Why Vista has failed so far

My first exposure to computers was in 1968 in high school. It was an
ungainly beast the size of a desk that could only do the functions that any
of today's cheap calculators can do. In college I took classes in computer
programming and could write programs in Fortran, Cobol and Basic. I've
worked with Commodores and Tandys. I got my hands on my first PC in 1985, an
IBM PC with a whopping 20 Megs of hard drive space that was running on DOS.
Since then I've worked with Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT, Server 2000, XP
Home, XP Pro and Vista Home Premium. Currently I am a consultant for the 4th
largest producer of software in the US. My job is making the users of my
company's software better at what they do. Our software uses a Linux OS at
its core. I am not trying to brag, just stating my experience.



I am running Vista HP on my home computer and XP Pro on my company laptop. I've
had Vista running for 15 months on its original installation. I always
wondered at the pure hate people express towards the OS as I have had very
few problems with it, actually less than I have had with the XP Pro on my
laptop. But I think I may have figured out why Vista has attracted so much
vitriol.



When XP first came out it was a huge improvement over Win 98, the most
prevalent OS in use at the time. Some people were using Server 2000 instead
of 98, but they were the power users of the time. When XP came out however,
it wasn't to cheers from the press. The web based review sites and magazines
blasted it soundly. It was too buggy, there were very real problems with
hardware drivers and it was a resource hog, necessitating beefing up
hardware to run properly. Software compatibility was spotty with 98 and NT
based programs. If you doubt me on that, on an XP machine go to All
Programs, Accessories and you will find the Program Compatibility Wizard
that was put in so 98 and NT programs would run on XP. I remember distinctly
that gamers were complaining loudly how bad XP was for them, that it would
never be a gamers OS. I had a rather vigorous email conversation with Kyle
Bennett, founder of the Hard OCP site about this because he had said the
exact same things about Server 2000 when it came out. And guess which OS he
was defending while soundly criticizing XP just a couple of years later?
Yep, all of a sudden Server 2000 was the best OS ever and XP would never
measure up. Does all this sound familiar?



So now we have Vista and all of the complaints and criticism that were
heaped on XP are being thrown Vista's way. I find it funny that so many
people are quick to say that Vista sucks, but they never can come up with a
solid reason as to why they think so. Maximum PC magazine recently tried to
justify their hatred of Vista by publishing a list of 7 things they thought
were wrong. Out of all 7 the only valid one was that, in some applications,
Vista is slower. That was the only quantifiable issue they could come up
with. And yes, on equal machines Vista can be slower. Just as XP was slower
on a machine designed to run 98 or 2000.



But this still doesn't explain why Vista has had such a slow start. After
all XP managed to take hold in spite of all the complaints about it. And
then the other day I came up with a theory. XP came out at the time when PCs
were really coming on strong with businesses. There were quite a few before
XP, but the majority were running 98 which was not an ideal situation. When
I first started with my current company PCs were nowhere near as common as
they are today. Expense was a big reason. Mostly just managers had them on
their desks. The workers that needed computer access did so with dumb
terminals. With the advent of XP there was also a noticeable and steady
decline in hardware prices and PCs became much more prevalent. More and more
the PC replaced the dumb terminal, and they were running XP. A whole lot of
people learned to use a PC that was on XP.



And then along comes Vista, and they don't want to change. They are
comfortable with XP. One of the first lessons I learned in my current job is
that people do not like change of any kind, and that definitely applies to
computer programs. I get so tired of trying to explain why my company's
software doesn't run just like our competitors'. Even when you can show them
that something is better they will resist the change. They want new, but
they want it to look and act like their old software.



Then there are the Microsoft haters. They are a very vocal group that seems
to take great pleasure in criticizing and bashing anything and everything
Microsoft and Bill Gates does. To them Gates is the anti-Christ. I don't
understand the feelings, but I know they are there. I find it interesting
that these same people have no problem with Steve Jobs of Apple. Here's a
man and a company that control not only the software but also the hardware
that goes with it. Talk about a monopoly! Just try and go out and buy the
Mac OSX software pre-installed on anything except an Apple brand computer.
You can't. But no one is suing him.



Then there is the fact that, even though Vista is a good, stable and more
secure OS than XP, it's not a quantum leap better like XP was over 98.



The final piece of this puzzle is the fact that businesses are at capacity
for PCs. We are unlikely to see any further large scale expansion of PCs
into the workplace like we saw in the early 2000s. Just about everyone has
their PCs and has had since before Vista. And they are running XP. System
Administrators lead very hectic lives and they do not want to have to learn
and support a new OS until they absolutely have to. Plus there is the real
expense of obtaining the licenses for all those machines.



So there you have it, millions of users that have learned on XP and do not
want to change, a huge installed base of machines that will take a long
time, and a lot of money to upgrade, no real compelling reason to switch and
a small, but very vocal group that wants to, once again, tell everyone how
bad Microsoft's latest product is just because its Microsoft's.



Vista is a good OS that has not deserved the bad rap it has gotten. Some
people are saying they will wait until Windows 7 comes out. I'm willing to
bet when it does we will hear the exact same criticisms we are hearing
today.

"ArseClown" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD6916EB43BDVistaSlightlyBetter@211.29.13 3.50...
> "Notrod" <> wrote in message
> news:2Ywck.18362$%:
>
> <egotistical_drivel_snipped>
>
> **** OFF, you complete and utter wanker. Perhaps spend more time
> browsing this froup before posting your ****ing garbage...
>
> I guess, at 54, now that getting a full erection is something you
> can't accomplish, posting how ****ing great you are gives you the
> same feeling??

ArseClown? Does that mean you like getting ****ed up the ass?

I have spent quite a bit of time browsing this group, thus my post. If the
best you can come up with is insults, rather than an honest and intelligent
response, I can't help but deduce that you are a 13 year old virgin that a
real woman abhors, that can't come up with a better answer than this.
Whether or not I can attain a full erection, (which I can, there's your
wanking image for the next month, you queer) has nothing to do with what I
wrote. With age comes experience and wisdom. Toss out the insults as you
please. Lack of an inelegant response to the points I raised just shows the
world how immature you really are. The true sign of a person who can not
defend their position is insults.

Unless you have an intelligent reply, that addresses the points I made, go
back to you cartoon porn sites and let the adults discuss this.

"Notrod" <> schreef in bericht
news:2Ywck.18362$%...
> My first exposure to computers was in 1968 in high school. It was an
> ungainly beast the size of a desk that could only do the functions that
> any of today's cheap calculators can do. In college I took classes in
> computer programming and could write programs in Fortran, Cobol and
> Basic. I've worked with Commodores and Tandys. I got my hands on my first
> PC in 1985, an IBM PC with a whopping 20 Megs of hard drive space that was
> running on DOS. Since then I've worked with Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT,
> Server 2000, XP Home, XP Pro and Vista Home Premium. Currently I am a
> consultant for the 4th largest producer of software in the US. My job is
> making the users of my company's software better at what they do. Our
> software uses a Linux OS at its core. I am not trying to brag, just
> stating my experience.
>
>
>
> I am running Vista HP on my home computer and XP Pro on my company laptop.
> I've had Vista running for 15 months on its original installation. I
> always wondered at the pure hate people express towards the OS as I have
> had very few problems with it, actually less than I have had with the XP
> Pro on my laptop. But I think I may have figured out why Vista has
> attracted so much vitriol.
>
>
>
> When XP first came out it was a huge improvement over Win 98, the most
> prevalent OS in use at the time. Some people were using Server 2000
> instead of 98, but they were the power users of the time. When XP came out
> however, it wasn't to cheers from the press. The web based review sites
> and magazines blasted it soundly. It was too buggy, there were very real
> problems with hardware drivers and it was a resource hog, necessitating
> beefing up hardware to run properly. Software compatibility was spotty
> with 98 and NT based programs. If you doubt me on that, on an XP machine
> go to All Programs, Accessories and you will find the Program
> Compatibility Wizard that was put in so 98 and NT programs would run on
> XP. I remember distinctly that gamers were complaining loudly how bad XP
> was for them, that it would never be a gamers OS. I had a rather vigorous
> email conversation with Kyle Bennett, founder of the Hard OCP site about
> this because he had said the exact same things about Server 2000 when it
> came out. And guess which OS he was defending while soundly criticizing XP
> just a couple of years later? Yep, all of a sudden Server 2000 was the
> best OS ever and XP would never measure up. Does all this sound familiar?
>
>
>
> So now we have Vista and all of the complaints and criticism that were
> heaped on XP are being thrown Vista's way. I find it funny that so many
> people are quick to say that Vista sucks, but they never can come up with
> a solid reason as to why they think so. Maximum PC magazine recently tried
> to justify their hatred of Vista by publishing a list of 7 things they
> thought were wrong. Out of all 7 the only valid one was that, in some
> applications, Vista is slower. That was the only quantifiable issue they
> could come up with. And yes, on equal machines Vista can be slower. Just
> as XP was slower on a machine designed to run 98 or 2000.
>
>
>
> But this still doesn't explain why Vista has had such a slow start. After
> all XP managed to take hold in spite of all the complaints about it. And
> then the other day I came up with a theory. XP came out at the time when
> PCs were really coming on strong with businesses. There were quite a few
> before XP, but the majority were running 98 which was not an ideal
> situation. When I first started with my current company PCs were nowhere
> near as common as they are today. Expense was a big reason. Mostly just
> managers had them on their desks. The workers that needed computer access
> did so with dumb terminals. With the advent of XP there was also a
> noticeable and steady decline in hardware prices and PCs became much more
> prevalent. More and more the PC replaced the dumb terminal, and they were
> running XP. A whole lot of people learned to use a PC that was on XP.
>
>
>
> And then along comes Vista, and they don't want to change. They are
> comfortable with XP. One of the first lessons I learned in my current job
> is that people do not like change of any kind, and that definitely applies
> to computer programs. I get so tired of trying to explain why my company's
> software doesn't run just like our competitors'. Even when you can show
> them that something is better they will resist the change. They want new,
> but they want it to look and act like their old software.
>
>
>
> Then there are the Microsoft haters. They are a very vocal group that
> seems to take great pleasure in criticizing and bashing anything and
> everything Microsoft and Bill Gates does. To them Gates is the
> anti-Christ. I don't understand the feelings, but I know they are there. I
> find it interesting that these same people have no problem with Steve Jobs
> of Apple. Here's a man and a company that control not only the software
> but also the hardware that goes with it. Talk about a monopoly! Just try
> and go out and buy the Mac OSX software pre-installed on anything except
> an Apple brand computer. You can't. But no one is suing him.
>
>
>
> Then there is the fact that, even though Vista is a good, stable and more
> secure OS than XP, it's not a quantum leap better like XP was over 98.
>
>
>
> The final piece of this puzzle is the fact that businesses are at capacity
> for PCs. We are unlikely to see any further large scale expansion of PCs
> into the workplace like we saw in the early 2000s. Just about everyone has
> their PCs and has had since before Vista. And they are running XP. System
> Administrators lead very hectic lives and they do not want to have to
> learn and support a new OS until they absolutely have to. Plus there is
> the real expense of obtaining the licenses for all those machines.
>
>
>
> So there you have it, millions of users that have learned on XP and do not
> want to change, a huge installed base of machines that will take a long
> time, and a lot of money to upgrade, no real compelling reason to switch
> and a small, but very vocal group that wants to, once again, tell everyone
> how bad Microsoft's latest product is just because its Microsoft's.
>
>
>
> Vista is a good OS that has not deserved the bad rap it has gotten. Some
> people are saying they will wait until Windows 7 comes out. I'm willing
> to bet when it does we will hear the exact same criticisms we are hearing
> today.
>


Hi Mark, is that you?
--
Mark Kent, Linux advocate by night and Microsoft partner by day.
"At BT Global, our crown jewels are the services we supply to our
customers. With jNetX we own the intellectual property for our services,
allowing us to evolve the services as and when required."
Mark Kent
Head of Technology Strategy
http://www.jnetx.com/index.php?id=products
Mark Kent's partner Microsoft:
http://www.jnetx.com/index.php?id=ourpartners
http://www.jnetx.com/fileadmin/image...ll/logo005.jpg
Mark Kent's jNetX N(X) - Convergent Network Services for Microsoft CSF
https://solutionfinder.microsoft.com...10ba73b82dbdb4
Download Mark Kent's Microsoft demo:
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dbox_Demo.pptx

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:21:10 +0200, Clogwog wrote:

> "Notrod" <> schreef in bericht
> news:2Ywck.18362$%...
>> My first exposure to computers was in 1968 in high school. It was an
>> ungainly beast the size of a desk that could only do the functions that
>> any of today's cheap calculators can do. In college I took classes in
>> computer programming and could write programs in Fortran, Cobol and
>> Basic. I've worked with Commodores and Tandys. I got my hands on my first
>> PC in 1985, an IBM PC with a whopping 20 Megs of hard drive space that was
>> running on DOS. Since then I've worked with Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT,
>> Server 2000, XP Home, XP Pro and Vista Home Premium. Currently I am a
>> consultant for the 4th largest producer of software in the US. My job is
>> making the users of my company's software better at what they do. Our
>> software uses a Linux OS at its core. I am not trying to brag, just
>> stating my experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am running Vista HP on my home computer and XP Pro on my company laptop.
>> I've had Vista running for 15 months on its original installation. I
>> always wondered at the pure hate people express towards the OS as I have
>> had very few problems with it, actually less than I have had with the XP
>> Pro on my laptop. But I think I may have figured out why Vista has
>> attracted so much vitriol.
>>
>>
>>
>> When XP first came out it was a huge improvement over Win 98, the most
>> prevalent OS in use at the time. Some people were using Server 2000
>> instead of 98, but they were the power users of the time. When XP came out
>> however, it wasn't to cheers from the press. The web based review sites
>> and magazines blasted it soundly. It was too buggy, there were very real
>> problems with hardware drivers and it was a resource hog, necessitating
>> beefing up hardware to run properly. Software compatibility was spotty
>> with 98 and NT based programs. If you doubt me on that, on an XP machine
>> go to All Programs, Accessories and you will find the Program
>> Compatibility Wizard that was put in so 98 and NT programs would run on
>> XP. I remember distinctly that gamers were complaining loudly how bad XP
>> was for them, that it would never be a gamers OS. I had a rather vigorous
>> email conversation with Kyle Bennett, founder of the Hard OCP site about
>> this because he had said the exact same things about Server 2000 when it
>> came out. And guess which OS he was defending while soundly criticizing XP
>> just a couple of years later? Yep, all of a sudden Server 2000 was the
>> best OS ever and XP would never measure up. Does all this sound familiar?
>>
>>
>>
>> So now we have Vista and all of the complaints and criticism that were
>> heaped on XP are being thrown Vista's way. I find it funny that so many
>> people are quick to say that Vista sucks, but they never can come up with
>> a solid reason as to why they think so. Maximum PC magazine recently tried
>> to justify their hatred of Vista by publishing a list of 7 things they
>> thought were wrong. Out of all 7 the only valid one was that, in some
>> applications, Vista is slower. That was the only quantifiable issue they
>> could come up with. And yes, on equal machines Vista can be slower. Just
>> as XP was slower on a machine designed to run 98 or 2000.
>>
>>
>>
>> But this still doesn't explain why Vista has had such a slow start. After
>> all XP managed to take hold in spite of all the complaints about it. And
>> then the other day I came up with a theory. XP came out at the time when
>> PCs were really coming on strong with businesses. There were quite a few
>> before XP, but the majority were running 98 which was not an ideal
>> situation. When I first started with my current company PCs were nowhere
>> near as common as they are today. Expense was a big reason. Mostly just
>> managers had them on their desks. The workers that needed computer access
>> did so with dumb terminals. With the advent of XP there was also a
>> noticeable and steady decline in hardware prices and PCs became much more
>> prevalent. More and more the PC replaced the dumb terminal, and they were
>> running XP. A whole lot of people learned to use a PC that was on XP.
>>
>>
>>
>> And then along comes Vista, and they don't want to change. They are
>> comfortable with XP. One of the first lessons I learned in my current job
>> is that people do not like change of any kind, and that definitely applies
>> to computer programs. I get so tired of trying to explain why my company's
>> software doesn't run just like our competitors'. Even when you can show
>> them that something is better they will resist the change. They want new,
>> but they want it to look and act like their old software.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then there are the Microsoft haters. They are a very vocal group that
>> seems to take great pleasure in criticizing and bashing anything and
>> everything Microsoft and Bill Gates does. To them Gates is the
>> anti-Christ. I don't understand the feelings, but I know they are there. I
>> find it interesting that these same people have no problem with Steve Jobs
>> of Apple. Here's a man and a company that control not only the software
>> but also the hardware that goes with it. Talk about a monopoly! Just try
>> and go out and buy the Mac OSX software pre-installed on anything except
>> an Apple brand computer. You can't. But no one is suing him.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then there is the fact that, even though Vista is a good, stable and more
>> secure OS than XP, it's not a quantum leap better like XP was over 98.
>>
>>
>>
>> The final piece of this puzzle is the fact that businesses are at capacity
>> for PCs. We are unlikely to see any further large scale expansion of PCs
>> into the workplace like we saw in the early 2000s. Just about everyone has
>> their PCs and has had since before Vista. And they are running XP. System
>> Administrators lead very hectic lives and they do not want to have to
>> learn and support a new OS until they absolutely have to. Plus there is
>> the real expense of obtaining the licenses for all those machines.
>>
>>
>>
>> So there you have it, millions of users that have learned on XP and do not
>> want to change, a huge installed base of machines that will take a long
>> time, and a lot of money to upgrade, no real compelling reason to switch
>> and a small, but very vocal group that wants to, once again, tell everyone
>> how bad Microsoft's latest product is just because its Microsoft's.
>>
>>
>>
>> Vista is a good OS that has not deserved the bad rap it has gotten. Some
>> people are saying they will wait until Windows 7 comes out. I'm willing
>> to bet when it does we will hear the exact same criticisms we are hearing
>> today.
>>
>
>
> Hi Mark, is that you?

> Mark Kent, Linux advocate by night and Microsoft partner by day.
> "At BT Global, our crown jewels are the services we supply to our
> customers. With jNetX we own the intellectual property for our services,
> allowing us to evolve the services as and when required."
> Mark Kent
> Head of Technology Strategy
> http://www.jnetx.com/index.php?id=products
> Mark Kent's partner Microsoft:
> http://www.jnetx.com/index.php?id=ourpartners
> http://www.jnetx.com/fileadmin/image...ll/logo005.jpg
> Mark Kent's jNetX N(X) - Convergent Network Services for Microsoft CSF
> https://solutionfinder.microsoft.com...10ba73b82dbdb4
> Download Mark Kent's Microsoft demo:
> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dbox_Demo.pptx

Sure looks like it.
Same formatting and choice of paranoid words.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

To directly answer the title of this thread;

It's quite simple. Vista doesn't offer enough new features that can't be
found in previous versions of Windows using free software, Vista is
bloated and consumes more resources than necessary, is expensive, and
has experienced a lot of problems in just becoming stable.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:42:11 +0100, Ben wrote:

> To directly answer the title of this thread;
>
> It's quite simple. Vista doesn't offer enough new features that can't be
> found in previous versions of Windows using free software, Vista is
> bloated and consumes more resources than necessary, is expensive, and
> has experienced a lot of problems in just becoming stable.

Believe it or not, with the exception of the stable comment, I pretty much
agree with your statements. At least from the consumer's point of view.
Vista, at least from my experience and reports, is rock solid.

The problem with Vista is that most of the improvements are under the hood.

The average consumer doesn't see that much like the average consumer
doesn't see the difference between an SK tool and a Dollar Heaven special.

The other problem is that the applications and hardware drivers have not
caught up with Vista quite yet. This is highly dependent upon application
though with the video and audio guys scratching their head but the average
user not having too many problems.
But if you happen to be one of those with problems, Vista is going to suck
for you. That's just the way it is.

What it boils down to is why would a consumer switch to an OS that for all
practical purposes, from their perspective, doesn't do anything different
than what they have and depending upon their hardware might even perform
worse?

They don't.

However, the same can be said of Linux but it's even worse because now the
application factor is at 100 percent because the user is being forced to
use new applications as well as a new OS and one that is completely
different from their current one.

In the case of Linux, being free just isn't enough.

My personal belief is that one of the big boys, IBM or HP, has got to take
on Microsoft directly and wage a full scale battle by introducing a
commercial version of Linux that is FULLY supported and SERIOUSLY marketed.

Not some blip hidden on a website that is spattered with "We recommend
Vista" etc.

The distro of the day, fragmented support and 1000 different ways of
accomplishing things is a poor method for getting Linux into the hands of
the average person.

Linux needs credibility, and yes we all know NASA uses Linux, super
computers use Linux etc and while that's great in OUR eyes, we are geeks
and average Jane is not.
Jane's answer is "I have a desktop not a rocket".

Jane needs the comfort of an IBM or HP or maybe even Lenovo to back Linux
FULLY, SERIOUSLY and without pandering to Microsoft to the point where
it's obvious some are afraid of stepping on Microsoft's booties (shoes, for
Martii and HPT who's minds are in the gutter)....

Can it happen?
I suspect IBM is working on it right now.
Will it ever see the light of day and stand a chance?
I honestly don't know because the public is just too fickle.


Just my 2 cents...



--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:42:11 +0100, Ben wrote:
>
>> To directly answer the title of this thread;
>>
>> It's quite simple. Vista doesn't offer enough new features that can't be
>> found in previous versions of Windows using free software, Vista is
>> bloated and consumes more resources than necessary, is expensive, and
>> has experienced a lot of problems in just becoming stable.
>
> Believe it or not, with the exception of the stable comment, I pretty much
> agree with your statements. At least from the consumer's point of view.
> Vista, at least from my experience and reports, is rock solid.
>
> The problem with Vista is that most of the improvements are under the hood.
>
> The average consumer doesn't see that much like the average consumer
> doesn't see the difference between an SK tool and a Dollar Heaven special.
>
> The other problem is that the applications and hardware drivers have not
> caught up with Vista quite yet. This is highly dependent upon application
> though with the video and audio guys scratching their head but the average
> user not having too many problems.
> But if you happen to be one of those with problems, Vista is going to suck
> for you. That's just the way it is.
>
> What it boils down to is why would a consumer switch to an OS that for all
> practical purposes, from their perspective, doesn't do anything different
> than what they have and depending upon their hardware might even perform
> worse?
>
> They don't.
>
> However, the same can be said of Linux but it's even worse because now the
> application factor is at 100 percent because the user is being forced to
> use new applications as well as a new OS and one that is completely
> different from their current one.
>
> In the case of Linux, being free just isn't enough.
>
> My personal belief is that one of the big boys, IBM or HP, has got to take
> on Microsoft directly and wage a full scale battle by introducing a
> commercial version of Linux that is FULLY supported and SERIOUSLY marketed.
>
> Not some blip hidden on a website that is spattered with "We recommend
> Vista" etc.
>
> The distro of the day, fragmented support and 1000 different ways of
> accomplishing things is a poor method for getting Linux into the hands of
> the average person.
>
> Linux needs credibility, and yes we all know NASA uses Linux, super
> computers use Linux etc and while that's great in OUR eyes, we are geeks
> and average Jane is not.
> Jane's answer is "I have a desktop not a rocket".
>
> Jane needs the comfort of an IBM or HP or maybe even Lenovo to back Linux
> FULLY, SERIOUSLY and without pandering to Microsoft to the point where
> it's obvious some are afraid of stepping on Microsoft's booties (shoes, for
> Martii and HPT who's minds are in the gutter)....
>
> Can it happen?
> I suspect IBM is working on it right now.
> Will it ever see the light of day and stand a chance?
> I honestly don't know because the public is just too fickle.
>
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
>
>

*blinks and rubs eyes, wondering if that's really Moshe*

Somebody pinch me?

* Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>
>> Believe it or not, with the exception of the stable comment, I pretty much
>> agree with your statements. At least from the consumer's point of view.
>> Vista, at least from my experience and reports, is rock solid.

If it works in the first place.

>> The problem with Vista is that most of the improvements are under the hood.
>>
>> The other problem is that the applications and hardware drivers have not
>> caught up with Vista quite yet.

See my comment above.

>> This is highly dependent upon application
>> though with the video and audio guys scratching their head but the average
>> user not having too many problems.
>> But if you happen to be one of those with problems, Vista is going to suck
>> for you. That's just the way it is.

See my comment above.

>> What it boils down to is why would a consumer switch to an OS that for all
>> practical purposes, from their perspective, doesn't do anything different
>> than what they have and depending upon their hardware might even perform
>> worse?
>>
>> However, the same can be said of Linux but it's even worse because now the
>> application factor is at 100 percent because the user is being forced to
>> use new applications as well as a new OS and one that is completely
>> different from their current one.

Unfortunately, most users simply copy Microsoft software, rather than
try the good free/Free stuff that is out there.

>> In the case of Linux, being free just isn't enough.

Indeed.

<rest of reasonable argument snipped>

>> Just my 2 cents...
>>
> *blinks and rubs eyes, wondering if that's really Moshe*
>
> Somebody pinch me?

Nah. He throws in some rational thought now and then to keep you off
balance. He'll be raving and slurring in no time.

--
All of us should treasure his Oriental wisdom and his preaching of a
Zen-like detachment, as exemplified by his constant reminder to clerks,
tellers, or others who grew excited by his presence in their banks:
"Just lie down on the floor and keep calm."
-- Robert Wilson, "John Dillinger Died for You"

Linonut wrote:
> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>> Believe it or not, with the exception of the stable comment, I pretty much
>>> agree with your statements. At least from the consumer's point of view.
>>> Vista, at least from my experience and reports, is rock solid.
>
> If it works in the first place.
>
>>> The problem with Vista is that most of the improvements are under the hood.
>>>
>>> The other problem is that the applications and hardware drivers have not
>>> caught up with Vista quite yet.
>
> See my comment above.
>
>>> This is highly dependent upon application
>>> though with the video and audio guys scratching their head but the average
>>> user not having too many problems.
>>> But if you happen to be one of those with problems, Vista is going to suck
>>> for you. That's just the way it is.
>
> See my comment above.
>
>>> What it boils down to is why would a consumer switch to an OS that for all
>>> practical purposes, from their perspective, doesn't do anything different
>>> than what they have and depending upon their hardware might even perform
>>> worse?
>>>
>>> However, the same can be said of Linux but it's even worse because now the
>>> application factor is at 100 percent because the user is being forced to
>>> use new applications as well as a new OS and one that is completely
>>> different from their current one.
>
> Unfortunately, most users simply copy Microsoft software, rather than
> try the good free/Free stuff that is out there.
>
>>> In the case of Linux, being free just isn't enough.
>
> Indeed.
>
> <rest of reasonable argument snipped>
>
>>> Just my 2 cents...
>>>
>> *blinks and rubs eyes, wondering if that's really Moshe*
>>
>> Somebody pinch me?
>
> Nah. He throws in some rational thought now and then to keep you off
> balance. He'll be raving and slurring in no time.
>

Is it intentional, or rather just moments of lucidity between extended
periods of delusion?

Or did he remember to take his medication this morning?

ELW wrote:
> "ArseClown" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AD6916EB43BDVistaSlightlyBetter@211.29.13 3.50...
>> "Notrod" <> wrote in message
>> news:2Ywck.18362$%:
>>
>> <egotistical_drivel_snipped>
>>
>> **** OFF, you complete and utter wanker. Perhaps spend more time
>
> You're an asshole.

Don't you mean 'ArseClown'?