Vista ProsVisa has theoretically improved security (I consider the security only marginally improved over a properly configured and managed XP PC
( Read more... )
Well... not the exact same file system as NT. As I'm sure you know, NTFS5.1 isn't exactly the same as NTFS in NT4 and wasn't added to NT until service pack 5 or 6, but for 9x users this was a killer feature (even if they didn't exactly know it).
The stability improvements though... massive and obvious to just about everyone. Did we wait 6 years for "Spotlight on the PC" and Aero?
What is Windows ME?
My point is that we have had significant improvements to Windows in nearly every release that have clear benefits to the end user. I have had activation problems with Windows 2003 and with XP and so while I am recommending XP over Vista it is only a lesser of two evils' situation.
I've read in a variety of forums of MS locking people out of their OS and telling them that it is broke (probably because of an update) and that they need to reinstall... only to be told by Activation that they have already activated. Retarded. Would we buy cars that could be locked out by Ford or GM? Hell no.
The only area that Vista has clear dominance over XP that I can see is 1) eventually MS won't sell XP anymore, and 2) games may eventually come out that don't have DX9 support. My hope is that there won't be enough market uptake of Vista and that there will be a revival of OpenGL that may allow us to play games natively under Linux with more ease. Since the masses are sheep I suspect that won't happen though.
I do see Bitlocker as a potentially interesting feature, although we are currently using PGP disk encryption for our portable machines which I think is probably more appropriate for an enterprise. I have read a bit about the improved TCP design, and some security analysts equate that with "unproven". Do consumers need/care about TCP offload in a desktop or portable machine? Are there important (to consumers) features in ACPI 2 and 3 that are absent in XP? Is the support in XP inadequate for audio and wireless?
Shouldn't the overly hyped "Superfetch" and improved memory and thread handlers actually improve the performance of Vista over XP? Doesn't it seem unethical to pitch performance features when the latest iteration of the OS is slower than the previous?
What is your spin on product activation? Version creep? "Leasing software"? Cost?
DirectX upgrades through 9 were available for Windows 2000 and it seems somewhat suspicious and convenient for MS that DX10 is only available for Vista.
I agree about performance differences when upgrading. When I switched from 9x to 2000 and then to XP I noticed that performance wasn't as good as the previous OS. When I switched from 9x to 2000 I desperately wanted improved stability. When I switched to XP I really wanted remote desktop and better multimedia support. I was skeptical of the need for each release but eventually saw that there were really good reasons in each case to upgrade. I am looking for something in Vista to be really excited about that is worth the EULA and activation caveats. In this case though it looks like the market is going to get muscled to a new OS because MS says so (XP won't be offered anymore by OEM's) and that doesn't sit well with me.
I want MS to be the good guy. This is where most of my marketable skills are. I also highly respect my MS employed colleagues and the work they have done in polishing and debugging the OS. I appreciate the economic benefits of having MS in the region. However, as a consumer and business person I find the activation requirements and associated problems unacceptable. I also find the idea of "leased software" anathema to me.
I recently tried to P2V several servers that came with OEM copies of Windows 2003. I purchased licensed copies of Windows 2003 to ensure my licensing compliance. After the P2V the virtual machines wouldn't activate and neither the OEM or MS would help me. This problem has cost my company a lot of time and money. MS' business model is dependent on the market continuing to buy new products. I understand that. However, I strongly disagree with the approach that MS has taken to treating their customers.
I should bite my tongue. Swallow my pride and install the OS on my workstation and reserve judgment until after I have experienced the "WOW" effect of Vista, but I swore to myself in a fit of rage after getting my hand metaphorically chopped off, that I wouldn't touch another MS product that included activation. I have kept that promise by using open licenses of XP until now... but unfortunately Vista includes activation even for volume licensing customers. Eventually it looks like I am going to have to break that promise. The habit, momentum, and ecology in favor of the Windows platform is too strong for even Vista to break. That is a sad realization for me and a sad thing for consumers who truly benefit from real innovation.
The stability improvements though... massive and obvious to just about everyone. Did we wait 6 years for "Spotlight on the PC" and Aero?
What is Windows ME?
My point is that we have had significant improvements to Windows in nearly every release that have clear benefits to the end user. I have had activation problems with Windows 2003 and with XP and so while I am recommending XP over Vista it is only a lesser of two evils' situation.
I've read in a variety of forums of MS locking people out of their OS and telling them that it is broke (probably because of an update) and that they need to reinstall... only to be told by Activation that they have already activated. Retarded. Would we buy cars that could be locked out by Ford or GM? Hell no.
The only area that Vista has clear dominance over XP that I can see is 1) eventually MS won't sell XP anymore, and 2) games may eventually come out that don't have DX9 support. My hope is that there won't be enough market uptake of Vista and that there will be a revival of OpenGL that may allow us to play games natively under Linux with more ease. Since the masses are sheep I suspect that won't happen though.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Shouldn't the overly hyped "Superfetch" and improved memory and thread handlers actually improve the performance of Vista over XP? Doesn't it seem unethical to pitch performance features when the latest iteration of the OS is slower than the previous?
What is your spin on product activation? Version creep? "Leasing software"? Cost?
DirectX upgrades through 9 were available for Windows 2000 and it seems somewhat suspicious and convenient for MS that DX10 is only available for Vista.
I agree about performance differences when upgrading. When I switched from 9x to 2000 and then to XP I noticed that performance wasn't as good as the previous OS. When I switched from 9x to 2000 I desperately wanted improved stability. When I switched to XP I really wanted remote desktop and better multimedia support. I was skeptical of the need for each release but eventually saw that there were really good reasons in each case to upgrade. I am looking for something in Vista to be really excited about that is worth the EULA and activation caveats. In this case though it looks like the market is going to get muscled to a new OS because MS says so (XP won't be offered anymore by OEM's) and that doesn't sit well with me.
I want MS to be the good guy. This is where most of my marketable skills are. I also highly respect my MS employed colleagues and the work they have done in polishing and debugging the OS. I appreciate the economic benefits of having MS in the region. However, as a consumer and business person I find the activation requirements and associated problems unacceptable. I also find the idea of "leased software" anathema to me.
I recently tried to P2V several servers that came with OEM copies of Windows 2003. I purchased licensed copies of Windows 2003 to ensure my licensing compliance. After the P2V the virtual machines wouldn't activate and neither the OEM or MS would help me. This problem has cost my company a lot of time and money. MS' business model is dependent on the market continuing to buy new products. I understand that. However, I strongly disagree with the approach that MS has taken to treating their customers.
I should bite my tongue. Swallow my pride and install the OS on my workstation and reserve judgment until after I have experienced the "WOW" effect of Vista, but I swore to myself in a fit of rage after getting my hand metaphorically chopped off, that I wouldn't touch another MS product that included activation. I have kept that promise by using open licenses of XP until now... but unfortunately Vista includes activation even for volume licensing customers. Eventually it looks like I am going to have to break that promise. The habit, momentum, and ecology in favor of the Windows platform is too strong for even Vista to break. That is a sad realization for me and a sad thing for consumers who truly benefit from real innovation.
Reply
Leave a comment