mac--something on par with the likes of QuickSilver or OmniGraffle or OmniOutliner or Delicious Library or... you get the idea.
While it is true that the gaming market for Mac is small, it's far from nonexistent. I know for one, my Mac desktop makes a pretty sweet WoW and UT2004 machine, and I'm going to try them on my new Macbook soon 🙂
The software disparity is not as great as you might think.

Weedpacket wrote:

(and how much graphics memory does OSX need?).

Well definitely no more than 16MB for the core OS to run smoothly (that's how much was in my oldskool G3 iBook that ran Tiger rather well for a 5ish-year-old machine)
I surely hope for either most companies' sakes or Microsoft's (whoever would most feel the backlash/impact), that they make the video requirements a bit lower. Like you said, one can't forget all the companies out there with standard machines, and laptops especially, with less ram. Heck, the maximum amount of shared RAM I can configure my work laptop for is 128MB, and it's not too terribly crusty old (P4 3GHz, etc...) Anything older would just be SOL.

[Jason_Batten]

I realize that you're probably just stirring the pot/trolling, but seriously man, it's not 1995 anymore. I very rarely, if ever, find myself looking for a bit of software for the Mac, and come up empty--and many times the software is free and of good quality, usually the same cannot be said for the Windows counterpart.

No I'm not stirring the pot. But you obviously are with the comment about the quality of software for windows which is an insult to developers not me. I have plently of quality software for windows. Not all software should be free, don't be so cheap boy. I was simply pointing out a possible concern he may have with the switch over.

[goldbug]

Some assumptions/inferences you have made in error:

Jason Batten wrote:

No I'm not stirring the pot. But you obviously are with the comment about the quality of software for windows which is an insult to developers not me.

If you go back and re-read my statement:

Me wrote:

...and many times the software is free and of good quality, usually the same cannot be said for the Windows counterpart.

I never said that all windows software sucks. I was hinting that many windows software solutions suck. Which IMO, is a truth. IMO many freeware/shareware/payware software packages for windows sucks. On the other side of the coin, there are quite a number of Mac applications that suck. What I'm hinting at: from my point of view, it seems that Mac developers as a whole seem to care more about their craft and making a truly useful application, than making a quick buck (I'm excluding all the mega-corporate cross-platform vendors like Adobe/Macromedia, the Office team @ MS, etc...). What would be the windows equivalent of software houses like Panic, or OmniGroup? Just off the top of my head, the only windows-only (non-mega-corporate) organization that appears to exercise that kind of care and craft is the crew at IDM. (of course, it's 2AM, so if I forget any, I apologize)

Jason Batten wrote:

I have plently of quality software for windows. Not all software should be free, don't be so cheap boy.

Who said it should all be free? I think that most quality applications can and should require a licensing fee. The comment about me being cheap--that's a little insulting, and frankly baseless. I'm not going to start a pissing match here, but I will say there is no unlicensed/pirated software in my house or my work machines.. including all the operating systems and editing/graphics/whatever packages. Sounds pretty cheap to me. 😛 Don't assume someone is "cheap" just because they appreciate when a developer releases software with no licensing cost.

[Jason_Batten]

Hrmmm... even though my comment wasn't directed at you, you seem to have taken much offence or something from it. I have no preference over Windows or MAC or Linux or whatever I just happen to have a PC with Windows XP installed. If you go to download.com you will find many good to great applications for Windows. Maybe you have had too many bad experiences with software. Unless you are talking about Win98 and the flock of dodgyware that people developed for that... ewww, then I understand.

What I meant was that he should think about the software point of view rather than just the O/S because if he can not find or is not satisfied with software on a MAC then... yeah - development might take a down ward spiral and he'll have a machine he's unhappy with.

Ease down boy... pries the coffee mug from your hands

[vaaaska]

Having owned a PC in the past...and now because I am completely spoiled with amazing software (and yes, some of it free or donationware), the Mac development community sure does care about making good products. My opinion, sure, but I've experienced the other side as well...

I know SO MANY PEOPLE right now who are switching and/or buying new Macs. I've never seen anything like it. Business people, companies, programmers, students, parents, etc...

Anyways, back to Vista, I feel kind of sorry for MS because Vista is really taking alot of crap in tech blogs, in press and in public. But, they created this mess with their poor approach to dealing with the people who use their products. I doubt Vista will be as bad as people say it will be...but I also believe that MS is still not taking a real step into the future as they should be doing.

In the recent MS accounting there was a hole of $2.4 billion that nobody can or wants to explain...it will be interesting to see what this is all about.

[pohopo]

But one big gripe from that article refers to the minimum system requirements. 128MB graphics card? How many of these installations (er, "seats") are going to be in offices? How many of those offices will be running software that requires 128MB graphics cards?

Those requirements are only if you plan to use the full graphic features of Vista. The minimum requirements (from the MS site) is actually only an 800 Mhz machine with any graphics card and 512 MB of ram.

[Weedpacket]

pohopo wrote:

Those requirements are only if you plan to use the full graphic features of Vista. The minimum requirements (from the MS site) is actually only an 800 Mhz machine with any graphics card and 512 MB of ram.

Valid, but I can already predict the whingeing that will be going on when all those people (especially executives et al) discover that they don't get what it says on the tin (now Shrike's got me saying it). By hell, they paid all that money for all those licenses and now they'd better get what they paid for!

[piersk]

Jason Batten wrote:

What about software and games?

I can't actually remember the last time I played a game on my PC. Thats what my XBox is for. I use my PC to watch movies, listen to music, surf the web and develop. I see no reason NOT to move to a mac

[Merve]

To change the direction of the topic here, as I understand it, in Windows Vista, some of the applications don't have the File, Edit and View menus. What's up with that? Why would Microsoft do something like that?

Not a smart marketing/usability decision in my opinion...

[Jason_Batten]

piersk wrote:

I can't actually remember the last time I played a game on my PC. Thats what my XBox is for. I use my PC to watch movies, listen to music, surf the web and develop. I see no reason NOT to move to a mac

I'm a nintendo kid myself. I don't know though, don't you think the xbox kinda looks like something from borg (yay star trek!)... it might attack yah during the night and force you to join the MS collective :bemused: just a thought...

[piersk]

More than likely, but I have Big Blunt Stick (TM) to protect myself.

[Rodney_H_]

Almost two months have passed since the last posting in this thread, and yet Computer World has published a new article making this topic relevant again: 20 Reasons why Vista will be your next OS