digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Microsoft starts a "Get the Facts" campaign...against itself

blogs.cnet.com — Imagine the kind of savings you could get if you just stopped using Windows altogether! Few to no security issues. Less administration. Etc.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • baalzebub, on 10/10/2007, -27/+17of course ms is full of bull, the question is when is ms not full of bull? (a. never)...
    • UltraMegaFilms, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Unless you have some information to portray, stop your childish bad mouthing.
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Really? So where is the 270+ patent infringements by Linux?

        I guess his boss is the pot whilst yours is a kettle.
  • puelocesar, on 10/10/2007, -32/+2hehe That's fun for sure
  • puelocesar, on 10/10/2007, -35/+2hehe

    That's fun for sure :)
  • puelocesar, on 10/10/2007, -31/+3ok, digg one of my comments down... this thing is a little bugged
    • ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19or both of them :)
      • lengau, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Or all three...
      • puelocesar, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1hey, you peaple are cruel... they could let we delete our comments...
        • leksdraven, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1What do you expect? They are Americans.
          • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7What, Texas is part of Mexico again?
          • TalkingBanana, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Well ***** you
          • leksdraven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ha ha! Texas is part of the United States, sabach. I never said it wasn't.

            @all: chill, I was just joking. :) lighten up every once in a while, silly Americans...
    • kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I'm digging down the one with the happy face
    • rpgmaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Digg's new comment system FTW!!! :D
  • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -13/+178"According to research conducted by Wipro and GCR Custom Research, total cost of ownership for Windows XP is $4,407 annually, while Vista's cost is $3,802."

    "By the way, the study claims that switching to Vista saves on hardware costs."

    AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    • kretik, on 10/10/2007, -19/+8FTA: [ Peculiarly, the study actually was based on XP usage and extrapolations based on Vista capabilities because there was not a substantial base of Vista clients in use yet when the study was done early in 2007]

      Laughing yet?
      • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31So they're basically admitting these "facts" are completely made up.

        So.....am I laughing?

        Yes.
        • kretik, on 10/10/2007, -19/+2So is the infantile claim that they're starting a "get the facts campaign against themselves".
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6@kretik
          Wow, nice comeback. It's like saying " Nuh uh, you're the immature one."
          Brilliant!!
      • Arawn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Laughing even more... :D
    • dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35Typewriters were cheaper. Much cheaper.
    • riverrunner, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8with that much savings (on either) I could buy a really nice mac or two.
    • MasterDwarf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6or this one...
      "Anyway, Microsoft must really be hurting if it has to resort to beating up on its most stable product in years. It's clearly desperate to get people to move off XP (you know, the Windows OS that actually has hardware/peripheral support, a lot of software written for it, needs a lighter hardware platform, etc.). Maybe the open-source crowd should just wait for Microsoft to beat itself into oblivion."

      I had to chuckle.
    • mastertop, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Damnit, are you all freakin' retarded?

      From the article
      "total cost of ownership for Windows XP is $4,407 annually, while Vista's cost is $3,802. The $4,407 figure was derived from costs of hardware, software, IT labor, and user costs...."

      Basically, the stupid guy who wrote that article thought.. Oh, I will just read 'from costs of hardware' the other stuff, I don't care about !
      Thus, MICROSOFT says VISTA saves on software, IT labor, and user costs.
      while the news writer says *****...
  • AstralSin, on 10/10/2007, -9/+69WOW, i cant stand microsoft's products but i didnt think their users were stupid enough to believe this crap. vista saving on hardware costs HAS to be a joke, they can't be serious about that. XP is more secure because its been out for so long and many of its holes have been patched, vista is a breeding ground for new exploits and vulnerabilities. i mean come on, they could have at least waited for SP1 before starting this crap.
    • ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3care to explain how "vista is a breeding ground for new exploits and vulnerabilities" when vista is a xp faceplate?
      • Macskeeball, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16I heard on Security Now that Vista has a brand new networking stack, one that (at least initially) reintroduced old bugs.
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Go and look up software engineering. It is common knowledge that all new software suffer from more bugs than old ones that has gone through many iterations.
        Vista is a new code base. It hasn't been road test as much as XP.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14[quote]WOW, i cant stand microsoft's products but i didnt think their users were stupid enough to believe this crap. [/quote]

      MS conned the world and tied consumers into Windows back with Win95. CONSUMERS DID NOT KNOW ANY BETTER. They are only now starting to realize that they've been had.
      • misterjangles, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18To be fair, Windows 95 was not a bad choice at that time. Linux was only just getting started - open source did not have the credibility it does these days. Commercial Unix systems were way too expensive for most. Mac was not doing so hot at the time either.

        Vista on the other hand seemingly offers nothing that new - and nothing that is really very visible to the consumer aside from a little bit of eye candy. Windows 95 was more revolutionary for the industry I think. Vista just seems like XP with more crap piled on.
        • sudowrestler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1095 was the last Microsoft product I remember people getting really excited about. It was a huge improvement over 3.1x, of course. And, as you said, Mac was in the depths of its slump and Linux was just starting up. I think Microsoft is probably surprised at Vista's slow acceptance, given the eye candy. Maybe nowadays there's already so much eye candy on the web that people aren't that easily impressed anymore. People live more in their browsers than in their GUI these days.
        • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11You're completely right. It's Win98 when Microsoft lost it. That's when the Internet Revolution was starting to take hold, Microsoft killed Netscape by embedding Internet Explorer into the "core OS" (their words, not mine), decided ActiveX was a good idea, bought in DirectX and killed OpenGL compatibility/performance, started writing the specs for ACPI which would become the bane of computer users everywhere, decided to kill Java by trying to make their own proprietary version of it, and when finally ruled that they couldn't, completely removed support for it, the list goes on and on...
          • raymanunique, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Whilst I agree with most of what you said, I have to say that Sun "killed Java" with it's stupid lawsuit on Microsoft. If they hadn't done that, there might not have been any C# on .NET for that matter.
        • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3misterjangles,
          you obviously dont have Vista yet you write about it.

          if you had Vista you'd know it's more than just a pretty face.

          Really, I don't mind people having legitimate views on the pros vs the cons of vista but blanket statements just make you look stupid to those of us who actually have Vista and use it.
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@yournamehere
          Really, so instead of pointing out where he is wrong by providing evidence, you assumed he doesn't have Vista and didn't bother substantiate your statement how vista is more than a pretty face.
          Ok, let's give you a chance. Tell me technologically how is Vista so much different from XP and please don't point out the Aero bullcrap or the in your face access control.
      • antdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1WIndows 3.0 was the starting point.
    • madk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah because there are all those Vista exploits out there...
  • AstralSin, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28well, i sure learned something from this article... Wipro and GCR are untrustable and probably paid off by M$
  • cloakeddagger, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14has anyone ever read any of these studies? they're as self deluded as that guy who hangs around near my building telling people he's going to save them from the comming invasion....

    the people who write them have no souls...
    • JesperL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, sure. Berate me now, unwashed youth; you'll be sorry when the aliens invade!
      • seventoes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"I dont have to go to war, right?"
        "Only if war were declared."
        *sirens*
        "Whats that?!"
        "War were declared."
    • MyIQ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1OK, I'm confused... is the deluded guy who hangs around near your building going to save you from an ALIEN invasion, or a ZOMBIE invasion? If it's the Zombie one, then he's evidently there to save you from the people who write the studies? Right? You said yourself, they "have no souls..." -- clearly, the "functional un-dead". So, the guy sounds like he's on the right track... he's evidently anti-Windows-studies-writer, and he's probably armed with Ninja thorwing mini-disks of Puppy, Slax, or DSL. Or maybe he's going "big guns" and he's got a Ubuntu lanucher. ZACK! - another zombie loses his head.
      Of course, if he's going to save you from the ALIEN invasion...
      Greens, Grays, or Yellows? Greens or grays and he's clearly delusional... they have far more advanced technology, including Linux intergalactic cell communicators. If it's the Yellows, he's either planning on building a 1,000-mile long fence, or he's going to do landscaping for you. Or maybe open a Mexican resturant.

      What's in HIS wallet?
  • Sil369, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32It's like those food commercials that claim their product has 70% less sugar/fat than "the leading brand". Except they don't say what brand it is - thus, it could be thier own products they're referring to...
  • 7of7, on 10/10/2007, -42/+7Nice FUD jackass. OMG, the Windows monster is coming to get me. The only people who have problems with Windows are those who shouldn't be near a computer in the first place. They're the same people who give their credit card information to telephone scammers and join pyramid schemes.
    • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16You know what, Toby, when the son of the deposed king of Nigeria emails you directly, asking for help, you help! His father ran the freaking country, okay?
    • iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Are you insulting me?
      • Ayavaron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No. It's a reference to the NBC version of "The Office."
    • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, Vista chokes on large file transactions because I gave my credit card number to a telephone scammer.
    • wilhoitm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Are you running Vista?
    • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He can't be a jackass, it's universally know that you've already taken that title on digg.
  • TheLoneWolf071, on 10/10/2007, -18/+13With all do respect... Blow it out your ass...

    Vista will not save you anything... you'll have to choose which license is best for your users, then you'll have to upgrade all your hardware by at least two-fold, along with having to buy all new versions of your software because the old versions are not compatible with vista...
    • consonance, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14You definitely don't know what you're talking about.
    • kernokerno, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17With all "due" respect, no?
    • Kazbaeden, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9I'm actually running Vista Ultimate on a 3 year old laptop with 512mb RAM and a 1.2GHz pentium M processor (1.0 on the Vista benchmark). It's probably worth $400 today. I find Vista just as responsive as XP on the same machine, and even more responsive in some cases such as opening programs and coming back from sleep. I haven't done any formal tests, but under the same usage scenarios I last longer on battery power under Vista as well. All my old software works, all drivers were installed automatically.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is... blow it out your ass.
      • Acqua206, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Oh man, I'm going to have to call BS on that one. I ordered a bottom of the barrel dell notebook about a month ago with home basic. It has a 1.2 AMD processor and 512MB ram. It is unbearably slow. This is basic so theres no Aero and no gadget toolbar either. I have no problems with vista on my beefy desktop however....well I did have a perpetual crash problem with Alcohol 120%.
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, I believe it, I also believe you too. I've had many wildly varying Vista installs that I fully believe you could take two identical computers, install Vista on both of them and get different performances from each. I have a computer that the RC1 version ran rock solid, but the current retail blue screens on every 10-15 minutes, one computer that ran slower after a format, although the same setup process (drivers, software) was used on each install, etc. I'm sure others can extend my list too.

          I wanted to like Vista, but right now it can't deliver a reliable experience across different hardware; something XP pretty much had mastered.
      • celerate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm with Acqua206, I had a Toshiba Satellite M40X-RH4 (Celeron M 1.5GHz & upgraded to 760MB of RAM) and tried putting Vista on it. The result was a much slower computer and significantly shorter battery life.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"I'm actually running Vista Ultimate on a 3 year old laptop with 512mb RAM"
        Absolute *****. I was forced to use a 512mb vista workstation last week and it was the slowest piece of ***** I had ever seen. It made me think they were running the ***** over a 56k modem.
    • zeptobyte, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5It's plenty easy to turn off all the memory-consuming features of Vista. You can turn off Aero if need be (which you have no reason no to do in a business environment, where TCO is important), and that alone will reduce the hardware requirements immensely. Vista is more secure, and doesn't have much higher hardware requirements unless you want the fun effects that you don't really need to begin with. Most software has no compatibility problems, except for certain programs like anti-virus software which requires very low-level access.
      • airtonix, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3more secure? how.... and have you used the sudo feature of linux?

        for when i compare the two....
        i see the vista equivilant as an annoying yes/no dialog box that just gets in the way...of my mindless destruction of my computer.

        but then i try to destroy my ubuntu machine.... mindlessy...
        nope cant do it.... not with out manually entering password each time...

        omg thats right im in admin mode...cant do that now can we ;)


        so again... with windows complicated permission system and prositution style security on default installs....how agin is windows secure?

        not to mention your giving this wonderful gift to those who care less about decent passwords? bandwidth...huh whats that.....megacrumbs?

        the more you cater for retards the easier it is to lead them.

        law of desire
      • airtonix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0there...more retarded actions by myself.

        none shall escape the detriment of entropy!
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you're saying if I buy Vista and knock it back until it only has all the features of XP or Win98 i'll be able to use low specs again. Brilliant!
  • Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28"Imagine the kind of savings you could get if you just stopped using Windows altogether! Few to no security issues. Less administration. Etc." - Exactly what I was thinking.
    • zeptobyte, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5Because Windows is the most widespread OS by far, there is a far greater number of competent administrators for it. So you have to pay them less, so you save money there. And for the record, Windows doesn't have very many security issues, except for idiot users. Most security measures you have to apply aren't to deal with inherent flaws in the operating system.
      • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Good Windows administrators still cost a fair amount. However there are a whole array of cereal box MSCEs that I wouldn't let near my pocket calculator, forget a computer.
        • airtonix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0hear hear.... and i bet you there are more average *nix admins than there are good 'dozer admins.
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Linux is also vulnerable to idiot users, the same steps to lock down Windows would have to be performed on Linux also. I love Linux, but I don't deny the overhead involved with it, and the cost of transition often outweighs continuing to pay for MS stuff.
        • philhatesyou, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0That's most certainly not true. If I do an install of Windows and am not behind a firewall(on a globally routable IP address), I'll have viruses within 5 minutes(from experience). I can do the same with a Linux/FBSD/Solaris install with no worry of worms whatsoever.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You know how many security holes I just had to fix on new windows servers these past few weeks. Don't give me that ***** about them not having many holes. A new install of Windows is a candyland for hackers.
  • kalleanka, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE!
    It says "The $4,407 figure was derived from costs of hardware, software, IT labor, and user costs...."
    NOWHERE does the Microsoft text he quotes say that the cost of hardware is less with Vista. It just say that the $4407 figure is based on hardware, software etc etc.
    The author of the article should learn to read the text he quotes himself before making false stupid statements.
    • YourDoom123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6actually, he was referring to the report itself, not the quoted text. granted, this could have been made more clear.
    • Chicken001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You're really... Okay you have to re-read this article. What the author is trying to point out is the savings (from their biased opinions) from Windows Xp and Windows Vista. I'm sure they pulled out some stuff because they did not specify what costs Windows Vista's statistic derived from. What-ever the opinion is, it is cheaper to go with Open-Source over licensed products.
  • deadlift, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6EPIC FOOLS
  • riverstyx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13This is like the big-top soda association saying that its soda is nutritious and hydrating because it contains water. They ignore the fact that soda contains caffeine and sugar and a boatload of other things not even worth mentioning.

    They really did say that too. Even said it contributed to a healthy lifestyle.

    The comparison im making is: Its not what you say, its what you Don't say.
  • kretik, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5More FUD from Roy *****. Nowhere in that article does it say that the cost of hardware is less with Vista.
    Tired of being buried for his never-ending "OMFG Novell Xandros Linspire OOXML R TEH SUXX0RZ" comments on every single Digg article, he's apparently decided to try "humour" to see if his spam sticks around longer than usual.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Personal attacks are not allowed on Digg.
      • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4They're a nice way of completely dancing around the subject at hand.
      • kretik, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1Neither is spamming and FUDing for fun and profit.
        I love that pretty much the two nads that behave exactly like ***** actually replied to me. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
        • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"....the two nads...."

          Well that's not nice.
  • ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2why are people so surprised by this? you act like the business model behind this is a mystery and theyre shooting their own foot. obviously xp is the majority of the market share, and theyre trying to convince people to upgrade from their old product to their new product. whats so insane about this?
    • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It's not insane, just desperate.
    • gavintlgold, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How can we trust someone with a windows logo as a profile image? :D
  • greevar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Flawed by design...
    • andyakadum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ahem...

      Defective by design (.org)
  • yunus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Why the F would they advertise XP costing $4407 a year. I would have never guessed the cost being that high. This would be like GM trying to sell a Hummer by advertising the gas mileage it gets.
    • kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7But Vista can bring it down to the low low price of just $3802!!!
    • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And how the hell are they coming to either figure? Do they have a dedicated admin for every 10 computers or something?
    • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1i dont understand how you came to advertising the Hummer's gas mileage to sell a GM car is equal in example to dollars spent per year for their older OS vs their newer.
      • yunus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3GM makes Hummer, there are lots of great ways to advertise why people should get the hummer. Its a 4x4 for example, its big, powerful blah blah blah. Gas mileage is not a good example.

        Microsoft makes XP, there are lots of great ways to advertise why people should get XP. Its the industry standard, its got good games, blah blah blah. Cost of ownership is not a good example.
        • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1but your "example" doesn't show any of that.
    • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why does it even cost $4407 to use XP? Red Hat charge $800 for support a year.
  • ratsg, on 10/10/2007, -11/+68The day m$ comes up with something that doesn't suck will be the day they start selling vacuum cleaners.
    • thefinger, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4The day people like you stop using "m$" is the day I might take your opinion more seriously. Idiot.
      • philhatesyou, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Thank god noone is concerned with who's opinion you take seriously!
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Why? m$ is much faster to type that Microsoft. The only people who get offended with m$ are usually ms fanboys.
  • sniperhare, on 10/10/2007, -19/+4I've never had a problem with any Microsoft software. My Windows XP doesn't crash, i've never had a blue screen of death or anything like that. Nothing but good things to say about Microsoft. I needed to learn to not play my 360 for 7 hours straight, but they even sent me my check back even though my 360 was outside of the origional warranty. Which was totally unneccesary but awesome.

    I love Mircrosoft.
    • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Heh. It's amazing how much a person can come to adore a company because they have good luck with their products and customer service, even when the bulk of other people aren't getting anywhere near the same results. I sometimes wonder if corporations pick customers at random to turn into fanboys in this manner?
      • sniperhare, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0My parents and brother have had good success as well. We did have to get my dad's laptop fixed, but that was because he didn't renew his anti virus software and got a worm. I'm not against other products, I had Firefox installed on my old computer.
        • andyakadum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You shouldn't have had to renew your antivirus in the first place. Geez, its not your DADS fault, its Microsofts! Or YOURS, for letting him install that piece of *****,
          Jesus, if it wasn't defectivebydesign(.org) it wouldnt need it in the first place.

          None of my computers do (5macs 4linux)
  • iNoles, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Does this sounds like gecko commercials? Your can save a lot of money by switching to Vista. LMAO!
  • jtmach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Whatever, it says right here they guessed at the results. Wow the guess matches the message they wanted to send, who would have thought.

    [quote]Peculiarly, the study actually was based on XP usage and extrapolations based on Vista capabilities because there was not a substantial base of Vista clients in use yet when the study was done early in 2007...[/quote]
  • fieryprophet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Everyone is missing what the report is really saying, which is actually funnier than what's being assumed here.

    The key thing is that it claims that using "Microsoft best practices" (e.g. using an entirely Windows Vista-based environment, security model, servers, administration techniques, etc.) these savings are what one could expect. The only problem is that those "best practicies" cost a fortune themselves in implementing them AND are almost never seen in real world usage. Microsoft is a corporation that requires an immense cashflow. We, the consumers, are not supporting their cash sucking habits, and therefore must be swindled with some made up "facts."
  • Diggtatorship, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Not too long ago, Microsoft did the same thing to front page. They released a PDF document that basically ripped frontpage a new cornhole. The same document went on to explain why their new product, expression web, was sooo much better than frontpage.
  • psycybrfrk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13well, all the reasons they give are *****. I have a feeling MS is just trying to slow the adoption of linux. If you've seen any of their server ads where they say "xxx adopts ms server over linux!" and say really great but wrong stuff about windows. If you need examples to know how much windows sucks on a server, myspace uses microsoft products, while facebook uses linux.
  • R75700, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1The best way to market a bad game, is to announce you're not going to be releasing it. Thus saving people from wasting their time and money... And in return earning some credibility by saving your marketing for a good game.
  • Herolint, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13This is nothing new. Microsoft has always bashed their old products when new ones come out. I think it is funny to. It's like they've just discovered what everybody else knew all along. Their products are crap.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Are you THAT ***** stupid. The VAST majority of people love Microsoft products. That is kind of why they are a 300 billion dollar company.

      You will NEVER be in the majority of anything. People will always laugh at you wherever you go, from now until the day you die a lonely, lonely virgin FAR more people enjoy Microsoft products without ANY complciations than EVER will enjoy Macs or Linux. If you truly don't see htat, you are so far gone from reality that it is amazing.
      • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11People use Windows because of networking effects, little else. I rarely meet a person who is actually happy with Windows.
        • gfnw, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I'm happy with Vista. I used Linux as my primary OS for 9 years before I recently switched. I decided to make the switch, as I found myself dual booting into Windows more and more for games. I originally had a stripped down XP install, only used for games, but I ended up installing more and more apps on it to save me switching back to Linux while gaming for small tasks, and in the end I figured I may as well just go with Windows full time.

          So I got a copy of Vista, formatted and installed it.

          I'm not about to say that Windows is better than Linux, I still miss many aspects of Linux in day to day usage (I expect I could find equivalents for some of them should I actually take the time to look) in probably the same way that people switching from Windows to Linux will find the environment a bit alien, but on the whole my experience has been fine.

          I can't speak for others, but my personal experience with Vista has been fast, responsive and hassle free so far. I can turn off Aero, and various other features to save resources should I wish. I choose not to.

          Overall I am happy as of this point in time.
          • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You have to be a plant, NOBODY goes from 9 years on linux to Microsoft.
          • gfnw, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Currently Windows on the home desktop suits my needs better than Linux. If I didn't play games I'd probably have no reason to use Windows over Linux though, as my other requirements are fulfilled by both operating systems. Regardless, I'm happy with my choice, fanboys (on either side) be damned.
          • gfnw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Hmm, dugg down for saying I'm happy with Vista. I'm not one to whine about being dugg down, but come on. That's pretty bad even for you digg. For shame.
          • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I cut my teeth on DOS and HP-UX. Windows 95 was pretty exciting, it went the direction I always thought computing should go. I knew about linux but didn't really get interested until I saw Red Hat 4, it sucked but I could see the potential. For a long time I used NT 4 Server for my home desktop, talk about stable. In the meantime I was learning about debian and it's always been an important part of my computing arsenal. IMHO MS reached their pinnacle with Win2000; NT kernel, 9X interface, stable as *****; I just 2 weeks ago did away with a W2K Pro install that had been running for over 5 years and set up an XP box (mainly for my daughter, her software for school requires XP). If not for that I'd have all my computers running 2K (or etch) forever, to me XP was a step backwards and vista is an even bigger step into the past.
        • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3um, NO.. people use windows because they can work and play their games.
    • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1why are you people digging him down for telling the truth? just because people on digg may like something other than Windows doesn't change the current market share.
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You know a company is too big when...
  • trinest, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8Vista > XP
    • cramstick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4apparently yeah, nice work for understanding the article.
    • DeathGod321, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I really do like vista, but I hate that they got rid of the file types menu, so it can go either way.
    • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Do you realize that this could also be interpreted as an arrow leading from Vista to XP?
  • whiteguysamurai, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Vista ended up being free for me, so it was cheaper in that respect.
    But in defense of MS vista is a better product than XP was in the same time frame.
    • ChOas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Free at the start, sure...

      But you'll pay for it in the end... with (spare) time, frustration, etc.
      • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2oh ChaOs, i'm soooo scared. What will happen in the end? Bats will fly out of Vista's nipples?

        you are one of those people that just have nothing better to do than bash bash bash and it gets old.

        Do you own Vista? Have you ever even run the OS on your computer for more than 1 week? No? Didn't think so.
        At this point Vista is light years better than XP was before it's SP1 came out.

        • zigspective, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I should fricken hope so! It's only been years...

          The point is when it's Vista vs. XP SP2, Vista does not give some great motivating reason to switch right now.
        • DeathGod321, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"by zigspective on 09/08/2001
          The point is when XP vs 2000 SP4, XP does not give some great motivating reason to switch right now."
      • whiteguysamurai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe if i were running a server, sure you might have a point.
        But i'm a home user, and in reality it's not all that frustrating at all.
        That's a myth sir.
  • MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I happen to enjoy Vista more anyway, so whatever, but... this was a foolish thing to do. The people who are "in the know" won't care or will disregard this, and the people who are clueless won't see this and probably wouldn't buy a new OS anyway. So basically it just ends up making Microsoft look dumb in front of the geeks, which is not something they need at the moment...
  • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2More ***** from *****.
    Again Roy...if YOU are too ***** stupid to make your circa 1997 web page with Windows, fine. But most people are not stupid. You are worthless, and always will be. Most people are not. That is not Microsoft's fault. It is your parnets fault. Eveyr day they wonder how the ***** you turned out so bad and consider suicide rather htan live in shame of having you as a kid. They laugh at the fatc that you have a fat ***** picturee of yourself on your site..sadly, that would be hte BEST picture they have of you. No one will ever loveyou. Get used to that.
    • tgoose, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5What? Chill out.
    • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7What are you, 7 years old?
    • fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wow, and you continue your streak of douchebaggery. I'm not really surprised. You must be one of those people that has such a low self-esteem that you bash everyone else you can to make yourself better. For that, I pity you.
  • flamebot, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3"idnt think their users were stupid enough..."

    linux total cost of ownership: immaturity
  • RockinRoel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1"Just look at the facts!" - some juror from 12 angry men
  • Sphonix, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Umm... WTF... $4,407... How... I bought 1 copy of XP for my latop, cost about 100 (no idea really)... the laptop itself was pretty expensive... but $4,407?!? I've been using this laptop for 3 years, and the initial cost was about half the annual cost... wtf. Even including software... what have i bought for XP... umm well considering i don't buy much software at all (freeware ftw) i would say that would be under 100 bucks... Yeah... Unless you have to take your computer to the tech every 3 months, $4,407 is a ***** figure. XP costs me 0 dollars annual.
    • fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5This is supposed to be TCO for an Enterprise environment. This is meant for a CIO to read and compare total cost of ownership of Vista versus XP. It's not really targetted at the home user.
    • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1take the statement in context. they are talking about cost per unit in the corporate world, not home users.
  • tHeSiD, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0well they have to compete with the best os out there and unfortunately its their own
    • fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think "best" is a bit of a stretch. I think you mean most commonly used.
  • purdo, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6FTA - "Imagine the kind of savings you could get if you just stopped using Windows altogether! Few to no security issues. Less administration. Etc."

    I'm sorry but anyone who thinks they will have less administration with Linux than Windows is disillusioned! I think a lot of people in the linux community on Digg base their assertions on Windows 95, 98. The world has changed people, Vista is actually a good OS. Before Vista came out, I was using Linux almost exclusively at home until i realised I was spending nearly all my time trying to just "get it right". There's always something not right. With Vista it does just work, sorry not popular or cool, but it's true.
    • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1it is true. quick Linux users digg him down before the 91% remaining Windows users find out the truth and don't convert.

      lol, you guys are so desperate.
      • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1its true. Later Windows versions have made the command-prompt almost irrelevant. Try doing ANYTHING with hardware in Linux without going into the shell and searching 20 wikis first. When Linux works out of the box, it's fine: when it doesn't, you need a Linux geek to sort it out. Something your average computer user isn't.
        • ratsg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You will prove yourself a true computer user when you can realize (and admit) that $GUI is just something in your way hampering your efforts to getting any real work done. Unless you are some middle level manager who spends your (computer) life producing spreadsheets and reports in a word processor.
      • sleepwalkers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I love how you think this is some sort of serious business where Linux users are trying to cover up the truth by Digging someone down or some stupid ***** like that.
        I'd be willing to bet at least $20 that Linux Digg users don't honestly care if you do or don't switch to Linux (and honestly, anyone willing to switch to another OS simply because of what someone says on Digg is just a 'tard).
    • theaceoffire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, he never mentions linux...
      You have to admit, if you stopped using windows (AKA, didn't replace it), it would be cheaper... in the short term anywho.
    • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Can you name one instance where it wasn't right?
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"I was using Linux almost exclusively at home until i realised I was spending nearly all my time trying to just "get it right". "

      Good god man,what obscure distro were you using?
      Ive used two different versions of Linux for over a year and I spent no time whatsoever trying to get it "just right"...it was "just right" from the get go.
      Ive already tried the live DVD of KLIKIT Linux and it works perfectly...And when it goes beta,it's mine...Another "just right" distro.
      So I'm taking your story with a grain of salt as big as my head.
  • Grapekiller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I take solace in the fact that anyone dumb enough to be taken in by that ad will either,
    (a) be too stupid to notice
    or (b) deserve what he/she gets.
  • Meep3D, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4What about badvista.org? When Linux does the FUD it's fine and acceptable, when MS does it they are evil and wrong?
    • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4There's a difference: Badvista's FUD is true, Microsoft's is not.
  • Cherubim, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0GNU/Linux aint no panacea for those disgruntled with Windows insecurities. There are plenty of annoying bugs in the *nix world that require extensive tech support skills to troubleshoot. Windows is "good enough" for most end users but falls short as a scalable and fault tolerant OS.
    • InorganicMatter, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Not to mention that:
      1) The majority of software businesses use is exclusively available on the Windows platform
      2) Linux Servers + Windows Workstations is a pain in the ass to manage on even the most basic level
      • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"1) The majority of software businesses use is exclusively available on the Windows platform"

        The majority of server software is also available for Linux.

        "2) Linux Servers + Windows Workstations is a pain in the ass to manage on even the most basic level"

        Only if you have no clue how to do it. If you have the slightest clue, it's easier - though I can see how your job as a Windows admin, "punch the button labeled restart every few minutes", must be pretty easy. :)

        Disclaimer: Yes, the minutes thing is hyperbole. More like weeks.
  • falafelkiosken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Using Vista as a server? ms must be kidding, it's like driving F1 with a Trabant... But the choise is up to the customer; rock solid UNIX or a joke OS, also known as Vista.
    I have never believed in microsoft's "facts" and the "Get the facts" campaign really annoys me...
  • Shpox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7More like a "twist the truth" campaign.
  • InorganicMatter, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0I can actually believe it, because this article is basing it's information on business and enterprise usage of Windows XP for doing work, not the meaningless consumers who buy HP laptops with Vista Basic at Wal-Mart for $299. As an IT guy in a small-medium business, I can say that my department has spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on fixing things that are inherently broken in Windows XP. Windows 2000 Server + Windows XP Pro is a piece of swiss cheese when it comes to security, and our main office painfully shows it. Vista is going to save us a ton of money in management and deployment costs when we deploy it with Server 2008 in the next few years. It's everything an IT guy has ever dreamed of, all wrapped up in one product that Microsoft finally got right after 20+ years.

    As for the hardware comment, the added costs of hardware are going to be well-offset by the savings in management costs. Hardware is cheap anyways - I can deploy a kickass Core 2 Duo workstation to a new employee for less than $700, which is NOTHING in the scope of business.
  • ahvi, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Microsoft ftw?
  • cotaskmemalloc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0To the poster - you're a ***** idiot. To whoever wrote the original article - you're a ***** idiot as well. Oh my god, I want to brain you with a large metal pole. You're so ***** stupid.
  • detro1tjok3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Saying "Windows XP" rolls off the tongue. "Vista" gives me diarrhea.
    • sentinel106, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Interestingly enough "Vista" is Latvian for Chicken. Yes, that's right, Microsoft has made Windows Chicken for some of their European consumers.
  • Zoshchenko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6For years companies have used the strategy of "NEW AND IMPROVED" to promote a new product. Basically it says our previous product sucked and the new version doesn't. Thing is, most people buy into this without really analyzing it. Yes, Microsoft is desperate. The created a "new and improved" product but they have no credibility because of all the "new and improved" products that have preceded it. On top of that, most people managed to get comfortable with XP and trying to cope with Vista is a total pain in the ass. The Apple commercials were NOT spoofs. So I'm not surprised at all that Vista has failed miserably. No one trusts Microsoft and no one wants to give them any money for fixing things that never should have been broken in the first place.
  • jav1231, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3""If you can reduce the number of core vulnerabilities, you can basically have the savings flow throughout the entire security model," Barna said."

    Uh....enough with the corp-speak. I realize it's part and parcel in marketing hype but who exactly are you talking to?
  • el_jefe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Standard advertising. You emphasize the strengths, play down the weaknesses. They are simply trying to sale a product. The only people who will see this a go, "ooo I better upgrade right now", are executives with no idea what goes on behind the scenes and those IT folk already exclusively doing business with MS. If this ad makes you want to run out an buy vista for your enterprise, you probably shouldn't be the one making the decision for your company. Those that have real experience in a enterprise environment wont need a "Get the facts" campaign from anyone or any company to know what to use in their environment. They wont need advertising to tell them what is good and bad about a particular product.

    Do we really need to point out that a company is running an ad without full disclosure every time they run an ad? I would hope not. Thats an awfully lot of ads.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.