Windows Vista

[vaaaska]

We hate MS because they are a company with a malevolent business plan.

[Sxooter]

I really don't hate Microsoft anymore. I'm too divorced from that world. My only recent experience was watching my 15 year old install XP on his new machine at Xmas.

But I do think they (MS) make some phenomonally stupid decisions, and this upgrade requiring a previous install is one of them.

And get this, they retire your previous XP key when you upgrade, so it's not like you could have used your old XP on one machine and Vista on another. And, if they retire your XP key, will you even be able to install Vista a second time should your drive crash? I mean, would a un-registered XP installation be good enough for vista that second time? I don't know. Seriously though, this whole thing sounds a little messed up.

[Weedpacket]

I see all this as Microsoft trying to keep control of its market share by any means possible (apart from producing quality products that are just plain better than the competition's). They're in defence mode.

It smells of a very deep feeling of insecurity in the company. Perhaps a segment of the decision makers are still living in the early 90s, when Microsoft basically had two products: Windows (or rather, the graphical shell over MS-DOS) and Office, and if they weren't selling one then they had better be selling the other or they wouldn't be selling anything.

David Brin, "Kil'n People" wrote:

It's one thing to see death coming at the hands of your own creation. That's part of the human epic tradition, after all. Oedipus and his father. Baron Frankenstein and his monster. William Henry Gates and Windows '09.

[Roger_Ramjet]

dougal85 wrote:

People just cant be bothered. Windows is hassle free, to an extent at least.

Oh yeah, 3-4 years ago I could not go see anyone without getting trapped into fixing their XP crash, usually after some enthusiastic amateur had made things worse.

For most people winders is all hassle and they just put up with it cos they don't know any better.

[dalecosp]

Weedpacket wrote:

I see all this as Microsoft trying to keep control of its market share by any means possible (apart from producing quality products that are just plain better than the competition's). They're in defence mode.

It smells of a very deep feeling of insecurity in the company. Perhaps a segment of the decision makers are still living in the early 90s, when Microsoft basically had two products: Windows (or rather, the graphical shell over MS-DOS) and Office, and if they weren't selling one then they had better be selling the other or they wouldn't be selling anything.

Add the XBox, and you've got M$ in a nutshell, methinks.

Two very interesting things about Microsoft these days: one, they failed to deliver on some lofty promises regarding "Longhorn" [coughwinFS cough]; two, most of the "eye candy" and some concepts they've delivered (transparency, "dock"/pane/whatever, tabbed browser, and to some extent, the 3d look) are taken straight from various F/OSS applications and environments. Their creativity is being stifled somehow - swallowed by the size of the codebase, perhaps? Does the size of a corporation and the size of its product have any relationship?

It's kinda interesting to read the employees themselves blogging about Linux as a competitor. And, they went through a lot of in-house squabbling with all the delay announcements during the last year. I think they need an OS-X like epiphany, or they may well fall from their high perch. Only problem; who else is ready to take their spot?

[Roger_Ramjet]

Dale, nothing MS has ever done has been original; they ripped UNIX to produce the original DOS and Xerox and Commodore for the desktop and window format and they've carried on like that ever since. The only good products they ever had were the ones they bought, like Excel which they ported from MAC no less. So I don't see what 'creativity' they had to stiffle in the first place. This rip-off approach to their business is why many of us 'hate' MS in the first place.

As to who can take their place? Why should anyone have to? With their strangle-hold released then all the companies that already produce excelent software would soon fill the space opened up.

[bpat1434]

As to who can take their place? Why should anyone have to? With their strangle-hold released then all the companies that already produce excelent software would soon fill the space opened up.

Except what OS would emerge? Would the government finally go to a cost free linux environment? Maybe. Would they just keep Windows crap until the hardware fails? Most likely.

Then you have to look on the flip side: If Windows were to bow out of the market, and a new OS took the reigns, wouldn't that just fall prey to the same issues Windows has faced? Consider Ubuntu (as I hear it's all the rage). Windows leaves and Ubuntu rises in popularity until it fills most of the void Windows left taking 51% of the market share (through donations 😉). Now you have an operating system that is very popular. Most everyone uses it. So wouldn't hackers, low-lives, and other scum just turn their attention to the linux community? Wouldn't Ubuntu start having security issues, much like Microsoft?

Then you also have to look at ease of use. It's sometimes easier to get a program onto Windows than it is in LInux. Depending upon the brand (using Suse this time) you have to find the rpm, download it, run it, make sure there are no "dependencies", run it again, allow the item to run as an administrator for a second, allow it to finish. Once it's done, where does it go? Is there a shortcut for it? Is it in the Launch menu? Can you just type "suexec command" and have the program start? Not from my experience. But in Windows you get that ease of use. You know (for the most part) that most programs install to the Start Menu. Windows does make it easier.

I'm not arguing for Windows. Believe me, if I had the time to learn Linux from the ground up (which maybe will happen this summer, or maybe I'll go after my MS certs 😉) I'd take the time to switch my desktop to linux, and keep windows on the laptop (as I'm not the only one that uses it, plus Trillian Astra doesn't work on Linux natively (¿yet?)). But I can see some silver lining in the Windows cloud, although Linux is a good strong breeze in the OS community....

[Weedpacket]

dalecosp wrote:

Add the XBox, and you've got M$ in a nutshell, methinks.

I would also add SQL Server. You could include various other hardware bits-and-bobs in that they're a revenue stream, but like Microsoft-branded games, are generally outsourced to other developers working for companies that are eventually assimilated.

dalecosp wrote:

Their creativity is being stifled somehow - swallowed by the size of the codebase, perhaps? Does the size of a corporation and the size of its product have any relationship?

It could well be.... It's bizarre because in many ways Microsoft isn't that large a company. At least, the productive part of it isn't that large.

I think they need an OS-X like epiphany

Who can they get to play the role of Steve Jobs?

Roger Ramjet wrote:

they ripped UNIX to produce the original DOS

Literally a rebadged CP/M clone called "QDOS". Legend has it that IBM had approached QDOS's author one day, before going to Microsoft, but he had decided to go flying instead.

[Roger_Ramjet]

Hey Weed, love that blog - sure I've been there before.

Bpat (Brad isn't it) all those lovely things don't happen by themselves they happen because someone has writtten the install packeg to do them. In *NIX world it is thought that most people don't want stuff done without asking, and they are generally capable of doing it themselves if they do want.

If there was a mas market to exploit then the installers for linux would be written to do the same as the ones for winders - just give us a custom install option when you do please.

As to OS, I'm still quite happy on W2K SP4. Never liked XP and by the time I learnt you could turn that crap UI off and revert back to W2K I was not going to change anyway. I'm also quite happy with my 3/4/5 year old Dells thanks very much and will wait for them to expire in about another 5 years before I see the need to buy any more. This one here was shipped with XP. even has a badge to say it was designed for XP - but believe me it is about 512M short of RAM to run XP.

Personally, speaking with my lan admin hat on, I was VERY happy with winders for workgroups for user workstations. It ran all the software that they needed very well thank you very much. People have not learnt to type any faster, Lotus 123 ver 4 did everything that 99% of spreadsheets in the world do today and email is still just text in a jacket. The thing was I could lock a standard build down real easy. Keep it on a tape and when a machine f***ed up just blast it with a portable tape streamer. No need for RIS that don't work, or Ghost which does but is just another complex app to learn.

All this NT group policies with all the wrong defaults and so many options that NO-ONE could ever know them al - even the guys at MS don't know them all as you will soon find if you ask a question about them on MSDN.

Give me OS2 or Netware anytime - OS that you configure by changing 1 thing, not the 3 or 4 that MS stuff always takes. In fact I had a very happy carear in IT for decades without going any closer to MS than the desktop on a workstation. It was NT popping up everywhere that drove me to take up development.

[Weedpacket]

bpat1434 wrote:

Would the government finally go to a cost free linux environment?

Depends on the government

You know (for the most part) that most programs install to the Start Menu. Windows does make it easier.

Except that I usually don't want it in the Start Menu. I might want it in the "Accessories" menu, or the "Games" menu, or any other menu that's off the main "Start" menu. I just don't get that choice. (And that's where Un*x systems usually scare people off. It gives them too many choices.)

Roger Ramjet wrote:

someone has writtten the install packeg to do them

Right; and how often does one of those install packages stuff your system by changing things you DID NOT WANT CHANGED? And the uninstallers never work; have a look through HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE sometime.

[bpat1434]

Except that I usually don't want it in the Start Menu. I might want it in the "Accessories" menu, or the "Games" menu, or any other menu that's off the main "Start" menu. I just don't get that choice. (And that's where Un*x systems usually scare people off. It gives them too many choices.)

I too am like you; however, I have found that if you choose the custom setup you can define just what start menu folder the shortcuts are going into. I haven't figured out how to do that with linux yet.

Bpat (Brad isn't it) all those lovely things don't happen by themselves they happen because someone has writtten the install packeg to do them. In *NIX world it is thought that most people don't want stuff done without asking, and they are generally capable of doing it themselves if they do want.

It's Brett. While this is true, I can say that is one reason lay-people don't switch to linux. Windows has that ease of use. Double click and follow the prompts. Linux is more like double click and wander through the fog for some people. If Linux installers took on more of a basic feel (regular setup, and advanced/custom setup from initial "splash" screen) I think more people would look at switching because getting software onto their computer would be easier for them. That's not to say that people will switch... there's still MS only software out there (Trillian Astra, Adobe CS, Macromedia...).

[Sxooter]

bpat1434 wrote:

If Linux installers took on more of a basic feel (regular setup, and advanced/custom setup from initial "splash" screen) I think more people would look at switching because getting software onto their computer would be easier for them.

I think that you'll find that Linux distros vary quite a bit, and there are several that do pretty much exactly what you're saying. Sometimes I think there's too many choices for the beginner to make an intelligent decision on distro choice.

If you get a chance, download ubuntu or knoppix, both of which operate as both a "live" CD that boots from CD to memory without need of the hard drive, and can then later be installed as a regular OS if you so choose. They are very simple to install and maintain and use.

Fedora Core, while much easier than earlier flavors of redhat, is aimed much more at the corporate environment, where one sysadmin in a room with no windows or doors maintains all the machines remotely while being fed pizza and mountain dew through a slot in the wall.

[bpat1434]

sysadmin in a room with no windows or doors maintains all the machines remotely while being fed pizza and mountain dew through a slot in the wall.

I wanna be that guy.... if just for the Dew and the pizza....

[Roger_Ramjet]

bpat1434 wrote:

Double click and follow the prompts. Linux is more like double click and wander through the fog for some people.

When you double click on winders you are wandering through the fog as well, only the lights are off so you can't see it. You will have not idea what has been installed or where, and not a hope of changing most of the defaults however much you dislike them, or repairing anything that has gone wrong.

That applies to both naive users and hard-boiled pros. I could spend all my time on the MS certification trail just to be able to master W2K, or XP, or now Vista config : except that I can't think of a more trivial and purile use for my experience and talent.

The worst part about it is how difficult they make it for one to look the info up - it's like a nightmare wandering through MSDN from page to page looking for the simplest fact.

bpat1434 wrote:

... there's still MS only software out there (Trillian Astra, Adobe CS, Macromedia...).

And how quick would they port their stuff do you think if there were a market of a billion desktops out there?

And they would have to be jolly fast because there are very good open source alternatives for most of them already working across most platforms.

[Weedpacket]

bpat1434 wrote:

I have found that if you choose the custom setup

If the installer offers it.