Vista not so good in comparison...

[saphalline]

Ran across an article while working on Leopard Server today, and I just had to share it!

Mac OS X 10.5 better than Vista (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800670&pgno=1&queryText=)

Well-written and hits on some good points. I particularly like the take on Vista's UAC. :D Great stuff! Worth a read for those of you who aren't familiar with Mac's.

[pentachris]

I recently ran across this article:

The 15 Biggest Tech Dissapointments of 2007 (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140583-page,3-c,techindustrytrends/article.html)

Vista came in at #1, while OS 10.5 only came in at #8. Does "sucking less" equate to "better?" :rolleyes:

[PrntRhd]

Does "sucking less" equate to "better?
Apparently so.

[Whyzman]

Sometimes referred to as the lesser of the evils...

[saphalline]

Does "sucking less" equate to "better?"Ummmm.... YES!

I'm sorry, I gotta pick at this point here. ;) Is not the definition of "better" simply that which is superior or greater in quality? Is it not a relative term that has nothing to do with what is "good" or "best"? Or "worst" for that matter? It's a degree of relationship, not a universal judgement. Getting shot in the arm with a pistol is "better" than having all your limbs chopped off with a dull axe! Not to say that I'd enjoy either one or that getting shot in the arm is desireable in any way, just that it is "better".

By definition, yes, you are perfectly correct. If it can be said that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is "better" than Vista (which by the way, I didn't even state as my own opinion - just pointing out an article I found to be a good read) then the overall quality of either one is not in question! That is completely and utterly irrelevant in the comparison! Both of them could be the two worst operating systems ever devised in the entire reality of known existence and the comparison relative to which one is "better" would still be valid!


Now, did anyone actually read my linked article? Or do the very words of "Vista" and "Mac" blind you all to reason and fact?

[PrntRhd]

Or do the very words of "Vista" and "Mac" blind you all to reason and fact?
Nope, I believe in users having choices.
:)

[Paleo Pete]

Good article, but the guy seems to be in Mac's corner before ever booting into Windows.

A couple of things were pointed out that I found really annoying from the first time I had to deal with Vista, which I fortunately don't have to do often. The changes in nomenclature was completely unnecessary, and as mentioned makes it more difficult to find options in Control Panel (now apparently just Control) than with earlier versions. End users in general though, didn't know what Control Panel was, and probably won't know what the new version is either. I had a hard time finding Add/Remove Programs, which then dropped the biggest anoyance, for me, in my lap.

UAC of course. The article stated:

But even when I've taken actions where Vista is telling me "You will have to authenticate," I still only have to click the correct button in a dialog. That's not authenticating anything, it's just approving. There's no way that UAC is going to enhance security, in fact, it's probably going to have the opposite effect, because people are going to just hit OK/Continue even more automatically than they do now.

In addition to being incredibly annoying, you don't often really know what you did to black the screen out and open that box, and it gives you no information. Is that a surprise? Reminds me of the dialog box telling you Windows has encountered a serious error and asks if you want to send a note to MS. WHAT error? I have no idea, it doesn't tell me. Same for UAC, it doesn't tell me WHAT it wants me to say "Yes, I really, really, REALLY, I promise, want to do, it just wants to know if I really want to do it.

Why doesn't it want an Admin password? The author is right in this respect, you're not "authenticating" anything, you're just approving it. Clicking a different OK button. Which I think people will do just the same as they always have, without thinking about it. I haven't used a Mac, but with LInux I have to have an Admin password to install things or make system changes. Period. With Windows all you have to do is click OK. That's not security.

OK, yeah, you can turn it off...where? I'm betting you have to dig for that option too, same as just about everything else I've tried to do. I needed to see what was going on with a printer that didn't work a couple of weeks ago with a Vista computer, I got aggravated trying to find where to do it. It's been right there in the Settings section of the Start menu for ages, why is it now somewhere else? I had this same complaint with XP, I didn't think there was any reason to make it more difficult to get to and use Control Panel, or change its overall appearance. at least it does have the option to "Switch to classic view"...I still have to SEARCH for Windows Explorer, then I finally remember...Oh yeah, they moved it...

The Start menu itself was my biggest complaint the first time I had to deal with Vista, it's been the same since Win95, over 10 years ago, now they give it a complete face lift and you have to re-learn how to get around in Windows...and it's not an improvement, it's an annoyance. It makes me think of something I've tried to remember for years while working on cars, computers, guitars, guns, fishing reels...if it works, don't fix it. The Windows Start menu worked, and was easy to use, why fix or change it?

OK I hate vista, then again I hated XP when it was released, and am probably one of the very few who still do. The constant, annoying pop up "Tool Tips" are a nuisance and cover up what I'm actually looking for. (With Linux I also don't like the Enlightenment desktop for this same reason) This primarily when browsing through the System folders to look for rogue files, or looking through the Start menu for whatever program or option I want, I don't want it covered up by a tool tip. Yes, you can turn it off, but that setting is not any easier to find than any other. The endless update mentality is simply evil. Sure updates are necessary from time to time to correct security issues, bugs, add drivers, and so forth, but hundreds of them? Geez...Why didn't they TEST the thing and eliminate a lot of the security issues before releasing it? They couldn't find every little thing, but I'm willing to bet if they spent half the time and effort testing that they spent making it look more like a garish caricature of Windows, I'm sure they could have found quite a few, just a little thought in some cases would have been enough, without testing. If you KNOW there are slimeballs out there looking for every little chink in your armor, it should be quite obvious you don't wnat things like Universal Plug and Play and RPC actually broadcasting...waving a red flag around all over the internet and screaming HERE I AM!!! That was just plain dumb. How many like that will we find with Vista?

Then there's the system requirements, which are a joke, it barely runs at all on a system that meets the requirements, am I going to run out and buy all the latest and greatest hardware just to run Vista, along with a couple of gigs of extra RAM? Not a chance. I'll wait a while till the prices come down but Vista won't be what I'm building for and I'll only need 512 RAM, maybe a gig...maybe...I'll have 3 Linux CDs next weekend, I'm betting the newest version (Mandriva) will run well on the same system that was sluggish with XP, which is why XP is no longer on it. (It's one someone dropped off for repairs a year ago and never picked up. 2.6GHz, so it's not exactly a "slow" machine, but it has Rambus memory and only 256 of it, I don't have any Rambus at all. That's the only thing I don't like about the system.)

I've never used a Mac, so I can't compare in that respect, but what I've seen of Vista does not make me want to run out and buy a copy, and to be quite honest, I don't even like having to work on computers with Vista installed, I already had to re-learn where things are with XP, I really don't want to do it again.

XP pushed me toward Linux, Vista will make me stay there. I hope ol' Bill sees that too. I can already do 90% of everything I want to do with Linux, once I get a music recording setup working well, my Win 98 box will be nothing but a game machine. Games and recording are the only things I use it for now...

[classicsoftware]

Saph: What have you been smoking? When the opening paragrapgh has a moronic statement, the rest of the article becomes suspect no matter how ell written:

Microsoft had two serious issues. First, it had to make this update of Windows revolutionary enough that it came close to justifying the delay. Second, it had to come up with something that would stand up well with its main competitor in the desktop OS market, Mac OS X

MS which has 90+% of the market and it's main competitor is OS X? I don't know what that guy is smoking. The main competitor to Vista is XP. This is very similar to the DOS 6x to Windows 3.1 conversion. Not everybody went with Windows, need new software, etc.... Not all hardware would work. If you go back to the mid 90's this is a repeat.... All major change is hard on the market..... Look how long it too to rid the world of Windows 9X, which people are still running....

[saphalline]

Ok, back from holiday time! :D And internet cut-out. Long story - don't ask. :rolleyes:

Nope, I believe in users having choices.Explain. I see no correlation between this sentence and the part of my post that you quoted. What are you talking about? :confused:

Saph: What have you been smoking?Nothing. Or at least I never inhale! :D

When the opening paragrapgh has a moronic statement, the rest of the article becomes suspect no matter how ell writtenI would agree with that, in words. However, how are you defining "suspect"? The author IS a Mac guy. He is. Plain and simple. Now if that makes him suspect in your eyes, it should! He's already committed to Apple and is looking for any excuse to dismiss M$. But if that immediately makes him someone to ignore, well... I don't agree with that.

When something is suspect to me, I take it with a grain of salt. But I take it all the same. I'm not about to tell someone they are a bad person or just plain wrong because their opinions disagree with mine. And in fact I find it rather refreshing to see how the "other side" views my side of the issue. In the case of this particular article, I found myself agreeing with many of the points against Vista as an OS; and honestly, I thought the many anti-M$ fanboys here on the forums would also find the article to be a good laugh. Apparently not. :rolleyes:

MS which has 90+% of the market and it's main competitor is OS X? I don't know what that guy is smoking. The main competitor to Vista is XP.I've heard this before, and I agree from a certain point of view (that being informed buyers). However, the way I read the article was in the sense that Vista is going up against Leopard in the company vs company pay-for OS arena. And from that particular point of view, I consider WinXP to be out of the running. After all, isn't WinXP on the hit list of its own maker!? :eek: On the company level in terms of marketing and "the latest thing" (which is the point of view of Apple users, by the way) M$ is pushing Vista and trying to kill WinXP. Just like Apple is pushing OS X 10.5 and trying to kill 10.4. Granted this is just a company-wide marketing point of view, but hey - consider the source! Information Week is akin to PC Magazine in terms of its intended audience. (Ie, we here are not the intended audience!)

You also have to consider that Apple users don't really have a plethora of options for their systems like "PC" (open-standards x86) users do. ;) They can't really upgrade their hardware, and *NIX derivatives go against the philosophy of Apple itself (that being an easy user experience within the confines of shiny buttons that do everything for you). As such, the only real OS options to them right now are 10.4 and 10.5, thus they tend to simplify the world around them through their own filter. "Us" and "them", so to speak.

Why doesn't it want an Admin password? The author is right in this respect, you're not "authenticating" anything, you're just approving it. Clicking a different OK button. Which I think people will do just the same as they always have, without thinking about it.Exactly! The UAC is quite the disfunctional piece of software, all things considered. And I agree wholeheartedly that it won't improve security in any way, but rather have the opposite effect. The UAC takes control of your system, gives you no information about what is going on, asks you to authenticate by pressing a frickin' "OK" button, and has the ability to bother you multiple times in a single program installation! The only good thing I have to say about the UAC is that you can turn the d@mn thing off!! Definitely the worst OS add-on I have seen from M$ in recent memory! Shameful that it is touted as being a "security feature", too! Just pathetic...

I haven't used a Mac, but with LInux I have to have an Admin password to install things or make system changes. Period.It's the same in Mac OS X. Not surprising, considering that it's just a proprietary shell and GUI on top of a slightly modified FreeBSD kernel. It's all based on *NIX so the security is very very similar. In fact, the first time I administered one of these Mac's, I thought "Hey! This is like Linux!"

I needed to see what was going on with a printer that didn't work a couple of weeks ago with a Vista computer, I got aggravated trying to find where to do it.I know! WTF?? While I didn't think for a moment that Vista would be mind-blowingly advanced or streamlined, I also certainly didn't think that the Control Panel would be all futzed-up! Why the heck is it more complicated now to do things in the Control (Panel)!? Even worse, why are there 2 or 3 complex ways to do just about everything when all we really wanted was a single simple way to do it! Also, why are very similar functions in separate areas of the Control (Panel)?

For instance, when I double-click on a network connection icon in the taskbar, I am now shown packet sent/received info but no IP addy! WTF?? Ok, but if I right-click the icon and choose to go into the network section of the Control (Panel), I can click a few more things and see the IP addy. But wait, what's that? It's a non-editable pop-up? Ok, but if I go back a few clicks and instead click on a link (as in a web page) that says "details", THEN I can adjust the TCP settings!

Holy #^@&ing sh*t!! What moron at M$ came up with that stupid scheme!? :mad: Took me over 10 minutes the first time around to get to that TCP editable screen! Why, M$? Why? Why are you making it so difficult for me to change my own frickin' settings!? This is not progress...

The Windows Start menu worked, and was easy to use, why fix or change it?Ooh, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I mean, for those of us who know how to use computers, the old style Start menu worked great. But then again, what was that you said about many end users not knowing what the Control Panel is? Hey, maybe there's no hope for some people if they just aren't interested in learning, thus they can be taken out of the picture. You could certainly argue that. But in the sense of many end users out there who have a computer merely because our modern industrial living requirements necessitate it, I have to say the old style Start menu didn't really "work" for them. I've worked with many people who couldn't remember simple tasks even when I showed them multiple times per day! :eek: People who have used computers for years and never once tried to click the right mouse button! People who learned to click the little printer icon button in order to print in some version of M$ Office only to be confused and unable to print when an upgrade gets rid of that customized button lay-out! People who learned to operate their computer by memorizing where the little "pictures" are on their desktop! People who have no concept of how to connect to the internet if you change their ISP!

My point is that the Start menu in all its forms isn't very intuitive at all. It's just that those of us who are technically inclined have learned how to use it. For everyone else, I don't think the drastic change in the way Vista looks is going to phase them at all since they've never been able to learn any previous implementation! I'm totally serious. I've met people who bought a new computer when their old one finally bit the dust and didn't even know they went from WinME to Vista! :eek: Now think about how many of these people are out there for every forum member in here...

(( cut for length... ))

[saphalline]

Then there's the system requirements, which are a joke, it barely runs at all on a system that meets the requirements, am I going to run out and buy all the latest and greatest hardware just to run Vista, along with a couple of gigs of extra RAM? Not a chance. I'll wait a while till the prices come down but Vista won't be what I'm building for and I'll only need 512 RAM, maybe a gig...maybe...I'll have 3 Linux CDs next weekend, I'm betting the newest version (Mandriva) will run well on the same system that was sluggish with XP, which is why XP is no longer on it.Coming from a performance perspective here, I completely disagree with all of this. I don't think Vista's requirements are too high. I do think they're higher relative to previous Windows versions compared to the hardware/performance metrics of their respective eras. But no, I do not think it is unreasonable to run out and buy an extra gig or two of RAM in order to run Vista considering the prices these days. 2GB of basic gaming-worthy DDR2 is less than $100 right now, and an extra 1GB (which alone is sufficient to run Vista at a comfortable pace) was less than $100 when Vista was released. If you have a system that is too old to even hit 1GB of RAM, it should be retired based on age alone since it would have to be 5+ years old now!

Here's the way I see it. Computers are not an investment. They are not members of our families. :p They are not worthy of sentimental feelings. They are tools. And as such, I believe in using the right tool for the job. Thus if a computer gets to be too old or pokey or non-upgradeable, it is no longer doing the job for me and it gets tossed just like any other broken tool. You talk of being content with a system that has 512MB of RAM. I see that as being an anemic and inefficient box of silicon that is not worthy of increasing my electrical bill. I've used Windows and Linux alike on only 512MB of RAM, and I don't like it either way. Hardware has far out-stripped our software needs, to the point where baseline systems are chewing up office apps and music studio programs like they are no more intense that Solitaire! I like being able to use the latest advancements, or at least advancements within the last 3 or 4 years. I've grown accustomed to systems that respond with the slightest touch, partly because it's available and partly because it's dirt frickin' cheap compared to 10 years ago! When a system gets too old to be cost-effective, I dump it! And rightly so! Older systems from the PIII era are way too slow, and I honestly don't know how anyone else can use them without vomiting from pure frustration! If a system can't boot any of the major OS'es that are still being supported in less than 2 minutes, it is delivering a less than acceptable ratio of performance to consumed power. If a system takes longer than 100ms to respond to a tiny little thing like clicking a link in a web page, it is quite obviously wasting my time and reducing my productivity. If a system can't even saturate the old 100Mbps network connection while transferring a file, it is slowing down the entire network! Think I'm crazy in saying all these things? Let me show you a few facts and figures:

- A pre-1GHz SDRAM-era system struggles to reach 28% efficiency using PC133 SDRAM. (298.48 MB/s)

- A modern dual-core DDR2-equipped system vaults over 80% efficiency using dual-channel DDR2-800. (10240 MB/s)

- The X-Fi Fatal1ty sound card w/64MB of X-RAM has as much power as an entire PIII 800MHz business-class computer; and it is currently selling for $136 USD.

- The GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB vid card has as much power as an entire P4 2GHz gaming system w/GeForce 2 vid card.

- Dual-core 64-bit CPU's start as low as $55 these days.

- A high-performance non-gaming system can be built these days without spending more than $100 on any single component.

Look at these points and think back to the days of Win95 and DOS 6 (and even further back if you like). You really want to revisit those days?? By limiting yourself to ancient hardware, you are! And what's more, you don't have to! Computers no longer cost $4000, so don't settle for garage sale beige boxes! A mere $500 gets you more power than you could have ever dreamed of 10 years ago! Why are you designing your systems using old concepts when it's all so much cheaper now!? 1GB of DDR400 for $60? That price would have gotten you a puny 32MB stick of generic PC66 back in the day! Live it up!! Get some hardware that isn't on its last legs, for crying out loud! I'm building a main Linux server soon complete with a 4U rackmount case, and honestly the case is probably going to be most of the budget. What kind of hardware am I putting in it? Athlon 64 3000+, baby! 939 w/DDR, of course, so it's getting a bit long in the tooth. But nothing as ancient as what you're looking at.

Time and time again I see people dragging along on ancient systems that I would have tossed long ago. I just don't get it. I can build a good system (just the box) for $500, add in an old monitor, keyboard & mouse for a pittance, install some distro of Linux on it, and be up and running in a jiffy! It would be a speedy little sucker, too! Try doing this 10 years ago and you'll be hit with a $2000 bill at the very least! One fourth the cost! ONE FOURTH!! I don't know why people these days complain about hardware costs... I don't know why people these days waste their time on ancient 5+ year-old boxes...

[Sylvander]

I'm in love with my car
Lyrics by "Queen"

(Dedicated to Johnathan Harris, boy racer to the end)
The machine of a dream, such a clean machine,
With the pistons a pumpin', and the hubcaps all a-gleam.
When I'm holding your wheel,
All I hear is your gear,
When my hand's on your grease gun,
Oh it's like a disease son,
I'm in love with my car, gotta feel for my automobile,
Get a grip on my boy racer rollbar,
Such a thrill when your radials squeal.
Told my girl I just had to forget her,
Rather buy me a new cartburettor,
So she made tracks sayin' ths is the end now,
Cars don't talk back they're just four wheeled friends now,
When I'm holding your wheel,
All I hear is your gear,
When I'm cruisin' in overdrive,
Don't have to listen to no run of the mill talk jive,
I'm in love with my car, gotta feel for my automobile,
I'm in love with my car, string back
gloves in my automolove!

Beware of becoming part of a technological Master Race where mere mortals are somehow inadequate.

The other extreme...
Or is it balancing words of wisdom? (http://www.bartleby.com/108/21/1.html)

[Paleo Pete]

Saph, I agree with you on some points, and you do have a good point about the Start menu never being exactly intuitive, I guess my main issue is that they should have left it alone. Not many people really know how to use it, but those who do are not inclined to re-learn all over again. Changing the Start menu in Me/XP and again in Vista was a bad move, 90% of the people out there don't want to have to relearn everything every time a new OS comes out. I certainly don't. And I've seen LOTS of the people you describe, who have never used the right click, drag and drop, cut/copy and paste, or even the Start menu itself. I also wasn't happy when Mandrake changed theirs from v 9 to v 10, at least with KDE. I have one of each, and I have to switch from one machine to the other, it's aggravating. Same for Windows, I usually run win 98 since I hate XP, but when I work on computers I have to deal with the different Start menus every time. It's annoying, maybe I should have said why change it when people have barely gotten accustomed to it as it is...and I've seen people who didn't know what the Start button was, tell them to click the Start button and they're looking all over the KEYBOARD...

As for older hardware, well, what if I don't HAVE $500 to run out and build a new machine? What if I don't HAVE less than $100 for 1GB more RAM? I work on computers all the time for older people on crappy retirement plans or social security, limited fixed income, $500 is near impossible for them, so I have to make their P-III system usable and keep it that way. I'm using a P-III Linux machine with 768MB RAM and have had no complaints about performance at all, sure it takes a minute for some more resource intensive apps to open, but once open they respond very well. Same for my win98 machine, it's AMD XP 2000 w/ 512RAM, max for win98, and runs great. It's also dual boot with Mandrake 10, which runs quite well also. 1 1/2 minutes for win98 to boot, around 2 1/2 for Mandrake.

If you can afford to run out and buy the latest hardware, great. I can build a new machine for around $700 or so, monitor mouse and keyboard included, but that's no help when I can barely keep the water, gas and electricity turned on. It's a catch 22 here, no jobs, no money to go look for a decent one somewhere else. I'm dying to go contact some bands out of town and can't scrape up $50-100 to make the trip...I might have $15 for groceries next week. I think it was $17 last time I went to the grocery store. So where do I get that $500 for new parts??? Or $100 for new RAM?? I have a machine that uses RAMBUS, I can't scrape up around $30 to hit ebay and add to the 256 it already has. A lot of my customers are in the same boat, low paying jobs or fixed income, no way they can run out and buy a new computer, it puts many of them in a bind just to pay me $40 to get the old one running decent again. And I should be charging more than that...I have to stay within the range they can afford or I get no work at all. I don't have my shop any more, I closed it a while back, but still do a few for people who were existing customers. Before I closed the shop (and one of the reasons), about 75% of the people who called would never show up once they found out it would cost $40 for me to fix their machine. Make a service call and they hit the ceiling if I tell them it's $60. That along with trying to completely start over in a new (bad) location, different phone number, no money at all for advertising or anything else, I got sick of fighting it and shut down. $200-300 (maybe) profit in 3 months just didn't cut it...

We do have people around here working in a paper mill making $30 and hour, they usually don't even call, they trash it and buy a new one. That's the minority, most of the 22,000 people here make barely above minimum wage, they can barely survive, much less throw money at a new computer. The kids need new shoes...$6 an hour here is about average from what I've seen. And Wally World just opened a super store, which is killing even more local businesses than the old store did.

So you're talking about an economically depressed area, and once you stop here you're stuck, it's very difficult to make enough money to go somewhere else. If you can barely keep the lights on, how do you come up with $500 or more for a new computer?

[Variable]

Which OS is better is in the eyes of the consumer. I would look at sales figures to find which is better. Any other reference point is simply an opinion. You can find data here: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/

Vista passed all versions of MAC OS combined around August. Apple has made the MAC OS a Unix Shell running on proprietary hardware made mostly in China. They have a slick marketing department. They seem to not be about making a better mouse trap, simply a different one. Lots of hype, expensive and not MS. This philosophy works with about 6 percent of the worlds computer buyers.

As for opinion,
If you believe that Leopard is better than Vista, the obvious question is what is it better at, the biggies like gaming, office applications, business application software? Probably not - is Leopard better at not being MS and simpler than Linux? It wins both those hands down. Both surf the internet and pull down email really well, so that is a wash. Apples tend to have better design of the hardware "look" but they control that don't they, MS does not.

For any that think owning current market share means defacto future dominance, I would have you look at the historical stock prices of GM and Ford. Since the life time of a PC and it's usefulness is much shorter than a vehicle, a tidal change in OS share should be much more rapid for the disaffected consumer market. Only a year in to Vista, that does not seem to be happening. Perhaps it will change in '08. I wouldn't hold my breath.

V

[Whyzman]

Just saw this:

http://money.aol.com/inc/general/dumbest-products-2007?photo=5

[PrntRhd]

Whyzman,
That site does not work with my Firefox
:p

[Whyzman]

Hmmm...dunno what to tell ya. :confused: I just opened Firefox and the link worked for me... :confused:

[PrntRhd]

It's ok.
I may have mine set a little tighter in NoScript.

[Whyzman]

It is pretty funny... I can describe if you like. ;)

Vista is listed by Inc. as the 8th dumbest product mistake for 2007

"Some people describe Windows Vista as Microsoft's New Coke. You know the operating system has at least a few bugs when people are willing to pay an extra $150 to "downgrade" to Windows XP, Vista's predecessor."

[PrntRhd]

I read that page, the links to the other pages would not work to make a comparison to other dumb 2007 products.

[Whyzman]

Sorry, I just linked to the Vista page...

Here's the link for the 10 worst: http://money.aol.com/inc/general/dumbest-products-2007

[PrntRhd]

I thought the winner should have been the iCarta+ device, a iPod player and toilet paper dispenser combined.
;)

[Whyzman]

It looked like they were trying to interject stereo speakers into the actual roll holder arms... Maybe if you wanted to use the TP roll for a headrest... :rolleyes:

The idea had about as much merit as a handsfree cellphone holder attached to the toilet topper... Or, perhaps that's already being done sans a holder... They don't have those tiny "you got me wet" devices on cellphones to void warranties 'cause folks are refraining from bringing their cells into potential wet environments... :rolleyes: Please curtesy flush if you agree... ;)

[saphalline]

Beware of becoming part of a technological Master Race where mere mortals are somehow inadequate.More computing power for less money. Increased (http://olpc.com/) computing (http://laptop.org/laptop/) penetration (http://eeepc.asus.com/global/). If you are correct in your posit of the existence of a "technological Master Race", then I would argue that its membership is ever increasing and will envelop all humankind.

I guess my main issue is that they should have left it alone.I agree with that and more when it comes to Vista. Likewise, my main point is that computers are obviously not that intuitive or easy to understand on the basis that very few of us understand them! That's all I'm saying.

If you can afford to run out and buy the latest hardware, great.A serious transgression has somehow materialized out of thin air. Where is this coming from? Let me back-track here and quote my previous statements:

"I don't think Vista's requirements are too high."

"I do not think it is unreasonable to run out and buy an extra gig or two of RAM in order to run Vista considering the prices these days."

"I believe in using the right tool for the job."

"if a computer gets to be too old or pokey or non-upgradeable, it is no longer doing the job for me"

"I've used Windows and Linux alike on only 512MB of RAM, and I don't like it either way."

"If a system takes longer than 100ms to respond to a tiny little thing like clicking a link in a web page, it is quite obviously wasting my time and reducing my productivity."

I also employed phrases such as "I consider" and "I do not consider".

I also said things like "I honestly don't know how anyone else can use them without vomiting from pure frustration" and "Time and time again I see people dragging along on ancient systems that I would have tossed long ago. I just don't get it.", but then again there are many many things about other people that I don't understand. For instance, I don't understand why anyone would pierce their belly-button - yet people do it. I also don't understand how people can enjoy a vacation into the murky insect-infested waters of the Nile river - yet it's a huge tourist hot-spot. Just because I don't get it doesn't mean I am going to act all high-and-mighty and impose my performance-oriented IT-based gaming mentality on all those who own computers. That would be absurd! When it really comes down to it, 100ms really is too long for me to wait for a system reaction to a simple mouse-click event in a basic web browser. It is! But that's because I'm in IT and this is how I make money!! Likewise, the specific machinations and logistics that govern the livelihoods of others are very important to them, right down to similar time-wasting effects. On the flip side, those activities that do NOT govern our own livelihoods are unlikely to meet the same criterion held by someone whose livelihood DOES depend on said activities. That's how humans operate. Facts of life and all that. In the end, if you're trying to prove me wrong on an opinion-based judgement that I never made in the first place, well... I'm afraid you're just wasting your time and decreasing your productivity.

Moreover, my ability to buy the latest and greatest hardware does not necessarily make me rich since we've already pointed out that $500 is enough to buy into the latest and greatest (aside from gaming). And that's one of my main points when it comes to the cost of modern hardware. You CAN still design a $4000 system today, just like you could 10 years ago. But unlike the state of the industry 10 years ago, you CAN design a $500 system today that uses hardware released within the last 9 months. A $55 CPU 10 years ago meant a 286 in the early PII era! Nowadays, a $55 CPU means a relatively slow dual-core 64-bit CPU in an era of quad-core 64-bit CPU's. Not really a backseat metric of performance relative to the high-end now, is it? Sure you get more performance out of the expensive CPU's, but it's not like the ratio of performance follows the pricing scheme anymore! We're not talking about spending $55 to get 5.5% of the performance of a $1000 CPU anymore! It's more like spending $55 to get 30% of the performance of a $1000 CPU, which makes the price/performance ratio insanely terrific compared to 10 years ago!

I'm also wary when I hear people say that their old computers are "working fine for me". Very few are the cases where this is true, mostly because there seems to be a cut-off point for PIII-based systems (for some odd reason). Lots of people are still using PIII-based systems, and lots of people shouldn't be! :p Or rather, they should know what they're giving up. PIII-based systems were at the edge of what I call "critical OS performance". The age of the Pentium III, and the infamous Athlon that launched AMD into the empire that it is now, was the cusp where hardware was finally able to break free of the constraints of the operating systems of that time. This is because the early PIII's and Athlon's (~ 600 MHz) were still in the suffering era of 50 cents per MB of RAM and incredibly slow HDD performance! Thus we saw the dawning of WinXP along with droves of pre-builts being pushed off the assembly lines with a paltry 128MB of RAM! Boot times were atrocious, RAM was scarce, and performance was barely able to keep up with our operating systems, much less programs that we wanted to use! As the PIII and Athlon waned in the 1 GHz range, we were greeted with advancements such as (relatively) affordable DDR, ATA/133 HDD's with 8MB cache, and 300% increases in chipset performance. Overall system efficiency skyrocketed! All of this means that anyone that still has a PIII-based system might just have missed the advancements that I myself have come to expect. Afterall, to someone who's never used a modern system, just old ones, it's a given that PC's take 3-5 minutes to boot, right? :rolleyes: I've interacted with such people myself, and let me tell you! I have quite literally changed people's lives by showing them what a modern computer can do! Nearly all of them are simply astounded that a computer can be so fast! They never knew! They missed out on all of the recent advancements in PC technology. In a few cases, just letting people use a computer of the caliber of mine is enough to make them realize how much their current ancient PIII-based system is holding them back. In others, they appreciate what they can't have, but state that they can't afford it or can't justify the extra cost. Either way is fine with me, but I do believe that people who have or are otherwise stuck with an older system need to know what they're giving up. Even if they can't afford it or not impressed or can't justify an upgrade, my experience has taught me that people need to be aware of what's out there...

what if I don't HAVE $500 to run out and build a new machine? What if I don't HAVE less than $100 for 1GB more RAM?Ironically enough, you've answered your own question. You are currently setting up an RDRAM-based system for your own purposes because the owner could not afford your repair bill (which we can both agree was insanely low already!). You talk of people gawking at $40 and $60 repair bills on ancient PIII-based systems that have "died" in some way, not being able to pay it, and abandoning the system to you. Thus you have physical proof in your posession of what happens when you don't have the money for a new system: you can't afford a computer. This brings up several implications...

First and foremost is the basic monetary concept as taught in grade school word problems. If you have less money than the cost of something that you want, you can't buy it!

Mary has $1. An apple costs $5. How many apples can Mary buy?

The answer? ZERO! Mary doesn't have enough money to buy an apple! Harsh though this may be, you can't argue with basic economics, especially in your area. There are people in your community that are so poor they can't even afford to keep their ancient PIII-based systems running. Again, what happens if you can't afford something? You don't get to own it! If you don't have the money to repair your current computer, and if you don't have the money for a new computer, then you don't own a computer.

(( cut for length... ))

[saphalline]

Taking this to the next level, consider the fact these people still have ancient PIII-based systems in 2008, meaning they've had the same computer for no less than 7 years now if it was originally bought new. That means that these people haven't had the money for a new system for at least 7 years! Now I'm not saying that they should have bought a new system in the last 7 years if what you say about their financial situation is true (afterall, food and clothing DOES come first!) but I am saying that they just flat-out can't afford to own a computer. If their primary (and only) system is that old, they should thank their lucky stars that it held out that long! And this is why I consider (again, I consider) 5+ year old systems to be too old to own - because they are getting old enough to terminally stop working without warning. And then the situations of which you spoke arise, in which the only system for the household is dead without hope of recovery. An OS problem is easy to fix because it's just software, but if the mobo gives up the ghost, an old system like that with no replacement components available is just a paperweight.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out something else to consider. Since computers actually cost MORE money back when these ancient PIII-based systems were new, how the heck did these people in your area even afford to buy them in the first place?? If they're gawking at $40 and $60 repair bills for a system that most likely cost over $1000 at the original time of purchase, how did they come to own such a relatively expensive piece of consumer electronics?? It seems to me that a repair bill equal to no higher than 6% of the cost of a device is a pretty darn good deal! I'd love it if that were always true! Not that I think they're whining about the repair bills, but not being able to pay them just means they've finally hit that inevitable brick wall in their computing situation.

In addition, the comparison involving Vista is unfair. I don't think everyone should use Vista, you don't think everyone should use Vista, and its cost and usage is completely independent of low-cost modern hardware. In fact, it's a moot point just based on cost alone! With two different "bit size" kernel compiles spread among several versions, Vista alone can cost up to $500! :eek: So at that point, I think that if you can afford Vista in the first place, you can afford to upgrade your system to accomodate it! This issue is independent of the fact that the hardware required to run Vista well is cheap enough to run any OS well. Vista is just icing on the cake, requiring a solid base of components just to have something to put it on. So when it comes to people using what I consider to be ancient systems, they can't afford a new computer and they can't afford Vista. And one is a requirement of the other, but one is independent and justifiable in its own right. And I believe that if you can't afford the hardware required for Vista, then you shouldn't be buying Vista if only because you can't afford a good computing experience with it! And it's a shame when you can't get a good computing experience with a frickin' OS in this day and age...

They seem to not be about making a better mouse trap, simply a different one.In terms of an end user experience, they've done a great job at pushing the envelope. It's very nice to use a Mac, really. But in terms of the underlying technologies, eh... I'm not that impressed. It's mostly proprietary and very poorly documented! Try doing something differently that how you're "supposed" to do it and you'll be cut off at the pass with no explanation!

If you believe that Leopard is better than Vista, the obvious question is what is it better atExactly! Computers are tools! Nothing more. I like Leopard because it's the new version of Mac OS X, and I'm very impressed with how well Mac OS X in general handles the tasks that most people want. Easy to use, pretty to look at without being garish and visually confusing, and it gets the basic jobs done (email, web surfing, etc).

Vista, on the other hand, has established itself as the de facto high-end gaming platform. We're now seeing tremendous advantages to using true DX10-compliant hardware with Vista and the latest games. Sure it sucks the power, but so do games! Games alone need the extra hardware, regardless of Vista! General computing? Not so good on Vista.

WinXP is the great equalizer here, in terms of a comfortable and familiar OS to most people (by market share) while still being able to do other things. Great workhorse OS, just like Win2K. The downside is that WinXP is getting old and can't keep up with the latest advancements. Virtualization and DX10, anyone?

Linux. Now this is my favorite! Absolutely free, relatively easy to use, fully customizable (right up to your GUI), extremely high performance, and rock-solid reliability! It can't play my games so I can't switch entirely, but darned if you can argue with its high security and non-existant cost! The ultimate in set-it-and-forget-it! I love it and I recommend it to everyone I can. There are a few roadblocks left to overcome, but during the lifetime of WinXP so far, Linux has obliterated far more roadblocks. I don't think it will be a problem. ;)

"You know the operating system has at least a few bugs when people are willing to pay an extra $150 to "downgrade" to Windows XP, Vista's predecessor."You know, I agree with some of their choices and comments, but... that's a crazy article! :p Lead paint and Blow? The world has gone crazy.

[Paul Komski]

First and foremost is the basic monetary concept as taught in grade school word problems. If you have less money than the cost of something that you want, you can't buy it!
That's not what the banks tell us.

[saphalline]

That's not what the banks tell us.Oh, look at that, Paleo Pete! In one fell swoop, Paul Komski proved me wrong and solved the financial problems of your ENTIRE community! Not only do banks now teach grade schoolers the finer points of compound interest and stock options, but your neighbors can all upgrade to high-end gaming systems by simply taking out loans!

*Whew!* I'm glad we solved that issue! Ok, next I'm going to start a thread on world hunger, so let's all put our heads together!

[Paul Komski]

solved the financial problems of your ENTIRE community
Debt has its place but never, of its own, solves any financial problems. The levels of both individual and public debt in both US and the UK are at unprecedented levels and the repercussions of lending to the sub-prime market should, by now, be obvious to all. Are the banks complicit in this? I think the answer is obvious.

[PrntRhd]

Of course the banks were complicit in the sub prime mortgage mess, so were major securities firms in many countries.
One major US bank is already being investigated for possible collusion with appraisers who inflated home valuations to allow the bank to borrow more more money to the borrowers. They even stopped doing the due diligence of documenting income for the borrowers, which is against all the rules for lending money. The rules were there but somehow they decided not to comply with the rules.

Vista seems to be a mis-step by Microsoft, even though it's code was based on Windows2003 server. They have had those duds before, such as the WinME debacle, but the next release was one of their best.
They better come up with a great next release if they want to continue selling to the business market. The longer they take to get one done right the more other options will be explored by the business community.