Will you use Vista or Switch to Linux?

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Will you use Vista or Switch to Linux?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Tee hee.

Is this FUD or an outright lie?

It's neither. When you allow users to recompile the kernel and everything else about the OS, you got yourself infinite versions.

You also don't have a "standard" Linux configuration or install, a la Windows (and if you try to lecture me about LSB, it shows just how little you really know)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
By this definition anything you can buy from a retailer is obsolete.

yeah...except not?

Some things certainly are.

[:) Smiley]

Present day PCs already have more power than needed for non graphics intensive office use. Unless Powerpoint is going to be replaced by full motion video, the office market would be better served by an increase in reliability and ease of use than an increase in processing power.

[RGBVideo]

XP is good enough for me - with the degeneration of PC gaming, I doubt I'm going to need to update this within the next 5 years. cIV MP all the way.

[Verto]

I'll see what Leopard has to offer.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Verto
I'll see what Leopard has to offer.

They'll change all the theming back to brushed metal, and that alone will account for 500 new features because of all of the dialogs with the new theme.

Only $129.99/year.

[Gatekeeper]

Leopard? Is that Apple's 10.4.x?

[Blake]

I expect that Win2000 will be the last windows I ever run on my desktop. I do have a pirate copy of WinXP on a CD that a friend gave me, so maybe I'll install it next time windows dies.

New versions of windows are mostly fluff. I mean I use Fluxbox in Linux, I don't need any fluff!

[Sikander]

Windows is a lot easier / better to use if you do like I do and remain firmly behind the bleeding edge. This means generally buying slightly older technology for considerably less money. Always do your research and any flaws should have already been discovered, allowing you to put together a nice affordable and stable marriage of OS & System. Buy your games the same way, from the bargain bin, fully patched and well known entities that you know will run well on your slightly older machine.

[Wraith]

I'll probably be stuck using it at work pretty soon (gonna hurt, though, unless they upgrade my laptop. XP is bad enough with all the other stuff they run on it), but I'm still using 2000 at home (dual boot with Suse). Never saw a compelling reason to upgrade to XP, don't see one to upgrade to Vista.

--"Not only can they include an uber-cheap windows Starter Edition on the $300-ish PCs"

Actually, probably not. Starter Edition is their replacement for the cut-down version of XP they're currently only selling in places like Africa. The extreme limitations on it (remember the whole three programs running thing?) make it completely unsuitable for the US consumer market, even on the el-cheapo boxes.

Still, it's about the same number of versions as XP. The only real problem with the Vista versioning is the big difference in capabilities. Some of the stuff they're excluding from the consumer oriented ones is going to hurt the family tech who's supporting his mother across town remotely. And I can see a lot of corporate execs being ticked at not being able to do the full multimedia thing and insisting on ultimate instead of the corporate editions.

THe other big problem is the timing of the release, at least for those who went with the subscription-style licensing. That's going to tick off a lot of companies, unless MS lets them upgrade despite it being outside the contracted time period.

--"Protected media streams that run in isolation from the rest of the system to prevent tampering."

Ones that will require a new monitor to display, thanks to the HDCP requirements. The "security" here is all about letting the media companies control what you buy, which is why I'm against it.

--"It seems like theres something wrong in the profounding philosophy of the OS developing industry."

I have to agree. I get kind of annoyed with the constant flood of eye-candy focused bells and whistles when they haven't yet got their existing features to work properly.
But that's how the whole software market is. Featuritis and time-to-market is everything.

Wraith
"Yes, to a first approximation."
-- Econominics professor Bernard Saffran, after being asked if money could buy happiness.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

They'll change all the theming back to brushed metal, and that alone will account for 500 new features because of all of the dialogs with the new theme.

Only $129.99/year.

No, I'd say they are going away from brushed metal, now that Microsoft is so keen on it

[Atahualpa]

Windows

[Verto]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Leopard? Is that Apple's 10.4.x?

OS X 10.5

[Asher]

Originally posted by Verto
No, I'd say they are going away from brushed metal, now that Microsoft is so keen on it

When has Microsoft used brushed metal?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Wraith
Never saw a compelling reason to upgrade to XP, don't see one to upgrade to Vista.

I tend to agree, so far~ I haven't seen a single feature in Vista that's a must have for me. A lot of the work is under-the-hood, and I'm impressed by it, but... nothing I need right away.

Still, it's about the same number of versions as XP. The only real problem with the Vista versioning is the big difference in capabilities.

XP Starter
XP Home
XP Professional
XP Professional (Enterprise Licensing)

That's only 4 Windows Clients, with two of them differing only in licensing method.

Vista has 7, at least. Honestly, it just strikes me as them trying to dilute the brand too much. XP was supposed to be the beginning of a one-size-fits-all type Windows (merging the two distinct lines of 9x/Me with NT/2k), and that was great~ I didn't mind having two distinct client versions there, one for corporate, and one for personal use. However, when they started coming up with things like Tablet Edition and Media Center Edition, I started getting a bit cranky...

Yes, I know that not everyone needs every feature; however, part of the reason why OS X has so many rave reviews is that they have only ONE version to sell, and everybody gets it, no matter what machine they have. Call it a lack of choice, but it definitely seems that the mass market consumer doesn't really want that much choice. (Yes, the rhetoric is nice, but remember what we said about sheep in politics? how they don't really give a damn about anything? marketing and computing? not that different, unfortunately--and that's just one reason why Linux, for all its choice, hasn't caught fire like everyone wants: choice is scary.)

Ones that will require a new monitor to display, thanks to the HDCP requirements. The "security" here is all about letting the media companies control what you buy, which is why I'm against it.

This is one of the biggest things I don't like about Vista. What's worse, it'll be appearing in OS X 10.5 Leopard, too.

"It seems like theres something wrong in the profounding philosophy of the OS developing industry."

I have to agree. I get kind of annoyed with the constant flood of eye-candy focused bells and whistles when they haven't yet got their existing features to work properly.
But that's how the whole software market is. Featuritis and time-to-market is everything.

QFT.