Why? Why would you pay these people money?! [Archive]

argraff

February 22nd, 2008, 11:10 PM

p_quarles

February 22nd, 2008, 11:23 PM

I think Microsoft is kind of between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, Windows users want the OS to have a lot of backward compatibility with a system that was fundamentally flawed as a multi-user (read: networked) environment. On the other hand, Windows users want and need a better security model.

This was also precisely the reason for Vista's negative reception. It broke a lot of backward compatibility. It also created a new security model which, because it attempted to retain as much backward compatibility as it could, was seen by many users as a huge annoyance.

I think Vista is one of the worse Windows releases, but I also think it represents a long overdue transitional step to a more sane security design.

steveneddy

February 22nd, 2008, 11:27 PM

gsiliceo

February 22nd, 2008, 11:28 PM

k2t0f12d

February 23rd, 2008, 12:12 AM

I don't pay them, they pay me.

They give me cash to go to stores a pretend to buy their crap to fool people into thinking its any good.

laxmanb

February 23rd, 2008, 12:31 AM

The hippocrisy of it all. Every release of a linux distro contains a different version of the kernel which breaks a few drivers, and a few apps. Why can't the same thing happen to Windows? Vista SP1 hasn't even been released to the public right now. Patches may be developed for breaking apps in that time.

from blogs.zdnet.com:

Meanwhile, in what some Microsoft watchers portrayed as bad news, a list of applications that worked with Vista but break when SP1 is installed is now out from Microsoft. I have to say I was surprised how few apps (12) were on the list (which includes programs that are blocked from installing; programs that don’t run; and programs that experience a loss in functionality). There are new versions available of a number of these programs (but not all) that do work with SP1, as detailed in the Microsoft Knowledge Base article linked above.

k2t0f12d

February 23rd, 2008, 12:56 AM

Every release of a linux distro contains a different version of the kernel which breaks a few drivers, and a few apps.

The kernel and the drivers are the same software. I've never compiled a stable release kernel and had any broken drivers. :-s

laxmanb

February 23rd, 2008, 01:03 AM

Well, I sure have had ubuntu releases break device compatibility. Also, the issue is more about 3rd party apps, most of which interface with the Windows kernel, it's obvious that a kernel update would break some of them. Also when you check out the list of apps, most of these apps already have compatible updates available. And again, SP1 hasn't been released to the public yet.

k2t0f12d

February 23rd, 2008, 01:16 AM

Well, I sure have had ubuntu releases break device compatibility. Also, the issue is more about 3rd party apps

I use other GNU/Linux, not Ubuntu. Are these problems isolated to Ubuntu's distribution?

I use packages of software and software compiled from source and never ended up with a broken program, even doing dodgy stuff like installing .debs and .rpms from other distributions where there is an honest chance of getting a broken program. Since GNU/Linux is entirely comprised of software from many different developers, which are the third party apps and which are native, I wonder?

k2t0f12d

February 23rd, 2008, 01:52 AM

Has anyone ever physically handled an off-the-shelf boxed copy of Vista? How is it sealed? Could you slip an Ubuntu LiveCD inside without breaking the packaging? :rolleyes:

andrewjoy

February 23rd, 2008, 07:27 AM

Microsoft just need to give vista up as a bad job and start over from scratch.

The way windows works there needs to be a point where they just stop and develop a whole new line of OS they did it with NT and it was a HUGE improvement over the dos/9x windows ( and the less said about ME the better).

Windows 7 is looking alot better its alot more lightwieght and it looks as if they are going to remove alot of the bloat, i jsut hope for the general IT world that they stop all this " programs form 13 years ago have to still work" and bite the bullet and go for a new system.

It will never happen but they could always move to a unix based os and develop there own gui and interface like apple have.

fatality_uk

February 23rd, 2008, 08:06 AM

My favourite section of the article

Microsoft warned that its list was not "comprehensive" and asked people to get in touch with the maker of any affected software to fix problems.

Now, excuse me, but this is the responsibility of Microsoft corp. NOT the software vendor. Example, if I were to take my Audi to a dealer for a service, and they completed a service but afterwards, my vehicle was limited to 50mph, I would, quite rightly return the vehicle and ask that the vehicle was returned in the state which I left it with them.

I would suggest software vendors who are not in the Microsoft vendor channel, get together and demand that Microsoft implement restorative action. After all, it's the result of an MS update that is causing their legally purchased software to cease functioning. Microsoft have a "duty of care" to implement changes to their OS in a way which does not negatively effect competition. SP1 seems to be in breach of this.

sayakb

February 23rd, 2008, 08:10 AM

It's quite a long time until Win7 comes out. Even the Vista SP1 doesn't have any huge leaps over the un-patched OS (though it slightly improves the performance), M$ should work on another SP that would aim towards improving program compatibility and a totally different UI which would be smoother than the existing one and would be less resource hungry (atleast the OS w/o any eyecandies should work with less amount of RAM)

Midwest-Linux

February 23rd, 2008, 09:14 AM

This is the end of Microsoft as we know it.

Marketing can only go so far, and we are seeing the desperate attempts of a desperate company and CEO to save a dying former leader.

I think the public is finally becoming aware of the negative results that come from using Windows products, especially the ones who are on the Vista bandwagon.

If Microsoft continues with its plan to discontinue Windows XP in June of this year, then it could very well be the end as Microsoft as we know it.

MS has one ace left for the general public and for its important IT/Corporate customers and that Windows XP and XP Pro. It may seem to be a extreme comment, but I believe the end of XP will likely doom MS ...unless of course they surprise release Windows 7 a lot earlier than planned.

But even then, Windows 7 will have to be equal or better in performance than XP, and have compatibility with existing equipment and be free of the bloated, weighted down, draconian DRM-which does not belong in any operating system.

Time will tell, but time is not on Microsoft's side. Besides being hammered by the EU, governments and government agencies are now going to open source. That does not bode well for Microsoft. Face it, this is 2008...it is not 1998 anymore, it is no longer a "windows world" where it was Microsoft and pretty much nothing else except a small fraction of Mac users.

Its a brave new world now, with Apple growing by leaps and bounds and Linux is starting to leave MS in the dust. How can one compete with free? One no longer needs operating systems costing hundreds of dollars, one no longer needs serial numbers, WGA, validation, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Word, DRM, incompatibility, driver issues, high hardware requirements.

Microsoft maybe put too much hope that SP1 would salvage a flawed operating system. Their only saving grace right now is XP, which is the best OS they have ever released.

argraff

February 23rd, 2008, 10:56 AM

Thinking about it further, didn't Apple successfully do a break with OSX? None of the OS9 programs work within OSX, but they had the option of virtualizing OS9 within OSX to run legacy apps.

Maybe M$ should just do it that way - ditch legacy support, and make it easy (actually, I think they do) to virtualize the needed OS within.

I'm not suprised at M$ for this - providing legacy support is always hard, and creates enormous headaches, but with everything else in the world being throw away, maybe we should adopt that idea with software as well.

I'm MORE suprised, I suppose, that customers aren't running away in large herds. I would be angry if things I purchased - FOR THIS OS - weren't going to work anymore. What a waste of money and time!

seanc7

February 23rd, 2008, 11:15 AM

I remember seeing another thread here a few weeks or a month ago that said that MS should do the exact same as what Apple did.

Take the BSD kernel and rewrite their own GUI and apps to run on top of it. Since BSD doesn't use the GPL, they don't have to worry about giving back if they don't want to.

That's what they should make Windows 7.

Like has already been said, create a virtual sandbox for the "legacy" programs that people just can't do without and drop all legacy support from the main OS. Create a lean, mean and fast OS, which protects the new system from old legacy apps.

They have their own virtualization software so there's no issues with using a stripped down version of that to run programs from NT-XP and even DOS/Win 3.11.

rickyjones

February 23rd, 2008, 01:18 PM

My favourite section of the article

Now, excuse me, but this is the responsibility of Microsoft corp. NOT the software vendor. Example, if I were to take my Audi to a dealer for a service, and they completed a service but afterwards, my vehicle was limited to 50mph, I would, quite rightly return the vehicle and ask that the vehicle was returned in the state which I left it with them.

I would suggest software vendors who are not in the Microsoft vendor channel, get together and demand that Microsoft implement restorative action. After all, it's the result of an MS update that is causing their legally purchased software to cease functioning. Microsoft have a "duty of care" to implement changes to their OS in a way which does not negatively effect competition. SP1 seems to be in breach of this.

So if a program stops working due to SP1 I should tell Microsoft and not the software vendor, correct? Even though the software vendor, having known about SP1 and should have been testing it, would be the vendor most responsible for fixing THEIR broken application?

Nice logic there.

-Richard

FranMichaels

February 23rd, 2008, 02:48 PM

Honestly, I think the main issue is with a proprietary app or drivers. With a Free Software app, any change that may cause issues is patched, then you can download it (automatically I hope) and do what you usually do.
Now if version xyz of a binary driver is meant for a specific xorg version or an old binary app relies on a library the distro no longer uses prepare for trouble. No OS perfect.

I have no example though of a Free Software application I use, that I can't use anymore. This could happen if the project is abandoned though, but there are options we can take at that point, since the code is there someone else can work on it, or just patch it to maintain it. Bounties too.

However, with Windows, software breakage is expected behavior. Upgrade treadmill. Next OS requires more hardware. So go buy new hardware and new OS. The upgrade breaks some old software, buy new version (if there is one, if not, proceed to pull hair). Repeat this ad nauseam. Tack on the MS Office file format changes, and licensing, and the upgrade treadmill is complete (heck even features cut from software MS wordpad in Vista cannot open .doc files... Time to buy MS Office then?) For those hanging onto XP after it goes into extended support, don't expect free updates anymore...

My GNU/Linux experience isn't perfect (some free drivers need more work, especially my Intel driver, I would like redirected opengl rendering!) Honestly, that's my only complaint... I'd rather contend with an issue like that, opposed to the above...

Kernel Sanders

February 23rd, 2008, 06:27 PM

My favourite section of the article

Now, excuse me, but this is the responsibility of Microsoft corp. NOT the software vendor. Example, if I were to take my Audi to a dealer for a service, and they completed a service but afterwards, my vehicle was limited to 50mph, I would, quite rightly return the vehicle and ask that the vehicle was returned in the state which I left it with them.

I would suggest software vendors who are not in the Microsoft vendor channel, get together and demand that Microsoft implement restorative action. After all, it's the result of an MS update that is causing their legally purchased software to cease functioning. Microsoft have a "duty of care" to implement changes to their OS in a way which does not negatively effect competition. SP1 seems to be in breach of this.

What?

So if Firefox stops working with the latest linux kernel, we should go running to the kernel maintainers to fix it, rather than Mozilla?

Strange logic you have there.

I'm loathed to defend M$, but it's not their responsibility to ensure that other people's programs work on their OS.

Donshyoku

February 23rd, 2008, 08:16 PM

What?

So if Firefox stops working with the latest linux kernel, we should go running to the kernel maintainers to fix it, rather than Mozilla?

Strange logic you have there.

I'm loathed to defend M$, but it's not their responsibility to ensure that other people's programs work on their OS.

I agree. The software vendors, in many cases, have no direct relationship with Microsoft (though the bigger companies are usually part of the MSDN). It is not Microsoft's responsibility to tailer their product to work with random software from around the world. They make the foundation and codebase, software vendors implement it.

As a part-time Vista user, I prefer to have OS-related updates and software that affect my entire system than have to deal with security/performance holes in order to continue using a piece of software that is going to hold back all of my other apps.

Notifying the software developer is essentially the same concept as a bug report in the Ubuntu world. I don't expect Canonical to fix a problem I have with older versions of Pidgin's major memory leaks, I look to the Pidgin development team for that. I expect Canonical to give me a stable, secure codebase for the developer community to utilize.

NightwishFan

February 24th, 2008, 05:30 AM

Has anyone ever physically handled an off-the-shelf boxed copy of Vista? How is it sealed? Could you slip an Ubuntu LiveCD inside without breaking the packaging? :rolleyes:

Pcjacking to the extreme! :lolflag:

jimcooncat

February 24th, 2008, 05:49 AM

But even then, Windows 7 will have to be equal or better in performance than XP...

I've helped set up three low-end Vista boxes, and am very unimpressed with performance compared to XP. I wouldn't use it myself because it's so slow, especially with simple operations like moving a file.

These new boxes were three times the memory and capacity of my old laptop which I run a default gutsy on. The laptop is almost snappy and a pleasure to use with no lagging in unexpected places.

As for what should be done? Hardware vendors need to start promoting alternatives. If MS raises their price for their OEM versions because of this, our governments should charge them with abuse of monopoly. Only until they have competition at the OEM level will they smarten up and develop a decent product.

Oh yes, as far as Dell goes? I think it's great that they're selling Ubuntu machines. I don't think it's great that you have to go to dell.com/open to get them, and Ubuntu is not a choice of OS when you go to purchase a system from the main page at dell.com.

andrewjoy

February 24th, 2008, 06:42 AM

I think at one point there was and you could get Ubuntu on lots more dell pcs but Microsoft did not like that and started showing there teeth and they stopped it for all but a few products.

Personally if i was dell i would tell MS to go F*** themselves, and tell them i dont have to offer vista as an option i can stick with xp if i wan to.

sayakb

February 24th, 2008, 08:40 AM

I don't think that even M$ is satisfied with the Vista sales.. It has allowed Dell to ship PCs with WinXP as the OS.. That shows the degree of failure Vista has faced.

DrMega

February 25th, 2008, 10:11 AM

This is on the BBC news website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7205059.stm

I especially like this bit:

Microsoft warned that its list was not "comprehensive" and asked people to get in touch with the maker of any affected software to fix problems.

In other words, "we're going to break it, get someone else to fix it afterwards".

argraff

February 25th, 2008, 11:16 AM

rickyjones

February 25th, 2008, 11:26 AM

I agree with the statements about old software needing to be maintained by their maker, not M$.

However, the article (I believe) is talking about brand-new software! That's what would infuriate me. I don't rely on old software to work - it seems unreasonable to me, but if I just paid a lot of money on brand-new software to keep my brand-new Vista secure, and then a few months later M$ breaks it so all that money was down the drain...Grrrrr, I say! Grrrrr! :)

And like all brand new software the moment you install it it becomes outdated and needs at least a patch or two. It is up to the software vendor to provide patches for software to ensure that the software continues to work.

If the Linux kernel changed so that Postfix stopped working (hypothetical, I know) then who would you blame? Would you complain to Postfix or to Linus?

Just some food for thought.

-Richard

Hendrixski

February 25th, 2008, 11:33 AM

DrMega

February 25th, 2008, 11:49 AM

To be fair. When Ubuntu gets big enough that many companies will be using it (like mine is) will we see the same kinds of media coverage of updates breaking things? Especially when we see more proprietary applications running on it in the average business.

I mean, we've only had one problem with updates really, and that was a restricted driver problem.

I've only known one occassion when an update broke something, and on that occassion, as soon as the problem was discovered, the update was immediately withdrawn until the problem was resolved (which was very quickly).

The difference here is that MS are telling us up front that they KNOW their update is going to break stuff, but they don't care.

sayakb

February 25th, 2008, 12:18 PM

I've only known one occassion when an update broke something, and on that occassion, as soon as the problem was discovered, the update was immediately withdrawn until the problem was resolved (which was very quickly).

The difference here is that MS are telling us up front that they KNOW their update is going to break stuff, but they don't care.

Well, unless it's some Microsoft app, or some Microsoft supported 3rd party app that comes into the scene, M$ won't care if anything stops functioning as long as their own pockets are getting filled up. They really do not care about the users' consents or ease of usage, or are they supposed to?

KiwiNZ

February 25th, 2008, 03:54 PM

They do care ,that is why they have warned. If they didnt care they would have kept silent'

Blame lays with the developers of the Apps concerned. They need to provide patches. They have had plenty of time to do so.

But of cause its cool to bash the big boy :rolleyes:

DrMega

February 25th, 2008, 04:11 PM

Blame lays with the developers of the Apps concerned. They need to provide patches. They have had plenty of time to do so.

But of cause its cool to bash the big boy :rolleyes:

Sorry, I don't agree. I have worked as a developer for more than ten years, the last 8 of which in a large organisation. If you are about to make changes that you know will break something you have a choice to make. If the thing(s) that will stop working are obsolete anyway then it is OK to warn your customers but otherwise not worry about it. If the thing(s) that will break is something your customers still need or want, then you either pull the change, or suspend it until you can implement the new functionality without breaking anything.

At the end of the day, the customer has paid for the products (both Windows and the apps that will break). A company, large or small, is supposed to serve its customers not the other way round. The Windows apps that will break will almost certainly have been developed using MS technology (Visual Studio, or at least the various Windows APIs), so the developers have a right to expect those API calls to continue to work.

rasmus91

February 25th, 2008, 04:31 PM

i'll tell you why they buy the M$ crap... Thats what they know, i have a friend who refuses to try out Ubuntu, why you might ask?... easy: its because he's used to his weird ****. they just don't understand that if you use Ubuntu, you'll never regret it.... (that is, of course if you don't have any problems experimenting to make .exe files work...) They are so proud of their M$ **** that they think its the best no matter what, the difference on us and "them" is that they're proud of their "good" OS, while we are the only ones with a good OS... Sad.. :(

(:lolflag: what a speech :D)

NightwishFan

February 25th, 2008, 04:50 PM

I have a friend constantly annoyed with lack of windows quality, and I tell him if he needs to play games he can dual boot and do anything else in Ubuntu. He refuses to even let me show him a live cd. It isn't like I am even forcing it on him. He just refuses to believe that when I say it wont install and it can run from the cd, its not gonna overwrite all his stuff.

rickyjones

February 25th, 2008, 05:46 PM

Sorry, I don't agree. I have worked as a developer for more than ten years, the last 8 of which in a large organisation. If you are about to make changes that you know will break something you have a choice to make. If the thing(s) that will stop working are obsolete anyway then it is OK to warn your customers but otherwise not worry about it. If the thing(s) that will break is something your customers still need or want, then you either pull the change, or suspend it until you can implement the new functionality without breaking anything.

At the end of the day, the customer has paid for the products (both Windows and the apps that will break). A company, large or small, is supposed to serve its customers not the other way round. The Windows apps that will break will almost certainly have been developed using MS technology (Visual Studio, or at least the various Windows APIs), so the developers have a right to expect those API calls to continue to work.

So if I read this correctly, you are saying that Microsoft should not make any changes to their operating system that might affect third party applications... right? Even when these changes are to make the operating system more secure, which is something that they are always criticized about.

I always find some people (mainly some vocal open source advocates in various communities) hilarious. They chastise Microsoft for not having a secure operating system. They hail Apple for breaking every old application to gain security. Now when Microsoft is trying to make strides to fix security issues they continue to get chastised because they broke some third party applications that they are not responsible for.

Some more food for thought.

-Richard

rune0077

February 25th, 2008, 06:03 PM

I've only known one occassion when an update broke something, and on that occassion, as soon as the problem was discovered, the update was immediately withdrawn until the problem was resolved (which was very quickly).

The difference here is that MS are telling us up front that they KNOW their update is going to break stuff, but they don't care.

To be fair, Microsoft does the same. Vista is off my system now, but I ran it for a while, and there never were any issue with it that wasn't fixed almost immediately.

DrMega

February 25th, 2008, 06:54 PM

So if I read this correctly, you are saying that Microsoft should not make any changes to their operating system that might affect third party applications... right? Even when these changes are to make the operating system more secure, which is something that they are always criticized about.

MS publish details of their APIs so that third party developers can write code to work with their OS. The third parties then spend many person/hours developing apps that use the MS APIs. MS will publish details along the lines of something like:

DialogResult Form.ShowDialog(void)

x overloads

Shows a form as modal dialog.

Returns structure of type DialogResult

The developer then knows that he can safely make calls of that nature in his code.

What MS are planning to do is change those API calls and expect developers to fully regression test, modify and re-release their work at their own expense.

It is perfectly normal for any app, including the OS, to be updated from time to time to fix issues that have been identified. What you fix is bugs and/or vulnerabilities in that code that runs when the developer makes those API calls. You may also add new features.

The processing that happens inside the API is (or should be) of no concern to the third party developer, who only needs to know that if you make this call with these parameters you'll get such back of such datatype. This is what abstraction and encapsulation are all about. We see it everywhere. In Ubuntu for example, when we run an app and that app creates a window, it the developer won't have wrote every line of code to render a window, he will have made a call to a library.

If the developer of the OS (MS in this case) finds that there is an issue with the processing inside an API call, then yes they should fix it, but the interface should still remain the same. For example, if in the example above it is found that the code behind ShowDialog opens up a TCP/IP port and shuts down your firewall, then you change it so that it doesn't do that, but you leave the interface as is so that the developer knows he can count on getting a DialogResult structure back from his dialog that will be shown when he makes that call.

andrewjoy

February 25th, 2008, 07:50 PM

Its common sense that when you edit a method to make it more secure that you don't change the API its common practice. you may have to remove some method calls because they are unsafe but you should not change the whole frigging API so everything stops working come on Microsoft its not like its rocket science or anything its just good practice.

If the developer of the OS (MS in this case) finds that there is an issue with the processing inside an API call, then yes they should fix it, but the interface should still remain the same. For example, if in the example above it is found that the code behind ShowDialog opens up a TCP/IP port and shuts down your firewall, then you change it so that it doesn't do that, but you leave the interface as is so that the developer knows he can count on getting a DialogResult structure back from his dialog that will be shown when he makes that call.

This is how it should be done but the Microsoft way is as stated in my sig.

FranMichaels

February 25th, 2008, 08:00 PM

And like all brand new software the moment you install it it becomes outdated and needs at least a patch or two. It is up to the software vendor to provide patches for software to ensure that the software continues to work.

If the Linux kernel changed so that Postfix stopped working (hypothetical, I know) then who would you blame? Would you complain to Postfix or to Linus?

Just some food for thought.

-Richard

Ultimately, sitting down stream as a Ubuntu user, the issues with the Linux kernel and Postfix would be handled by the distro maintainers. If the bug somehow trickled down into the official release, one would complain to the Ubuntu folks (Canonical.) They in turn would either fix it and/or let the developers upstream know. With Linux and Postfix someone can submit a patch, then from there it easy distribute or apply manually if you are savvy enough.

With Vista and xyz proprietary app, they (respectively) are the only ones that issue updates and fixes. The onus lies on them, should MS hold back the release to wait for the 3rd parties to catch up? Probably not, especially if it is in regard into security. Should the end user get free updates from these companies due the changes made by MS? Then the user has to manually install the updates? Annoyance for all parties involved.

MellonCollie

February 25th, 2008, 08:15 PM

People seem to be getting their knickers in a knot over nothing.

1) A grand total of 11 applications were 'broken'.

2) 8 of them have been updated so that they now work. Details here. (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/935796)

3) SP1 won't be available on Windows update (where the vast, vast majority of users will get it from) until next month, giving the remaining manufacturers time to get their act together.

incogn(egro)ito

February 25th, 2008, 11:39 PM

This is expected, M$ knows it can't keep the backward compatibility and have it ridiculously easy taken advantage of security. It is basically a step in retraining people and the reviews will turn around once they have worked out all the hardware bugs. As for it running slow. Yes it is not meant for lower-end PCs. The only reason to use Vista in my opinion is DX10. If you have it for any other reason you have put your money to waste.

ikt

February 26th, 2008, 01:02 AM

sayakb

February 26th, 2008, 05:00 AM

Why? The companies that own the products you bought will update their software and all will be well again.

Microsoft is over the moon about Vistas sales, it has brought them record profits. Vista is doing really good.

A quick tip: Using the $ to replace the S in MS, is childish in the extreme, and only makes you look like an idiot.

Firstly, Vista isn't doing "extremely good". Even vista users themselves want to get rid of the OS.

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/04/21/microsoft-admits-vista-failure

Also, MS is currently working on the previously closed WinXP SP3 project..

Moreover, since PC manufacturers are shipping desktops and laptops with pre-loaded Vista, the customers don't really have a choice other than purchasing it. The pre-loaded factor somehow masks the price they pay for the OS. Most of them do not realize that the cost of the OS comes included with the PC's tag price..

sayakb

February 26th, 2008, 05:15 AM

Also, personally, or rather, selfishly, I do not "hate" vista. I never myself faced any redundant BSoDs, and moreover, with a base score of 5.6 (don't remember exactly), it worked okay. But I never felt the freedom under Vista as I do with Ubuntu. Also, it's a bit resource hungry too, way more than any Linux distro or even the Mac OS X Leopard (ofcourse, I am not comparing it w/ WinXP)..

karellen

February 26th, 2008, 06:30 AM

I don't know anyone who actually bought Vista ;)

sayakb

February 26th, 2008, 08:06 AM

I don't know anyone who actually bought Vista ;)

Neither do I. All those people I know who use Vista got their OS pre-loaded in their laptops. :)

ikt

February 26th, 2008, 08:58 AM

rune0077

February 26th, 2008, 09:14 AM

I personally hate vista, but I'm not going to put my blinkers on and avoid the reality of the situation.

Oh man, you've come to the wrong forum mate. You'll find very few people willing to say anything nice about Vista here. When people can't admit that their own OS is flawed and has a bunch of shortcomings, they instead trash the other people's OS to make their own look better. It's the "schoolyard bully" mentality, and you'll find it is ripe and thriving in the Linux community for sure.

As for Vista: I always buy my computers "blank" without anything installed on them - I bought Vista to give it a try, and it was great, fast, reliable, and (unlike Ubuntu) all my hardware worked on it. In the end, as is always the case with Windows, I found it too restrictive, so I removed it again. But it's a great OS.

sayakb

February 26th, 2008, 09:17 AM

The link you posted was some Linux questions/blogs'. Please read my link again, there are no personal grievances discussed in it regarding an OS. It's just a collection of some facts that points towards Vista's failure.

Also the fact that after the sale of WinXP was stopped, MS starting it again is quite unexpected.. Also, you personally hate vista, but I don't :D It's just a resource hungry OS, I personally believe that it ain't buggy (patches are meant to fix bugs, and MS keeps on releasing patches now and then ;) ) I am waiting until another Service Pack is out (I hope it comes out soon) since SP1 didn't change the picture.. Vista still struggles to run even on PCs having RAM less than 2GB..

Out of 100 people I have seen, only 10 seem to like Vista, and the rest 90 can't afford to lose it since they PAID FOR IT ;)

Vista would seem seamless to only those who purchase a new PC with high specs, not to the huge population who still stick to a P4 or a dual core with not more than a GB of RAM.

sayakb

February 26th, 2008, 09:29 AM

@ikt

Please I don't want another trolling session here. I am not very happy with Vista since it's just XP + A new security policy + Some integrated apps (whose 3rd party contemporaries are already available) + Some eyecandies (can get the similar by using 3rd party apps). So I really don't see any great achievements MS has done over XP. I love XP as an OS, pretty fast and stable, and a good End user OS.. Vista, on the other hand follows the same trend without anything new. Just that MS has set sudden hardware benchmarks and barred a huge population from even installing Vista (performance comes secondary, vista wont even install on <512MB RAMs)

February 26th, 2008, 11:16 AM

The hippocrisy of it all. Every release of a linux distro contains a different version of the kernel which breaks a few drivers, and a few apps. Why can't the same thing happen to Windows? Vista SP1 hasn't even been released to the public right now. Patches may be developed for breaking apps in that time.

Well, I sure have had ubuntu releases break device compatibility. Also, the issue is more about 3rd party apps, most of which interface with the Windows kernel, it's obvious that a kernel update would break some of them. Also when you check out the list of apps, most of these apps already have compatible updates available. And again, SP1 hasn't been released to the public yet.

There is no hypocrisy here. GNU/Linux does not have a stable ABI. It is not binary-compatible. No one ever promised that an application or a kernel compiled for one version of a distro was guaranteed to work on another version of another distro.

Binary-compatibility is a problem. There is no easy solution to it. Linux avoids the issue completely.

Bungo Pony

February 26th, 2008, 02:24 PM

Most of the software hit by the upgrade are security programs that prevent Windows users falling prey to viruses, trojans and booby-trapped webpages."

Didn't these software companies just recently update their software to work on Vista because their WinXP version didn't? Now they have to update their software again because of Vista SP1 a year later?

If I were an AV software company, I'd be pretty upset about this. Instead of making improvements on existing products, they're having to patch their products because MS keeps making them functionally retarded. Then, there's the customers who will be complaining that their paid-for software doesn't work.

matherians2

February 26th, 2008, 02:31 PM

jpittack

February 26th, 2008, 02:38 PM

You should look at it this way....They are a good reason why many people are switching to Ubuntu and other linux operating systems. In other words, we should be thanking them for their incompetence.

:)

I have a hard time cheering when someone else fails. Thats just mean. Thanking them isn't as bad as cheering, but I still don't like it.

I personally switched to dual booting because I wanted more stuff to mess with. I essentially do not have a production machine. Just a $900 toy. Breakage is one of my favorite things. Because I can't fix in Windows like I can in ubuntu, I stick with Ubuntu.

justin whitaker

February 26th, 2008, 02:51 PM

You should look at it this way....They are a good reason why many people are switching to Ubuntu and other linux operating systems. In other words, we should be thanking them for their incompetence.

:)

It's not incompetence.

Microsoft is a really big place, and there are a lot of different business units. From the start, there were two groups of people on the Vista project: those who wanted to completely break backwards compatibility, and those who wanted to appease Microsoft's business partners.

You can tell from the end product which team won the argument.

xeth_delta

February 26th, 2008, 02:54 PM

For the must part of the users they don't have any choise, the laptops and pcs available carry windows and anything else is seen as evil, weird or expensive(macs), windows is part of the western culture and that is hard to change, but is possible =).

You always have the choice to break free of the Ms-centric system by installing Windows on that computer. If you don't want to pay to Microsoft for a product you don't appreciate and find flawed you can search for computers that don't have it preinstalled, and you will find them, even though, right now the offer is not as rich as it could be. That is what I did for my new laptop, I did not buy a computer that had Windows on it, even though the price difference was not that big.
I do not think it is a matter of western culture (the FOSS projects are global, including western people). I would see it as being more a matter of complacency (some people might find it functional enough for their needs untill they hit a major annoyance), ignorance (not in the bad sense, I just mean many don't know they have alternatives), fear of change and let's not forget marketing and alliances between corporations.
After all, something valued by most societies is freedom, and that is what FOSS is offering.

zetetic

February 26th, 2008, 04:12 PM

In GNU/Linux World is up to the Distro to maintain compatibility and to avoid any kind of breakage due to system upgrades.

In many Distros if you stick with free software there would be no breakage at all.

In Windows world Microsoft doesn't act as a Software Distributor. That's why Microsoft relies on third party manufacturers to make the drivers, does not have repositories, doesn't upgrade or update the all system (only the OS), makes changes that break things, expecting others to patch them, etc.

And the majority of GNU/Linux Distros offer all these services, and more, for free!

So, if Microsoft sells Windows, I think clients should demand Microsoft to offer all these services as well!

Why clients don't demand this? Because either they are a bunch of idiots or they are ignorant.

Bungo Pony

February 26th, 2008, 05:26 PM

I have a hard time cheering when someone else fails.

I don't...

WOOOOO! Go Microsoft!!!! =D> \\:D/

ikt

February 26th, 2008, 11:54 PM

3rdalbum

February 27th, 2008, 02:00 AM

Breaking backward compatibility with anything on Vista SP1 was tactically a dumb move. I'm not sure it was necessary to do in order to maintain security, but all the businesses who said "We'll switch to Vista when service pack 1 comes out" are now having a big rethink. The backward incompatibility might not affect their applications, but the bad publicity has killed the idea.

sayakb

February 27th, 2008, 12:16 PM

Calling Windows Vista Windows ME 2 is not a personal grievance?

It was a vent, nothing more.

AFAIK they simply phased out the old product to promote the new one as every company always does, plenty of people still like the old one so they brought it back.

windows server 2008 is godly in this aspect, it is so fast it's unreal, I hope SP1 fixes some of the bloat of vista.

WinXP has infact been again allowed to be sold. Even the HP Business series (the nx series) is coming with WinXP preloaded and NOT vista.

Also, SP1 didn't fix anything. I have used it on my desktop. I dunno whether it was beta or not, but it was released on Feb 26, 2008.

sayakb

February 27th, 2008, 12:18 PM

But you're clearly not because you have not 1 single clue about what you're talking about. So I ask, please stop.

Also, don't go against the forum rules. So please don't get into any sort of personal altercations.

justin whitaker

February 27th, 2008, 12:37 PM

In GNU/Linux World is up to the Distro to maintain compatibility and to avoid any kind of breakage due to system upgrades.

That's true, but that is not the model that most companies follow. It is top down software management. I'm not saying that Microsoft should not take a cue from the Brave GNU World, but lets face it, they are one of the biggest cash machines in the world. No reason to fix their development model if it isn't broken.

In many Distros if you stick with free software there would be no breakage at all.

Having been playing with Linux since RH6, I need to see a proof of this. Every distro breaks at some point: human error is inevitable.

In Windows world Microsoft doesn't act as a Software Distributor. That's why Microsoft relies on third party manufacturers to make the drivers, does not have repositories, doesn't upgrade or update the all system (only the OS), makes changes that break things, expecting others to patch them, etc.

They distribute some partner's code through Windows Update, but it is not all.

Frankly, it really doesn't make sense to try to provide drivers for everything...you get ridiculous 15gb installs on Vista because of that stupidity.

But I support Microsoft on this: they create the basic operating system, and it is up to the hardware and software vendors to support their users. There is just no way that Microsoft can manage their business, and the business of their partners.

Interestingly, Distributions are really not that much different, but the perception of them is. If you have a problem with GIMP, which is included in a distribution, it could be a packaging problem, or a problem with the software itself. At some point, you need to go to the GIMP team for a fix...but people don't perceive it that way.

And the majority of GNU/Linux Distros offer all these services, and more, for free!

Different business model.

So, if Microsoft sells Windows, I think clients should demand Microsoft to offer all these services as well!

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. You think the clients of Microsoft are the end PC user...I would posit that this is wrong.

Microsoft's clients are their hardware and software business partners. They have a vested interest in making sure that the proprietary software ecosystem keeps the hardware and software update cycle rolling and generating revenue.

Why clients don't demand this? Because either they are a bunch of idiots or they are ignorant.

That's a broad brush. There are lots of bright, intelligent, and capable designers, users, and developers on proprietary systems. So that sort of generalization says more about you than users of proprietary software.

Plenty of open source idiots too. :)

sayakb

February 27th, 2008, 12:47 PM

Yeah, Windows sucks. But, on a personal note, Microsoft doesn't suck, neither does Mr. Gates.. MS aint a pea in the pod. Even if Windows completely fails (which I doubt would ever be true), MS would come up with something new that would be on the bestsellers chart for many years.. Some Vienna alphas are already out for the developers (It doesn't have it's own UI, just certain additions over Vista), and as I have heard, it is elegant. Though, can't be too sure of anything..

justin whitaker

February 27th, 2008, 12:53 PM

Some Vienna alphas are already out for the developers (It doesn't have it's own UI, just certain additions over Vista), and as I have heard, it is elegant. Though, can't be too sure of anything..

That's what I heard too. Maybe they are taking a page from open source...like Mandriva, every other OS release is good?

:lolflag:

(Windows 2000 was a fluke, if that is the case).

Midwest-Linux

February 27th, 2008, 06:36 PM

It would not surprise me one bit if MS releases some kind of Linux OS and it would not surprise me one bit if they release it in the next two years. Regardless if it was free or not, the purpose would be to get MS in the Linux circles showing them to be willing to "play nice". This would greatly help them with the issues that they face in the EU and elsewhere.

Then at some point, they will likely release a Linspire type of OS where it could be free mixed with some proprietary programs or charge a nominal fee for it. This too would benefit MS even further. Its smarter for them to be a player, instead acting like Linux doesn't exist. Linux is at the point already that no one really a Windows OS to do most computer functions.

I don't see Linux overtaking MS for a long time, however don't underestimate the shifting sands where all these government entities are going open source, and the release of Linux computers by major companies and sold by major retailers...the tide is turning.

Plus the obvious fact that Windows XP will not be sold after June 2008. MS needs to do something, their backs are against the wall. Once XP is discontinued companies will have to go to Vista (and not many are willing) or go Apple or Open source if they need a new computer.

incogn(egro)ito

February 27th, 2008, 07:14 PM

I personally doubt that would make a public Linux OS since where Microsoft really makes its money is selling it licenses. So unless there is someway to not allow for people to recompile application for their particular Linux distros this would never happen.

pjkoczan

February 27th, 2008, 07:42 PM

Microsoft is the biggest software company in the world, with ridiculous amounts of money. Whatever OS they release will undoubtedly be the most widely used OS, at least for the time being.

They have a vested interest in making sure things work, and third-party application and peripheral vendors have a vested interest in making their stuff work so they can get things out to as wide an audience as possible.

Even if MS wanted to change a lot with regards to security or underlying OS structure, they have the means and the motivation to work with third parties to ensure that as few things break as possible. But they didn't to the extent that people needed, and enough non-trivial consequences of this have affected people that MS has rightly come under fire.

This is where people's frustration lies, not in that MS changed Windows or broke some compatibility, but that they could have done something about it and yet they didn't do enough.

kool_kat_os

February 27th, 2008, 08:20 PM

vista.....is that whats in my toilet???:)

ikt

February 28th, 2008, 02:42 AM

LightB

February 28th, 2008, 05:47 AM

"vienna"/Windows7 = Vaporware FUD, and a hopeful delusion aimed at windows familiars constructed to undermine other options in the mainstream. Old tactic! Believe it when you see it!! I know I will.

Cobraswordx

March 1st, 2008, 01:27 AM

Is there anything that Vista has that Ubuntu hasn't had this whole time? Microsoft seems to be trying to generalize everything hell they pulled a big one with the Zune(software for it LAGS LIKE HELL AND MAKES YOUR COMPUTER FEEL WEAK) and now a fancy eye candy OS like Vista

catdogdo

March 1st, 2008, 03:16 AM

At first, vista looked like windows xp with eye candy. And i thought, this could actually be an improvement, but sadly disapointed...

But of course monopolies like microsoft are gonna hide to the general public that their OS is flawed, virus prone, BoSD prone, and extreamly error prone (all of this is slight common knoldge) but to only to keep up that image of perfection.
and Its true half of the things are common sense, but when youve had over 15 years experience, im sure you would take note of the outside world.

kamaboko

March 1st, 2008, 07:16 AM

Did you see this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7205059.stm)?

From BBC: "Microsoft is warning Windows Vista users that a forthcoming service pack for the operating system may stop some third-party programs working.

The software giant has released a list of programs that may be broken by the SP1 update for Vista.

Most of the software hit by the upgrade are security programs that prevent Windows users falling prey to viruses, trojans and booby-trapped webpages."

Boy, I'd be ticked if all that stuff I had bought suddenly stopped working...:mad:

Sorry, I don't want to M$ bash, but I can't figure out why people put up with these shenanigans! Any insights?

There's a big difference between "all" and "some". On many occasions I've had certain apps on Linux F'ed up after an update was installed. Why do people insist this kind of flaw is unique to MS products, when they know damn well it happens to Linux too? Be fair and balanced in your criticisms.

agtownz

March 1st, 2008, 05:08 PM

What?

So if Firefox stops working with the latest linux kernel, we should go running to the kernel maintainers to fix it, rather than Mozilla?

Strange logic you have there.
Mozilla wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the update made it stop working, therefore it would be the fault of Linux. However, both parties could fix the problem. This logic is very advanced indeed.

zazuge

March 2nd, 2008, 03:10 PM

.... On many occasions I've had certain apps on Linux F'ed up after an update was installed. Why do people insist this kind of flaw is unique to MS products, when they know damn well it happens to Linux too? Be fair and balanced in your criticisms.
balanced?!
in Linux case you don't have to pay ;-)
and I was a windoz user too half year ago
and I swear to you that I don't feel that urge to kill anymore.
guess that Linux help to make a more peacefull world :guitar:

jimcooncat

March 4th, 2008, 02:14 PM

argraff

March 10th, 2008, 07:38 PM

There's a big difference between "all" and "some". On many occasions I've had certain apps on Linux F'ed up after an update was installed. Why do people insist this kind of flaw is unique to MS products, when they know damn well it happens to Linux too? Be fair and balanced in your criticisms.

My point is, that if Vista was, say, a new car, and I bought it, brought it home and then took it in for a tuneup (Service Pack) and when it came back the radio and lights didn't work, and my tires were flat, I'd be ticked. And THEN, if the dealer told ME to call the outside companies for fixes (the radio maker, bulb manufacturer and the tire company) to get it all working again - well, let's just say I'd never buy that kind of car again. (I wouldn't be likely to get it tuned up again, either.)

For the above comparison to work, you have to realize that I got the radio installed at Best Buy, replaced the headlights at Wally World and had better tires put on elsewhere as a safety precaution. I know Windows doesn't come with those things packaged - this "car" wouldn't either.

From a purely consumerist point of view, I don't understand how they retain customers. Most other businesses would have been bankrupt.

I don't mind so much if something free breaks (and in five years of linux, I've never really had anything broken that I didn't do myself by futzing with it), but people/companies spend a lot keeping up with M$ and necessary security additions.

(And I spell it 'M$' so that it doesn't get mixed up with Multiple Sclerosis. American Sign Language people use shortened, sometimes impromptu nicknames for things - I wish I could show you the one I learned for President Clinton! ;))

rickyjones

March 11th, 2008, 03:03 PM

My point is, that if Vista was, say, a new car, and I bought it, brought it home and then took it in for a tuneup (Service Pack) and when it came back the radio and lights didn't work, and my tires were flat, I'd be ticked. And THEN, if the dealer told ME to call the outside companies for fixes (the radio maker, bulb manufacturer and the tire company) to get it all working again - well, let's just say I'd never buy that kind of car again. (I wouldn't be likely to get it tuned up again, either.)

For the above comparison to work, you have to realize that I got the radio installed at Best Buy, replaced the headlights at Wally World and had better tires put on elsewhere as a safety precaution. I know Windows doesn't come with those things packaged - this "car" wouldn't either.

Since when does a dealership cover third party items that you purchased elsewhere? If I was a dealership I would not cover those items because they were not installed by me (the dealer).

-Richard

argraff

March 11th, 2008, 03:07 PM

Since when does a dealership cover third party items that you purchased elsewhere? If I was a dealership I would not cover those items because they were not installed by me (the dealer).

-Richard

I'm not saying they do. I'm saying I bought the car, added some stuff, took it in for tuneup and all the stuff I just bought now doesn't work (as a result of something happening during the tuneup). Does that make more sense? Sorry if I was unclear. :(

rickyjones

March 11th, 2008, 03:14 PM

I'm not saying they do. I'm saying I bought the car, added some stuff, took it in for tuneup and all the stuff I just bought now doesn't work (as a result of something happening during the tuneup). Does that make more sense? Sorry if I was unclear. :(

I think that it was perfectly clear. When you add third party items whether it be hardware or software you can only expect support from the vendor of that hardware and software.

If I install a new NVidia card in my computer and update Windows it might break the driver. Was it Microsoft's responsibility to release a driver to fix this problem? I don't believe so. It is Nvidia's responsibility to provide an updated driver that will fix it. That is why it is a third party product.

-Richard

argraff

March 12th, 2008, 11:15 AM

@Richard

Yes, but I bought new tires which were fine when I brought the car in for a tune-up. Two hours later, I pick up the car and they're flat. My dealer tells me to call Michelin (or whoever) to fix it, and I'm stuck with a car I can't drive. Brand new tires - I think I have a reasonable expectation that new tires, properly fitted to my new car, would survive a tune-up.

But that's not my point. I'm not saying that Microsoft is doing anything that it shouldn't (technically speaking). My question is: why do consumers settle for that kind of treatment with purchased products? When that happens to me with other things, I never use their brand again. Why does Microsoft seem to defy the normal "rules?" (not legal rules, I mean market rules)

Joeb454

March 12th, 2008, 11:19 AM

Can we please leave this be, and possibly (dare I say it) get back on topic of Operating System's and not cars.

argraff

March 12th, 2008, 12:59 PM

Can we please leave this be, and possibly (dare I say it) get back on topic of Operating System's and not cars.

That would be lovely - the problem, I fear, is that we are all geeks and get into the tech stuff too far when the question I am curious about is why people stay with Microsoft when it continuously presents hurdles for its customers to overcome. I can't figure out another way to make my point. Help?

I mean this all as an economic/consumer question of course - if I found a similar article about any other widely used product, I would have had the same reaction.

fatalflight

March 12th, 2008, 01:07 PM

xeth_delta

March 13th, 2008, 01:38 AM

Because its Windows, its the standard of operating systems, it represents 93% of the world's OS, being realistic here would you like to be windows 93% Macs 3% or so, or Linux based Distro's 0.something%.
Vista is a step in the horizontal direction, its swapped from effecient to pretty, the opposite to XP.

First of all, welcome to the forums.

While I agree that Windows is the most widespread operating system in personal computers, I really don't think this is a reason good enough to stick to a product one might consider of inferior quality or simply does not like.

This is why we have alternatives, such as OSX and Linux. The fact that something is popular, does not mean it is a standard, and widespread does not equate to quality, as we can see so often.
IMHO, whether we like it or not, a lot of that popularity has to do with business practices of different computer manufacturers.

That said, each person should simply use the operating system one prefers without being locked down into different formats or environments by monopolystic practices.

rant
I think I have made clear my preference towards FOSS, and that would not consider buying Microsoft products again, as I don't like them and loathe their company practices. It is their right to do whatever their consider best with their own source code and how they distribute their products, but the fact that they used at times dirty tactics and spread FUD, is detestable.
/end rant

karellen

March 13th, 2008, 04:12 AM

That would be lovely - the problem, I fear, is that we are all geeks and get into the tech stuff too far when the question I am curious about is why people stay with Microsoft when it continuously presents hurdles for its customers to overcome. I can't figure out another way to make my point. Help?

I mean this all as an economic/consumer question of course - if I found a similar article about any other widely used product, I would have had the same reaction.

people stay with windows because of its software environment and the certainty that all their hardware will work

argraff

March 13th, 2008, 11:01 AM

people stay with windows because of its software environment and the certainty that all their hardware will work

But apparently not all of their software. ;)

Darkagentx

March 14th, 2008, 10:06 AM

But apparently not all of their software. ;)

Haha, that made me laugh.

And regarding the software that doesn't work, I've found in my experience that some windows security soft can often be a big pain as it it. That's one of the incentives for me to stop using windows; I hate running some of them. Resource hungry, unstable or just crap; My desktop came with norton and I wished viruses would just kill it so I didn't feel obliged to suffer through using it.

kdardio2415

March 14th, 2008, 11:29 AM

The problem with Windows is that it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Developers make the software for Vista, ignoring Linux. Consumers see more easily available tools on Vista, so they skip Linux. Developers see that Vista has a large consumer audience, so they focus on Vista, ignoring Linux. The situation won't change until large developers really pay attention to the Linux community. Even though Linux is growing in popularity and usability, there are still hurdles to overcome before Le Revolution.

Speaking from personal experience, moving to Linux can be jarring. I made the jump last month, and the only thing that made it possible was the Beginning Ubuntu Linux guide. I still don't have all the kinks worked out, but if I can make the move, I figure anyone can.