digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at cio.com

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: Vista is 'a Work in Progress'

cio.com — While Microsoft recently extended the date when the XP software will be available for low-cost PCs, it doesn't plan to listen to some other complaints, including that Vista is too big. "Vista is bigger than XP and it's gonna stay bigger than XP," Ballmer said. "We have to make sure it doesn't get bigger still."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BluSkreenOfDeth, on 04/18/2008, -24/+18I guess this falls under the same slogan for doctors. It's practice.
    • wukillabee, on 04/18/2008, -35/+11ahh, a lame apple fanboy with an apple logo in their avatar trolling a windows article.. who wouldve guessed?
      • kipmartin, on 04/18/2008, -13/+27you must be a Vista *****. hows THAT going?
        • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -14/+8I'm a power user and Vista is working fine for me.
        • DanBoodro, on 04/18/2008, -4/+18I'm a power user and Vista isn't working fine for me. I had to upgrade back to XP.
          Though I won't judge Microsoft until I see what Windows 7 has in store. Fair?
        • KaiUno, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9I'm a regular *****. Honest to god!
      • wukillabee, on 04/18/2008, -27/+3lol a mac ***** calling me a *****? please.. only fags use macs and thats a known fact :D
        • tehnico, on 04/18/2008, -6/+18LOLZORS Only FAGS don't know how to reply to the right comment! HAHA LOL!!!1ELEVENTYONE
        • jarek91, on 04/18/2008, -1/+10I guess I'm a homoheterometrobisexual then? I use Vista (Business) at work and (Home Premium) on my personal laptop, Ubuntu on my custom built tower and have an iMac at the house that I use regularly.

          Only fools ignore the merits of different systems and refuse to use the right tool for the job at hand. Each one of my systems exists for a purpose and the OS chosen works best for that purpose.
          • TheGuruStud, on 04/19/2008, -4/+1except for the fact that vista is unproductive no matter the aspect it's used in

            i'll take clueless ppl for 100 alex
        • ByteGuerilla, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5Troll Rating: 2/10, must try harder.
        • popfrogs, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1It is pitch black and you are likely to be eaten by yourself. _
        • KiraDnote, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Steve Ballmer sucks.
      • ism70605, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1We really should start embracing all religions and their followers. I embrace them all: Windows Worshippers, Applites, and Linux users. What happened to religious tolerance, people?
    • christor, on 04/18/2008, -6/+1Actually, Ballmer explains it better in this video:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPv8PPl7ANU
    • ennTOXX, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2@ Steve Ballmer:
      That's just stating the obvious... :||
  • theaceoffire, on 04/18/2008, -3/+23"Bigger than XP"
    ^_^ First time they got to say that!
    • yuanzhoulu, on 04/18/2008, -5/+4if it's a work in progress, continue to support XP, dude.
  • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -17/+88So why was it released?
    • kingfoot, on 04/18/2008, -13/+55same reason the 360 was released with a 30% failure rate and a 100% possible defective rate.
      • ism70605, on 04/18/2008, -18/+3There is also a 100% POSSIBILITY you suffer from something completely typical. There is also a 0% impossibility that you suffer from something completely typical.
        • ism70605, on 04/18/2008, -9/+0The point is. How can there be 100% possibility? Everything within the norm is 100% possible. Even getting three kinds of cancer at once. If it can happen then it is also by logic 100% possible. How can you people not see this. That comment makes no sense.
          • theaceoffire, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1There is a 100% possibility that I said this.
            There is not 100% possibility that you will get 3 cancers at once.
          • KiraDnote, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0There is not 100% PROBABILITY that you will get 3 cancers at once. 100% possibility? Yes.
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -20/+9Do you have any citation for that "30%" number that comes from an worthwhile source or do you just like to repeat nonsense?
      • jabberwolf, on 04/18/2008, -8/+5HAHA 100 percent "POSSIIBLE" failure rate.
        That's like saying there is a 100 "POSSIBLE" rate that aliens took you out in space and replaced your brain.
        It's 100% "possible" right?

        Yet seriously, MS replaced the 360s if people wanted them to, they were proactive in releasing their findings, and responsible as a vendor for replacing them. 360 still the largest sold console on the planet. why? Because in the end, it still kicks ass and has the most games available for it!
        • theaceoffire, on 04/18/2008, -0/+8Don't you mean, "They denied it as a problem until they were finally forced to admit it, at which point they did something?"
      • Speed, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2I really should return my 360, I must have a defective model. I mean, I get none of the problems that the people on Digg complain about.
    • FutureGuy, on 04/18/2008, -6/+25For the same reason as every other OS. Every OS is a work in progress, that applies to XP (SP3 is about to be released), same for OS X, they just patched 90 security holes (http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/ ... and if anyone wants to claim [insert your favorite OS here] is not a work in progress then its already outdated, so don;t blow this out of proportion.
      • MacParrot, on 04/18/2008, -4/+14Well said FutureGuy. The only OS that is not a work in progress is a dead OS
      • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -4/+18Yes but they are usually released post-beta. You cannot seriously tell me that Vista was a ready-for-live operating system when it was released.
        • Kamujin, on 04/18/2008, -13/+6Vista was far more stable at release then XP and was more tested then any other modern OS. 90% market share means something, So does running on more then 5 hardware models.
          • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -5/+14"90% market share means something,"
            Yeah it means your software is a pack in because you have contracts with leading vendors that force them to offer you operating system. It means 90% of your consumers don't know they have another choice.
          • popfrogs, on 04/18/2008, -7/+290% marketshare just says you're running an awesome monopoly. Even the gov't is afraid of Microsoft, the only gov't with enough balls to stand up to their shenanigans is the European Union, seems like every few months they've won another lawsuit.
          • Speed, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3But the EU does go to far. Including WMP in Windows has become cause for the EU to sue them.
          • Kamujin, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1This is a delusional argument. There are a lot of reasons to bash Microsoft, but Windows was a the better OS then OS9 (no preemptive multi threading) and easier to use then Linux (although this is changing).

            People made the right choice and if you can't see that, your an idiot. At this point, the choices are different and people should consider switching. I am using Linux as my daily driver now, but its only recently that its reached the point that I can do so as comfortably.
        • Speed, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1I can seriously tell you that. Doesn't mean it's true, but I can still tell you that.
          • noahhoward, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2You must be one hell of a poker player.
    • chris9902, on 04/18/2008, -4/+12Name 1 piece of software you've ever used that's been 100% complete.
      • asdfrewq, on 04/18/2008, -1/+29Minesweeper.
      • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -3/+12Software is never complete, but I have used plenty of software that worked 100% as advertised at release.
        • FutureGuy, on 04/18/2008, -5/+2Well we are taking OS here, and I assume you know that they are a pretty complex piece of software, name 1 OS that worked 100% as advertised at release and didn't need any patches.
          • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -6/+6OSX 10.4 met expectations for me and my initial introduction to it was on an older model powerMac. But what you are missing is that a lot of the things on Vista were not just little issues, they were crippling ones.
        • Philluminati, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Software *can* be complete. It can have all the requirements set out in it's design and specification documents. Minesweeper is complete, for example. All the rules are in. It works etc.
      • tripzero, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5ls, cp, cat. oops, that's 3 :P
        • Hermmunster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1ipconfig, netsh, regsvr32, chkdsk, that's 4.
      • zero21xxx, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5Notepad.
      • hazelnoot, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1http://www.bernardbelanger.com/computing/NaDa/
        It doesn't do a lot but it does it perfectly
    • davie1699, on 04/18/2008, -2/+6Ya I agree with ya man. It doesn't make much since to release a new product that's inferior to your current product. I mean what the hell are they paying those R&D guys for anyway? lol I hate to sound like the conspiracy guy but I think Microsoft may be in cahoots with hardware vendors. Think about it, what other OS requires you to double your computing resources over previous versions? I was running XP fine with less than a gig of RAM then once I installed Vista you could barely do anything until I installed another gig.
      • fr34k5h0w, on 04/18/2008, -8/+2Because computers have expanded dramatically since XP was introduced in 2001. In the five years between XP and Vista, 1 gig of RAM has become a standard minimum for an OS. Processors have gone multi-core, but have to be taken advantage of by the OS and the programs. Video cards are becoming a key component to a good experience. And so on.
        Vista is just assuming that you have taken advantage of the latest and greatest things in the market. Right now it will suck if you are upgrading your computer to Vista because your computer probably doesn't have the latest and greatest components. But the next time you buy/build a computer with Vista, it won't be as suckish since the OS is designed to take advantage of your hardware.
      • jabberwolf, on 04/18/2008, -8/+3WOW and windows 98 ran fine with 512mb of ram, but I had to upgrade to 1 at least with XP to run it well.
        And that's when memory was expensive.

        So what are people bitching about?
        • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -2/+7OSX runs fine on on 512 and has all of the features Vista promised. It also has a much smaller install footprint.
        • Speed, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2XP ran fine on my 512mb machine. I have no idea what you're going on about.
          Also, 98 ran fine on machines with much less memory.
    • Planets, on 04/18/2008, -2/+6The same reason KDE was released prematurely, I guess.
      • Philluminati, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2Yes and No IMO. KDE 4.0 was not as stable as they liked. They decided to release earlier to stimulate development but pro actively told casual users to wait for KDE 4.1. It was not an irresponsible act or a deceptive act. Further to this, and unlike Microsoft, they are continuing the support the version before for a few more years. KDE 3.5 is still under active development and is supported.
      • kleverness, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Open source development model != Proprietary software development model
        The "release often, release early" model works basically because it's open source software.
    • jabberwolf, on 04/18/2008, -8/+3BECAUSE WE ALL WANTED IT!
      We were foaming at the mouth and downloading beta versions like crazy.
      Some tools got beta versions and complained, and they told their friends, and they told mactards who NEVER EVEN USED VISTA!

      Most of the complaints of the RELEASED vista were inplace upgrades with incompatible hardware/drivers.
      Gee that never happened with windows 98 to XP (sarcasm) !!! Yet now they wont want to leave XP.

      Why do inexperienced tards, and mactards, think they know what people want? Sales and REAL VISTA users know what we want!
      • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -2/+9So why is Vista a flop? Microsoft knows it's a flop so why don't you REAL VISTA users know it? There is nothing they will be able to do to recover Vista, even if they fixed it completely the damage was done when they dumped a garbage release on users who had to upgrade their computers to use the damned thing. I don't give a damn what your experience was like the fact of the matter is that REAL USERS hated it so damn much the venders were forced to offer a ***** DOWNGRADE! Reality is calling. Microsoft hyped Vista to no end and crapped all over what could have been a great OS.
        • Markie1006, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4As well as crapping all over the idiots waving their pom-poms defending it.
        • Hermmunster, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Few people like change. To many of the Vista fans it is just XP with a pretty interface and changes to security. They don't know about Microsoft's abrasive history toward competition and how it misused it's monopoly power to kill competitor and some wonderful products. They don't think about vendor lock in, only about how their latest office app or whether they have more features in Office 2007 than they did before. It isn't about doing it right and having choices to them, it's about doing it. You can't blame some of them but one has to ask when will such grotesque behavior by Microsoft be finally seen by these folks as having a negative impact on their computing future (hence their lifestyle, their well being, etc.) Had some of the competitors survived this we might have seen greater advancements in computing even far far beyond what we have today. They just don't see the bigger picture I guess.
        • crazydiode, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2dude.. its an upgrade to XP not a downgrade.
  • koft, on 04/18/2008, -11/+134All operating systems are a work in progress.
    • theaceoffire, on 04/18/2008, -15/+41True, but you normally don't offer beta or alpha level products to your client before testing is done.
      • FKnight, on 04/18/2008, -12/+19Unless you're Google, then it's okay, right? At least Microsoft's software comes OUT of beta and ends up being supported. No matter what features Google products lack, no matter how buggy, and no matter what, they have an out ... "hey, what do you expect? It's beta. Quit bitching." And these are Google's products that are out and "released."
        • ism70605, on 04/18/2008, -1/+18I don't remember Google's products having complete control of PCs and being mission critical. That is the difference between MS and Google. We also don't pay Google to use search. We are not the customers of Google we are the product. They sell ad revenue so we click on it. Not have a search so we can use it for free.
        • DanBoodro, on 04/18/2008, -3/+11I didn't know Google made operating systems.
        • mikedoth, on 04/18/2008, -1/+14Do you have to pay for Google's apps?
        • jftitan, on 04/18/2008, -0/+16Difference is, Google's beta testing is usually free to the masses. Microsoft on the other hand... well they want to charge you $400 for a beta OS. (Ok, prices went down... but who has been suckered into a new PC with high end specs, only to end up downgrading Windows to XP because Vista is a POS to your new hardware?) *I have
        • matriculated, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7Google clearly states which apps are beta.
        • thedragon4453, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Googles "beta" is MS's "just released 3 years ago."
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -10/+9There was a Beta. And Vista, right now is production read, and it has been since release.

        Three words out of context and this forum thinks its found another piece of FUD....
        • christor, on 04/18/2008, -4/+9"Vista, right now is production read[y] . . ."

          Ready for the production of what?
          • popfrogs, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6"Ready for the production of what?"

            Hardware sales.
    • FredFredrickson, on 04/18/2008, -9/+16Oh please, Stop claiming Vista was "alpha" when it was released. Half of you ***** don't even know what that means.

      Driver support was bad - but anyone who switched from Win98 to WinXP in the early days should have expected that. That is not a fault of Microsoft, and certainly doesn't make the entire OS an alpha or beta release.
      • theaceoffire, on 04/18/2008, -6/+8Alpha is showing its possible, Beta means it works and needs bugs worked out but its basically ready. Release Client means it is damn close to done, minor polishing to do.
        Vista (initially) was very buggy, borderline usable.
        • estvir, on 04/19/2008, -2/+5Lie more, moron. Vista [initially] was not very buggy and it was easily usable. How do I know? I've used it since release (Jan 06) and the only real problems I remember from the early days are Nvidia's drivers sucking (OpenGL games were impossible to play, for example).

          But hey, unlike you liars I actually used Vista whereas you losers just lie out of your teeth to impress the other lemmings on Digg. Have one of them asked you out on a date yet, theaceoffire?
      • secleinteer, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5So when people complain about Linux, they're allowed to whine about the lack of drivers, but they can't do that with Vista? Nice double standard...
        • crazydiode, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3for ***** 200 bucks I would expect that much dude. Linux is free.. just FYI.
  • WomensUnderwear, on 04/18/2008, -24/+15sweaty bald moron
    • jer2eydevil88, on 04/18/2008, -8/+13If you don't like him thats one thing but to just call him a Moron is juvenile... Oh wait I'm on Digg and acting like a 12 year old is par for the course now.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/18/2008, -3/+6It was an entirely accurate statement. He is a moron. Find someone with credibility who lauds him as a great innovator, great businessman, charismatic charmer, or anything. Not even people at Microsoft respect the guy.
      • netant, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1To give you an idea how offensive I find you to be, I find Hillary defenders/Obama-spam whiners less offensive.
      • Darph.Bobo, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2He is a moron and you fill a book with proof. The good news is you're also a moron for defending him.
  • orangefly, on 04/18/2008, -17/+9that's what bush said....
    • DanBoodro, on 04/18/2008, -1/+14Iraq is still in it's pre-Alpha stage. Give em a few years and service packs.
    • santaliqueur, on 04/18/2008, -3/+7Everything have to be about politics in some way? Really?
      • orangefly, on 04/18/2008, -2/+7for seven more months....
        • santaliqueur, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1This is not an election-time fad. He wasn't even talking about one of the candidates.
  • D14BL0, on 04/18/2008, -19/+50So is he trying to say that it's still in beta? You don't sell beta software, Ballmer.
    • goosnargh, on 04/18/2008, -5/+22Why not? Game developers do it all the time :p
      • fuzzlog, on 04/18/2008, -3/+9So you're saying that Windows is a video game?
        • bosssmiley, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2But if your computer dies in the game it dies in real life!
        • jftitan, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3*****... I keep losing every time I reboot.
      • D14BL0, on 04/18/2008, -6/+2They don't SELL the beta version. They RELEASE them. While I don't believe it's a law (yet), most developers will never make you spend a dime on software that may end up turning into a total flop, which is why most MMOs in beta will have full functionality, but any real-life purchases you can make for special items, etc, are disabled, because

        1) There's usually a full wipe after beta
        2) There's a chance that they could cancel the game at any time, and will not refund your money.
        • dianebl, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6goosnargh isn't referring to beta versions of video games. He's implying that some video games are released for sale before they are ready, when they still have severe bugs affecting playability.

          And he's right.
      • Planets, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Namely EA.
    • TheUngod, on 04/18/2008, -12/+18No, but he's saying it may get updated. You know, like a service pack or a patch...those things that ALL operating systems release? I swear people ***** all over MS just because they're MS.
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -13/+8The anti-Vista vitrol is thick. And for good reason. The GNU/Linux and Apple types were hoping that somehow MS would stop developing Windows - they hate Vista because its another leap forward for Windows that they'll have to contend with.

        Working the anti-Vista troll brigade is hard work. Look what happened after Gate's recent Windows7 related comments - it was spun into Anti-Vista FUD. And now, we see the same thing happen to three words from Ballmer. Taken out of context, and used to attack Vista. Blah blah blah borrring.

        MS always endures these kinds of constant impotent attack.
        • MacParrot, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9I don't want Microsoft to stop developing Windows. I have no problems with Windows. I use Windows every day. Stop generalizing
        • meatmcguffin, on 04/18/2008, -4/+10Serious question: Do you work for Microsoft?
          • popfrogs, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4Yeah no *****, I can barely see the comments for the astroturf. I put MS apologists in the same category as holocaust deniers.
      • jftitan, on 04/18/2008, -2/+12I think personally to me, it comes down to the price tag. Most betas I've ever been involved with didn't charge me a arm and a leg. To this day I swear Vista is a POS. For the VERY limited time it was installed on my new workstation at work, It still lacked compatibility, speed, and caused me more problems that it should have right out of the box. Fortunately, being a full time technician I've learned of the problems with Vista beforehand. That still didn't change the fact that when I got Vista it lived up to its disappointments.
      • D14BL0, on 04/18/2008, -2/+7Nobody's ***** on MS. In fact, I'm a supporter. I'm just questioning Ballmer's choice of words. He might not have thought that line all the way through, is all I'm saying.
    • sagat, on 04/18/2008, -6/+3Everybody does it.
    • FutureGuy, on 04/18/2008, -5/+2No he is saying they are still working on improving the OS, just like they have been working on improving XP (SP3 going to be release) and Apple has been impoving OS X, mostly with security patches.
    • illt, on 04/18/2008, -6/+5What do you think OS 10.0-10.2 was?
      Definately beta software.
  • frostbyt, on 04/18/2008, -58/+90*sigh* Microsoft had the money, time, and following to really create an OS light, secure, and fast. Instead we get even more bloated, unsecured, and takes 2 gigs of memory, duel core, and 512 meg video card even to run.

    Thanks Microsoft you turned me into an Apple customer.
    • TheUngod, on 04/18/2008, -27/+12Grand, so you can wait 70+ days for your patches? And Vista may be bloated, but it's plenty secure. Stop making ***** up.
      • jftitan, on 04/18/2008, -5/+12Secure its not the issue here, now is it? Over the past month I've had to nuke and redo Vista installations because Vista will somehow say explorer.exe is untrusted. All the while Norton 360 (or McAfee) allows Trojans to still get through. Oh and lets not talk about security... when the highlights of Vista's security deals with a floggy UAC, and popup warning every time you wish to 'go to the next step'.
        People as the average user tend to not understand why when they have software pre-installed, they assume they are ready for the intartubes. Only to succumb to a virus just as easily as XP would. No extra security there.
        • TheUngod, on 04/18/2008, -7/+4Did you not read the comment I replied to? I was refuting the fact he said it was unsecured.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 04/18/2008, -20/+62How is Vista less secure than it's predecessor XP? I think you need to stop typing ***** up and read for a change.
      • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -20/+5How is XP more secure than vista, you need to demonstrate your own 0-day exploit and post it here or STFU you goober.
        • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -9/+1OH GOD, WAIT DISREGARD THAT.
          • popfrogs, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5Somehow, these 2 posts in a row from a dude named asspants just don't surprise me at all.
      • SSCrow, on 04/18/2008, -7/+7Agreed. I'm sick of all these people talking ***** about Vista before they even try it out.
        • frostbyt, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1I have tried it out, and yes it blows.
      • orbit1979, on 04/18/2008, -5/+4I agree. I have been running Vista since December and not only do not have any of the problems cited repeatedly on Digg, but Vista has been very stable and secure. No viruses, no spyware.
        • frostbyt, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Have you turned your vista PC on? Maybe thats why it has not contracted any viruses/malware.
    • ZippyV, on 04/18/2008, -19/+10Damn if you, damn if you don't.
      People want more functionality but when Microsoft gives it to them it's suddenly "too bloated".
      • frostbyt, on 04/18/2008, -3/+7I just want my OS to simply function, please take all the extra garbage out.
        • jer2eydevil88, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1*HINT* Linux might be for you if Windows and OS X have too much bloat.
      • popfrogs, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6Nobody asked for more functionality or a whiz-bang attention-whore interface. Nobody asked to have the entire start menu and file structure rearranged. The only thing people asked for (besides an encrypted filesystem) is what Microsoft failed to even deliver at all: WinFS. UAC is a joke, something akin to airport security, that is an enormous nuisance which defeats it's own purpose. The system requirements to do equivalent tasks at equivalent speeds in XP are also outrageous. Oh and throw in the pricing and ridiculous splintering (6 versions of Vista...wtf)...
    • Aleman360, on 04/18/2008, -8/+26I'm pretty sure every Windows versions was bigger than the previous. It's the natural result of adding features and supporting an ever-increasing amount of old hardware.
      • marx2k, on 04/22/2008, -1/+0Drivers are not large. Think of how large the linux kernel is and how many drivers are implemented. Adding features? What features have been added that you think necessitates such drastic increases?
    • chris9902, on 04/18/2008, -14/+5For you to still believe what you just posted in 2008 is embarrassing. really embarrassing.
      • frostbyt, on 04/18/2008, -6/+11I work on Computers all day, everyday. Vista blows.
    • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -19/+21How does this kind of nonsense get +14? You're just talking out your anus frostbyt.
    • alarchy, on 04/18/2008, -12/+22Hmm, Vista Ultimate runs just fine on this spare Dell GX270 (2.4Ghz non-hyperthreading P4, 1GB of memory, 40GB Hard drive, NVS290). That's like a 5 year old machine.

      Sure, if you're running Windows 3.11 on a DX2 I can see upgrading to Vista could be a problem...but then again, why are people upgrading super old, below spec machines to a new operating system? What purpose does it serve to upgrade a computer worth LESS than the license you're paying for??
      • Fatality, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Most Linux distros wont run on that either, especially ones running on the newer kernels or using KDE/Gnome.
    • FutureGuy, on 04/18/2008, -11/+12Say want you want but don't use "secure" as one of the reasons. Vista is a very secure OS, OS X on the other had is not as secure as they advertise http://digg.com/apple/PWN_2_OWN_over_MacBook_Air_g ... I didn't find much I can call "bloatware" on a clean Vista install and I find it sufficiently fast.
    • illt, on 04/18/2008, -9/+7everyone always calls new OS's bloated and slow...everyone used win98se for gaming for ages before XP became viable.
      Just give the hardware some time.

      and you're talking as if OS X doesn't chug without a good amount of memory, and is more secure than vista.
      You're clearly a new apple customer, because OS X was terribly unusable compared to vista when it came out. It wasn't really until 10.3 that it felt out of beta.
      • MacParrot, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5I don't have any issues with Windows but you're wrong about OS X. 10 and 10.1 certainly had issues (unsurprisingly with any all-new OS), but most of the instability issues with 10.2 and 10.3 were with Classic Mac OS applications. 9 out of 10 GSODs I got was while using one (yes, as a Mac user I'm admitting I had total system crashes under OS X)
    • greenflyhigh, on 04/18/2008, -9/+3me too! i turned to linux aeons ago but still used windows.... now mac and linux seem the safer and saner option! the church of apple, here i come baby...
      • oblique63, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1'church of apple'?

        you make me ashamed of being a linux user...
        • watcht, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1how are you ashamed it's apple not linux....
    • toxicityj, on 04/18/2008, -12/+14512mb? Are you out of your mind? I'm running Vista on a GeForce 7600 GS 256mb and it runs flawless. Vista is FAR more secure than XP ever will be. as for the memory, Vista runs fine on 1GB of memory. I don't get why idiots keep trying to run it on 5 year old computers. God forbid people upgrade their computers every now and then. Just pull your head out of your ass and stop spewing your crap on digg.
      • frostbyt, on 04/18/2008, -5/+4It's the truth, not crap.
      • DanRabbit, on 04/18/2008, -6/+6The point is that an OS shouldn't take that much resources. My windows explode in a rain of fire every time I close them. with a 128 MB video card. and I'm running all sorts of software in the background. 512 of RAM. Whats wrong with Microsoft that they can't keep up with someone's hobby project?
      • kineticarl, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3I saw a video of the new HP Mini notebook the other day, which has a pretty basic spec, including lowly integrated graphics, and it ran aero just fine. The computer I just built ran aero just fine with integrated graphics as well.
    • ZachSka87, on 04/18/2008, -8/+8Try and put XP on a machine made for Windows 3.1. Progress happens. Go read a book and educate yourself. Machines can't keep the same hardware forever and be expected to perform at the same levels as new models.
    • jabberwolf, on 04/18/2008, -5/+5Apple customers are not customers because Vista, they are customers that need something simple, because they themselves are simple and follow trendiness and propoganda.

      MS had to deal with every vendor in the world, software and hardware-wise. Apple, just plays with itself, as does it's users.
      • celotil, on 04/18/2008, -2/+0I wanted a laptop with a slim form factor, 17 inch screen, good CPU, and decent video card. The metal case is an added bonus since it bends instead of cracking should something impact with my laptop.

        It runs Mac OS X Leopard, and Windows XP, and I've been lucky enough to not suffer the keyboard and trackpad issues that other users have suffered, nor had to deal with XP not finding all of my hardware.

        I like using OS X because, overall, it's more polished than XP, but I keep XP on here for those few games I can't play on OS X.

        I am not a fanboy. I look at each product critically and buy according to both what suits my needs, and how few problems I can find with each product - I grade on a negative scale, which tends to disappoint less in this age of slapped together, mass produced junk.

        MS don't have to deal with every vendor in the world. MS only have to release a fully open, well-documented set of instructions that precisely explain how the interface between the OS and third-party drivers works, and then let the vendor build their products accordingly.

        If MS have done that for Vista, great, and now it's up to the vendors to get their ***** together and deal with the newer design of Vista. If MS haven't then they're making the same mistakes that they made with XP, and as such I would expect a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence to come from power users and casual users alike suggesting that Vista is a steaming pile of dog ***** for a long time to come, EVEN WHILE about the same amount of people say it's fine, there's nothing wrong at all.
    • OSuX, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Vista Ultimate runs on the OQO Model 2, which has weak hardware even by XP standards. 2GB memory? Yes, if you're a noob and you haven't grasped the concept of memory caching then I guess 2GB is a lot, *NIX has been doing it for years, surprise. Security? If you give a mulligan an OpenBSD box they will find a way to screw it up just as easily as Win95
  • knupso, on 04/18/2008, -37/+22Yawn, here come the vista haters.
    All OS' have their faults and their utility.
    Vista doesn't suck as much as many of you make it out to be.
    • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -16/+12Denial is a terrible thing.
      • Zonf86, on 04/18/2008, -6/+14So is ignorance.
        • noahhoward, on 04/18/2008, -6/+4I wouldn't know, you'll have to tell me about it some time.

          When the executives at Microsoft are upset with it, the customers make you offer a downgrade license, your CEO admits it isn't ready and your core clientèle aren't buying it, your product is *****. I'm getting tired of the people who have usable eyes and ears being labeled as haters.
      • 4rp4n3t, on 04/18/2008, -4/+4No it isn't...
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/18/2008, -11/+16Yes it does. It's a waste of time. It has no benefits over a properly tweaked, up to date version of XP. Microsoft didn't come thru with even half the stuff they promised for it. It costs a fortune and it doesn't work properly. Everyone is complaining about it, seriously, I don't know anyone who likes it, & I'm no Apple fanboy (I own no Apple products), nor is anyone I know. Vista may not be a total heap of *****, but it sure is a ***** white elephant.
      • kiddcode, on 04/18/2008, -4/+5I like Vista, although I'll probably get a Mac next time I buy a computer. Vista is very stable for me (I've heard of other people having problems, but I haven't had them myself), the Aero UI has a nice feel to it, and with SuperFetch, there's a lot less disk activity blocking the computer from running smoothly like there is in XP, especially after an anti-virus or other large process runs.

        And really, why was XP so great? What did it offer that 2000 didn't have besides a theme-able interface?

      • b04155, on 04/18/2008, -6/+6I convinced my parents to get a Mac instead of another Windows machine when they needed to upgrade. My dad is/was a die-hard PC guy and it took many months, charts, graphs, raw data, etc etc to semi-convince him to switch. The promise that he could dual boot to Windows made all the difference.

        At the same time their neighbor was in the same boat but was dead-set on buying a Dell w/ Vista (I forget which version they went with). All said and done, my parents never setup boot camp as they love their Mac and my dad laughs whenever their neighbor complains about how junky Vista is (the neighbor is more of a nuisance than anything else, fyi).
      • chanop, on 04/18/2008, -7/+5If you tweak it (just like you would tweak XP), it runs fine. When I bought a new machine, it came with vista. I was convinced (because of reading all the negative ***** about it) that I was going to downgrade to XP. I've done what I could with it, and it runs great for me. I like it more than the XP box I have.
        • DanBoodro, on 04/18/2008, -5/+7You shouldn't have to tweak your operating system to make it run better. It should be all set on its own to run the way it was intended. A lot of PC illiterate people don't know what or how to tweak their preferences.
          • chanop, on 04/18/2008, -5/+3I agree with you there, Vista is not friendly to a PC illiterate person. But then again, neither is XP
          • DanBoodro, on 04/18/2008, -3/+7Yea, but tweaking isn't really necessary with XP.
          • chanop, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4I haven't tried un-tweaked windows vista. I have a feeling it would run fine on my machine, but I don't want to take the chance, and I have it set up to my liking now. I would ***** hate to use vista at work for sure though. I use my linux lappy to vpn in (vista is terrible with vpn, can't even split tunnel internet from work network)
          • toxicityj, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3It's 2008. companies shouldn't have to dumb down their OS because a few people haven't figured out how to use a technology that's been around for decades.
            It's not tweaking the computer so it works at all, its tweaking it so it works for you. For example, for a family computer the "allow/deny" thing would be great, because you don't want little bobby installing stuff. But for me it's a waste of time. So i tweak it so I don't have to deal w/ it.
        • digitalpencil, on 04/18/2008, -2/+6But the truth remains the same.. you can tweak Vista the same way you can tweak XP but why bother running an OS which is always going to be slower than its predecessor on the same hardware? There's no contest.. XP is always faster on a given set of hardware than Vista regardless of tweaking so what's the point? It doesn't offer anything new save application muting, better drive-indexing, resource-hogging eye candy and DX10, which just isn't worth it. The only reason I 'upgraded' in the first place was for DX10 but screw that, most games don't look that much better anyway and i'd prefer to have my frames back.
    • redfan, on 04/18/2008, -8/+17"Vista doesn't suck as much as many of you make it out to be."
      This is generally true, but it also doesn't improve on XP in any significant way either. And that's the problem with it.
      As someone who uses OS X, Vista, and XP almost daily, I think that while Vista isn't appreciably worse than XP, it isn't any better and the tiny things that annoy experienced users really hurt its usability. Why MS chose the complexity of Vista over the simple elegance of OS X and really of XP too is anyone's guess.
      • kiddcode, on 04/18/2008, -6/+6Why was XP so much better than 2000?
        • jftitan, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4driver and hardware support. Plus XP included built in CD burning capabilities. It had drastic improvements to some older hardware. (driver support?). Vista wasn't all that bad once SP1 was released. I'll admit it... I bashed XP when it first came out. But that the time it was justified. (until SP1) Vista on the other hand. SP1 is out, and it is still not anywhere worth upgrading to for the average consumer.
        • aurorous, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2I don't know if it was an improvement over 2000... I personally know for a fact that it was an improvement over ME. Having worked with vista I can say that at it's best it's no better than XP, and at it's worst (driver issues) it is way worse than XP. So why do you expect me to shell out $200 for it?
      • chanop, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1No, it's definately not an improvement. It's definately not complex though. I'm happy with my configured vista
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -9/+3What "complexity"? What are you talking about? Its simple and usable for the novice, and its certainly more than capable for users who demand "more". It is *significantly* better than XP, just as XP was better than 2000, and 2000 better than 95/98. I find your vague talk of "simple elegance" wholly unconvincing, and I happen to disagree.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_ne ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_f ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_network ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_I/O_tec ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_n ...
      • digitalpencil, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Whilst I agree, i'm not sure 'complexity' is quite the right term.. I can't stand it because it treats me like a retard, which in turn makes things arduous but not necessarily complex.
    • eyreka, on 04/18/2008, -7/+5sucks quite enough though
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -8/+2Actually, as we all know. All OSs suck. Just happens that Vista sucks the least.
        • luchid, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5The least? Not what my friends, family, and co-workers stuck on it say.
    • knupso, on 04/18/2008, -11/+13You guys are so full of *****!
      Why does is it suck?
      Give me specifics.
      It does not cost a fortune. I just bought home premium for $110.
      It only cost a fortune if you pay full retail for ultimate that has feature that most users are not going to use.
      • kiddcode, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8Well, one thing about Vista that I think sucks is that they removed group policy controls from the home versions of the product and didn't bother to tell anyone. I'm a programmer and I need those to do my work. I bought the Home Premium version since it looked like it closely matched XP Professional, but there was nothing on the boxes at the store, or easily found at microsoft.com that mentions the lack of support. I found out the hard way, and found the notice on microsoft's web site in small print.

        Other than that, I like Vista, but that made me pretty mad.
        • knupso, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3that is completely understandable reason to be mad about vista. i'm just tired of the clowns that just say it's sucks and gives no reason what so ever.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 04/18/2008, -8/+2You're a professional programmer, and you bought "home" version an OS. Think. Before. You. Buy.
        • kiddcode, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7What should I have thought? Home Premium was being promoted as the successor to XP Professional. I didn't need the advertised features in Business or Ultimate, nor did I feel like paying more for features I wouldn't use.
          • HoratioHellpop, on 04/18/2008, -2/+0//Home Premium was being promoted as the successor to XP Professional// links?
        • jarek91, on 04/18/2008, -6/+1How many typical home networks use AD? They are trying to strip all of the unnecessary junk out of the Home line...which would include pieces typically used with AD such as Group Policy. If you needed work related capabilities, it would seem obvious to me that you would either want Business or Ultimate. Maybe I'm just strange for seeing it that way.
      • digitalpencil, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4It's slower than XP.. Regardless of how you tweak it, it will always be slower than XP on any given set of hardware. The web is bursting at the seams with reports that confirm this. I'll reiterate the same point i always do.. why bother running an OS that is always going to be slower than its predecessor, that offers no new functionality? There's no point, the eye-candy looks pretty good, but beats the ***** out of your comp (i've always preferred classic view anyway but that's just preference) application muting's cool, the improved drive-indexing makes searching fast as *****. Other than that DX10 sucks and there's no other reason to 'upgrade'.
        • toxicityj, on 04/18/2008, -4/+1no. it's bursting at the seems with idiots trying to run a modern OS on a 5 year old computer.
          • digitalpencil, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Granted, but the point remains the same. Even if you have a modern machine, what would be the point in running an OS which runs slower than its predecessor? You've invested money into your hardware and lose the edge those extra pennies bought you by running Vista. There's no point.. I've got a quad-core, 8gb box running XP/Linux. It's more than capable of running Vista and i've booted it in the past but I built the machine from raw parts, at my expense to get the best performance I can. XP delivers greater performance with the largely same feature-set, so I fail to see why anyone would choose to run Vista when XP is quicker on any and all hardware.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 04/18/2008, -8/+6My goodness the Anti-Microsoft Zealots are out in full force today. Vista brings about much needed enhancements to security in the Windows product line. UAC might be annoying because most Windows software wasn't designed with it in mind but given time as programmers adapt you will find that the only software asking for your permission to run will be the stuff you DON'T want on there.

      XP is faster, more light weight, mature and it's quarks/features are better known. Vista is new and different, most people don't like change, especially when it comes in a slower form. That said Vista is more secure, offers better searching features, is more intuitive and is finally (as of SP1) out of its paid beta.
    • knupso, on 04/18/2008, -6/+7Here I'll even give some specifics on why it's better than XP.
      1 Security. It's a hell of a lot more secure than XP. granted it's not as secure as say BSD, Linux or OSX. It's leaps and bounds a head of XP.
      2. Direct X 10. No direct x 10 for xp.
      3.It just looks nicer and the lay out is better than XP(opinion)
      4. Quicker boot times compared to xp

      • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/18/2008, -8/+4The same security is available for XP with patching, tweaks and 3rd party software.
        Direct X10 will be available for XP. Having said that, games still run faster on XP than Vista.
        It looks nicer.. wowee. So it's just a GUI update.
        Boot times.. I didn't find this on the boxes I installed Vista on, all new hardware, all supposedly supported.
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -6/+4@warty Above ^^^

        The security model for Vista is much improved, and the development methodology for Vista significantly reduced unintended security issues.

        "The results of the analysis show that Windows Vista has an improved security vulnerability profile over its predecessor and a significantly better profile relative to comparable modern competitive operating systems."

        http://blogs.csoonline.com/windows_vista_90_day_vu ...
    • kreatre2007, on 04/18/2008, -4/+4I agree. I don't think it sucks as much as a lot of people say it does. Some of the blame for Vista's problems belongs to the developer community. They knew that Vista was coming and they should have updated their software and drivers. Similar things have happened when Apple releases new versions of Mac OS X. The developers move slowly to update. I will say that Vista has not lived up to its hype and that Microsoft had a real opportunity to make a major leap forward. Instead, they squandered that opportunity. Vista isn't that much more advanced than XP. Several of my clients are running PCs with Vista and, from a networking standpoint, the Vista machines have been easier to support even if I don't like the UI changes that Microsoft made for the network settings.
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -7/+2There has only been one Version of OSX. Every 10.x update is just a collection of updates, not a whole new OS as Vista is.

        Mac OS9 is to OSX as XP is to Vista. 10.5 is to OSX as SP1 is to Vista.
        • kreatre2007, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2You're wrong. Mac OS X Leopard (v.10.5) is not a collection of updates. There is very little old code in the current version of OS X -- unlike Vista.
  • kipmartin, on 04/18/2008, -7/+84Ballmer is a twit. He's no Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
    • slave1, on 04/18/2008, -2/+9and a *****
    • HoratioHellpop, on 04/18/2008, -7/+1And an extremely wealthy twit at that. Like, say, most everyone in Hollywood and professional basketball players.
    • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -11/+2Gates seems to disagree with you, and while not quite the jaunty dresser that Steve Jobs is, if there is anything Gates could do was pick smart people.
      • nycmac247, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4smart but not wise
      • gernblansted, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7Believe it or not, even Bill Gates makes mistakes. Ballmer may be smart, but he is also the wrong man for the job.
  • BryanG412, on 04/18/2008, -7/+56So Windows 7 is coming out when?
    • ThatEvilGuy, on 04/18/2008, -5/+27When it reaches beta state like Vista.
      • DanBoodro, on 04/18/2008, -2/+7I really hope they don't let us down with 7.
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/18/2008, -4/+14They will.
        • Planets, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4Wartybosk over here is already preparing his fake arguments against Windows 7 for when it releases.
        • ccaazz, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2The question which the average user is going to ask when upgrading is: "so, whats this os do thats better than xp?" - and unfortunately the only answer i can give them right now is: "well, it looks prettier, and runs twice as slow on the same hardware" - its not really a great sales pitch is it?
    • fuzzlog, on 04/18/2008, -6/+10Watch for Microsoft to invent another stage between alpha and beta. That will be the stage where their latest windows will be when released.
    • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Feezle Day
  • morandir, on 04/18/2008, -6/+24I think Microsoft needs to bite the bullet and release an OS that doesn't support legacy apps. It'd certainly help with the whole size thing.
    • kreatre2007, on 04/18/2008, -0/+12Agreed! Sometimes it's better to start fresh. It would take some transition time though. Apple managed to kill off all of their legacy apps completely with the switch to Intel processors and with the latest release of Mac OS X. As an Apple technician, I was thrilled to see the old classic Mac OS die.
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -10/+4Windows 7 is being written to run in a Virtual Machine. Whatever Windows 7 becomes, it will probably be modular in nature so that you can keep your machine images as small and simple as possible.

        When you run a workstation, with all its myriad of user requirements, its different than what you need on a server. I'd wager that Windows will be made more modular so that when you create your hosted-OSs images you're application will install the Windows middleware

        Think of when you install GNU/Linux and you select a "role" (Gnome Workstation, KDE Workstation, Server X, Server Y) -- Windows will become like that, and your install for one purpose will be different for another, when you meet new requirements, the necessary enabling software will appear.

        This does achieve a sort of fresh-break in a sense, because each Windows 7 install wont necessarily have the middleware that makes it fully bc.

        This modular nature (to me for my computer room purposes) is very attractive. From what I've read, this is where Windows7 is going... but it is many many years of engineering away.

        MS Research has already written a "new OS" for R&D purposes:
        http://www.codeplex.com/singularity
        • nycmac247, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4yeah THAT won't be complex for the normal end user...
        • marx2k, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0I'm sure Microsoft and its' never-ending price points list is already way ahead of you
    • illt, on 04/18/2008, -6/+4Yes, they managed to do that, because their userbase at the time was extremely miniscule compared to microsofts.
      • kreatre2007, on 04/18/2008, -1/+12Ha ha... How naive you are! Mac users can be a lot more clingy with their old apps than a lot of Windows users are. When I worked at Apple, I had a lot of customers demand that we make their 10 year old apps work but, there was nothing we could do for them. The Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X transition was huge and because Apple's user base is so loyal to the Apple brand, they stayed with Apple all through the transition. Being a "miniscule" user base has nothing to do with it. It's still hard to make a change when the user base is well established. The real truth is that Apple is just better at making transitions than Microsoft is. Apple is better at showing customers the advantages of upgrading.

        It seems like every time Apple is mentioned on Digg, someone calls them "niche' or "miniscule" or some other dumb thing. Being dismissive toward Apple won't make them go away. Apple is on the rise. They make better products than Microsoft does and the consumers are taking notice. I have upgraded several Macs to the latest Mac OS X without a hitch. Some of these machines were 3-5 years old. They all run perfectly on the new OS. How many people with older PCs were able to upgrade to Vista? Probably a "miniscule" amount.
    • tnoy, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10Agreed. They could easily release an new Windows and just run legacy apps in virtualization.
      • PayneX, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1If this isn't what they try and do in 7 i'll eat my hat.
    • MacParrot, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I thought that was kinda what they had tried to do with Windows NT. I'm no history buff when it comes to Windows OS history, but I had heard that Microsoft panicked when it was not universally accepted and compromised it to work better with Win95/98 applications.
      I could be very wrong and I welcome any corrections
    • IEatHamburgers, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2So dump support for all their old applications and remove the biggest advantage they have over Macs and Linux? Sure, that'll happen.
    • xNIBx, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5If ms did that, they would lose their biggest advantage over linux and macos, windows legacy support. They are not that stupid. Not to mention that billions will be angry that they cant run anything on this new OS. So no matter what microsoft does, people will complain about it. Look how many people are complaining about vista when in fact the real problem isnt vista but drivers. Hell, i couldnt even install acrobat reader on vista a few months ago, simply because the installation wizard of acrobat wasnt compatible with vista.

      Windows xp was a lot more bloated and heavier than windows 98. Tons of people complained about that. Windows xp had crappy drivers when compared to windows 98. Tons of people complained about that. Games run significantly slower on windows xp than it did on win98. Tons of people complained about that. Some win98 applications didnt even run on windows xp. Windows xp didnt even support usb 2.0 ffs when it came out.

      Vista on the other hand is on a lot better condition than windows xp was when it came out. It doesnt need a faster cpu or gpu, it only needs extra ram. 1gB ram costs 15$, get some. Vista have a lot better support than xp had at the first time. In fact vista was in beta for a much longer time than xp, so if your hardware manufacturer hasnt managed to create drivers or good drivers for your hardware, you should blaim them not vista. Some games run faster on vista than they run on xp(like 3-4% faster). Many games runs as fast on vista as they run on xp. Some games run slower on vista than on xp. Again, this isnt vista's fault, this is your graphic card's drivers fault. If anything, games should and can run faster on vista.

      So just stfu with the whining about vista. It is a new os, it will have some rough edges. This is always the deal with new OS. The only difference this time is that xp stayed on the market for a long time, so they reached a level of refinement that no previous windows OS had reached. Vista will reach that level in a lot shorter time period than xp did.

      When windows 7 come out(around late 2010 or 2011 is my guesstimate), they will have the same issues that vista have now. It will not be some sort of magical OS or something that will fix everything. Unfortunately microsoft is at a very hard position. If they dont change things, everyone blaims them that they dont change things and other OS surpass it. If they do change things, everyone blaims them that nothing works or that it looks too different, too user unfriendly, etc.

      Microsoft cant do giant steps ahead, like linux or macos, simply because they cant afford to. They are too big to do these things without taking illogical risks. So new features will always appear on linux or macos or even third party windows applications before microsoft can afford to implement them into windows. Microsoft can only evolve windows as much as their customer base evolves. Microsoft doesnt sell change, they sell legacy and they cant change that without destroying themselves.
      • marx2k, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0$15 gigabyte RAM sticks... so THATS why my computer keeps crashing.. ugh!
    • Klowner, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Hrrmm, the Wine binary is something like 13MB isn't it?
    • shootsfired, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4Wasn't one of the complaints about Vista not being compatible with older apps and drivers?
    • TybaltCpp, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1When you have a user base of over 1 billion customers you can't do that.
      Apple and Linus can, but MS cannot.
      • marx2k, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0The point is Linux doesn't have to do that because it is built differently and wouldn't suffer the same crap MS is going through now.
  • fauxdeluxe, on 04/18/2008, -13/+6Maybe XP will reach Beta before Vista does :)

    I'd imagine that it pays to finish coding software before you burn it to disk and ship worldwide. FAIL.
    • fuzzlog, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2lol, the idea is to make tons of money first, pretend to fix issues as soon as they "develop", then churn out beta releases of updated products.
    • oblique63, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I'd imagine that it pays to finish thinking before posting up statements online. FAIL
  • Quick2822, on 04/18/2008, -30/+78I know Digg is full of Microsoft and Vista hate, but I run Vista x64 on an E8400, with 4GB of RAM and I have no problems, especially since SP1. While Vista does deserve some of the criticisms it gets, it isn't this bloated and slow OS that everyone likes to portray it as.

    From a reboot, Vista takes about 30-35 seconds to fully boot up. Every program that I launch responds almost instantly. I never have issues with drivers, even on an x64. Get Vista on a machine that has power and you won't be disappointed. It's those people who run it on a low powered machine who see the issues. I think a lot of the hate that Vista has is from people who never tried it and just hear things from friends, or people who tried it right when it was released. I know that isn't an excuse as it should be ready upon release, but that's another debate.

    Just my opinion though.
    • JTJaskot, on 04/18/2008, -14/+51You do realize that the average consumer isn't going to have a machine that powerful right?
      • JTJaskot, on 04/18/2008, -3/+10I meant to go on and say, and why should they? Unless you're a gamer/hardcore gamer, video producer, or a person who runs mathematical simulations, does engineering design, etc, you really don't need a machine that powerful. These people who don't need the horsepower, who never had it upgraded to Vista and says it sucks. Fine. However, why should anyone need such powerful hardware just for an OS?
        • jer2eydevil88, on 04/18/2008, -5/+9Why have a computer than can run Windows XP? You can still get by on a P2 233mhz with 98SE if you use Firefox as your only app.
        • JosephStalin, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4A P2 will run Firefox (2.x) rather poorly. Still, there is no excuse for Vista's hardware requirements. Ubuntu 8.04 RC, for example, feels very snappy, goes from BIOS to desktop in about 30 seconds, does very nice desktop effects, has a clean professional look, and does that all on a 1.2GHz Duron with 256mb/RAM.

          On my laptop (Core 2 Duo 7500, 3gb ram) Vista Home Basic felt very slow and took over a minute to start up. Hardy is insanely fast on it, even with Compiz maxed out.
      • wolferz, on 04/18/2008, -5/+11The average consumer cant afford a $500 computer?

        There aren't' many machines on shelves that don't have enough power. The ones that don't have enough power are the old computers every one is upgrading to vista. If your not in the market for a new computer don't get vista. Same thing went for xp...
        • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4no srsly guys, you just need more than 1GB of ram for the whole vista experience to work right sans aero. Memory is so cheap now there's no excuse.
      • FKnight, on 04/18/2008, -5/+18You realize that a machine capable of running Vista is the baseline now, right? Nearly every machine the average consumer purchases right now will run Vista.
        • TeacherOfHeroes, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5So that's what that class action law suit is about - they all got machines that ran vista properly.
          • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1the lawsuit is really stupid, intel is not providing proper drivers that can handle the aero interface, so ***** what? it says vista capable, not aero capable.
            The basic interface is just fine.
          • TeacherOfHeroes, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2@asspants

            "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." - Jim Allchin
            Considering that he's also called it "a pig", I don't think that its just about aero.

            Coincidentally, why *can't* aero work in crummy intel integrated chips. I run compiz on a laptop with an intel graphics card (i945), and its really speedy. I had to turn off blurring, but aside from that its quite snappy. I think the fact that I was *able* to turn off blurring speaks volumes about the care and consideration that has been put into the two products, and the hardware that they may be required to run on.
          • asspants, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1i'm just talking out of my ass here, but compiz is probably designed for OpenGL which is fully supported by the drivers available for your *nix xwindow environment distribution.
            While aero is designed to work best under DirectX 10, it will work with some dx9 cards. Apparently the stupid integrated graphics solution that intel has provided is incapable of providing a fully capable dx9 experience.

            Jim Allchin must be the dumbest douchebag crybaby ever, I could make his $2,100 email machine do a whole hell of a lot more stuff than just send email.

            I could understand suing I guess if there was no way to install and boot to the desktop.

            What did he think he was buying a 2,100 laptop with a ***** intel graphics solution for anyway? playing games?
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -7/+5You do realize you can run Vista just fine on machines that are significantly less than that.

        The requirements arent exactly steep. If the machine is old and slow, its old and slow -- for XP or Vista (or Linux or *BSD or XYZ).
        • philhatesyou, on 04/18/2008, -2/+7Right, and Microsoft would NEVER lie about the requirements, right? *cough*Intel*cough*
      • smergs, on 04/18/2008, -4/+2I ran Vista fine for about a 3-4 month period on an old pentium 4 machine with only 1gb of ram. I even had the fancy Aero theme. The computer is a good 4 or 5 years old. I still wanted to play a few pc games (already bad enough that my hardware is out of date) so I went back to xp to get a better gaming experience. But for the average consumer, that computer would have been fine for running Vista. If anything I could have added another gig of ram and it would have been good.
      • Quick2822, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2You obviously haven't been following the price of PC components for awhile.

        The RAM costs $100 (you could go to 2GB and be just fine), the CPU is $200, and a motherboard is $80 (or so).
      • jabberwolf, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1I HAVE A 6400 AMD X2, 2gb ram, Vista media center, 300GB, ATI graphics card, and use it as a remote machine.
        It cost me a whopping 650 bucks.

        You do realize that is hella cheap and it runs awesome !
    • dondara, on 04/18/2008, -5/+18Who reboots?
      • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -6/+8Anyone who doesnt like to leave their machine running while they sleep for instance.... you know, to not burn energy for no reason..?

        Other than that, 99% of everyone.
        • Dantetheinferno, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Rebooting doesn't save energy...

          If anything ,It wastes energy from the cycle energy spike
      • tnoy, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9Who reboots? 99.99% of computer users.
        • IEatHamburgers, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2The .01% never loaded an operating system on theirs, they merely turn it on and leave it in their guest rooms so they dont have to buy a space heater.
      • MacParrot, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7Even though I don't have to, I reboot all my OS X machines at least once a week. Cleans out those electronic sinuses.
    • shaka999, on 04/18/2008, -4/+9Glad to hear someone has a positive experience. I'm getting very close to installing that Vista upgrade thats been sitting on my shelf for a year. I now have a DX10 card and 4GB of ram and switching to Vista x64 is getting tempting.
      • plasticxme, on 04/18/2008, -4/+1Vista x64 with only 4GB isn't all that tempting, if being able to see the full 4GB is your goal. You will only be left with 3.3GB regardless of which version of Vista you use (32bit or 64bit). Vista x64 will show all 4GB, but because of the added overhead (the extra 32bits) your 64bit services and applications require a little more memory. This isn't limited to just Windows, either. I believe Vista x64 uses 762MB of memory with 4GB installed.

        Anyways, I upgraded to Vista x64 with only 4GB of RAM installed. You will find the OS runs a little smoother and everything happens a little quicker. I.e. A search through an Outlook inbox which contained hundreds of thousands of e-mails took over 15 minutes on Vista x32. That was reduced to around 10secs with Vista x64.
      • jabberwolf, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Vista 64 is there for more power users that need to use more ram (more then 4gb)
        its nice, its smooth, and stable.
        Its also a TRUE 64bit OS, OSX is not. (No it isnt, read why Adobe didnt bother releasing a 64bit for OSX)
    • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -8/+13Agree with you. I have a dual-core AMD 3800+ and only 1.5GB of ram and I ran XP on this thing untill about 2 months ago. I finally bit the bullet and installed vista and I haven't looked back. Vista runs like a scalded dog on this thing.
      I think most of the people complaining about vista having problems today actually have faulty hardware and refuse to believe it's possible that their "new" computer could already be broken.
      • FKnight, on 04/18/2008, -8/+5You're wrong. Most of the people complaining about Vista have never even seen the box it comes in, let alone installed it.
        • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4the people you speak of are not having problems with vista not working right, they're having problems with not working right on computers. different camp that had the same problem gnashing their teeth on XP.
      • colinnwn, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5I've got a 6mo old laptop that came with Vista and 2 gigs of memory. Vista runs like an old lame dog that needs to be taken out back and shot.
        • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -4/+8I'd be willing to bet that you have norton internt security, norton antivirus, mcaffee, windows defender, yahoo toolbar, google toolbar, AOL desktop edition, and AVG running, with kodak easy share, adobe photoshop starter edition, and the HP TOTAL CARE ***** and ***** LIMEWIRE installed all running at the same ***** time, and you've probably gone through 3 printers and didnt bother to uninstall all the ***** they leave behind to top it off.
          • colinnwn, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1And you'd be wrong on all but 2 counts Mr. potty mouth. I have windows defender and mcafee installed and running. If Vista runs like crap with 2 programs that it definately needs to stay safe, then it isn't viable. I have much more running on my 6 YEAR old desktop with XP SP2, and it runs like a raped ape compared to this 6mo old Vista machine.
          • asspants, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1"definately needs to stay safe" that's objective. I don't have either one. I don't have anything installed for either of those "needs"

            something is wrong, and it's not vista. it's either faulty hardware, or you've gay bladed up your install with fagware. more likely fagware since you're using mcaffe.
    • jo42, on 04/18/2008, -19/+12You ignorant DiggTard. Look at the specs of your machine. Now try running The Pile Of P00p Known As Vista on a 2.4 GHz P4 with 256MB of RAM and a 40GB hard drive. XP runs great. Vista sucks goatse's backside.
      • kkireyev, on 04/18/2008, -3/+10256MB of RAM - what?? - cell phones have more than that...
      • asspants, on 04/18/2008, -5/+7You could spend 30 bucks and add 1GB of ram to that 2.4Ghz P4 and I guarantee you'd be supprised at exactly how ***** well that machine runs vista. Also sit back and watch as vista downloads all the drivers for you right after the install.
        Turn off UAC and go.
        • philhatesyou, on 04/18/2008, -4/+4Why should he spend $30 then the money for an OS upgrade for an OS that won't give him anything more than XP?
        • puffycow, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2I think that is the point. You don't have to upgrade to Vista yet. Remember, there was this same ***** with XP when it first was released as well...
        • Biznarie, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4Except more crashes, I'd say get the ram, stay with xp that would give a nice performance boost.
      • FKnight, on 04/18/2008, -3/+10Bitching that an OS runs slow on a machine with 256MB of RAM. This is the epitome of desperation from the anti-Microsoft crowd. Ya know what, I bet it runs like ***** if you run it from a floppy disk too.
      • jabberwolf, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2256 ?
        Dude i think my ***** WATCH has more!
    • FKnight, on 04/18/2008, -10/+7You're on Digg buddy. No one on Earth likes Vista or has no problem with it. Obviously, you've been paid by Microsoft.

      /digg cult-think
    • ArthurSucks, on 04/18/2008, -3/+6The only issue is that some people cant justify a hardware upgrade when XP is slammin fast on their machine. What's the benefit? DirectX 10? How is that helping the average home office?
    • tfox2k1, on 04/18/2008, -7/+2We have very similar systems and the exact same opinion of Vista. Its the computer retards trying to run Vista on their 5 year old computers whining when WoW requires more memory to run as fast as in XP or their Centronix Serial Port printer from 1991 doesn't have a driver in Vista.
    • markstory, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3All is well until you try to boot up something like Adobe Illustrator. Then you can start filling the pail with fail. And while that may not be a fault of MS and more of adobe's fault. It still leaves a sour taste in the consumers mouth.
      • exeprime, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3I have absolutely no problem with Adobe Illustrator CS3 on Vista x64
    • ZachSka87, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I have had several issues with drivers on x64. Not Microsofts fault, but still really f*cking annoying nonetheless.
    • nebkiwi, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3yeh well i have a macbook 1.83 ghz core 2 duo with 2gb ram and OS X boots in 18 seconds, everything fully loaded ;)
    • Phyrephox, on 04/18/2008, -3/+3I'd have to agree with Quick, I'm running 2.8 Q6600 Quad, 4gb ram, and Vista 32-bit runs just like he describes. It may be big, but it runs and feels light when you actually use it. The whole bit cost less that $1300. Thats pretty affordable to me, but the definition of 'affordable' varies from person to person.
    • Hangly, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2It takes 35 seconds until you have a desktop and mouse control. It takes much longer than that for Vista's 300 million services to start up.
      • Okari, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2If you have that many things loading on start up then you need to do a clean install and get rid of the crap you have on there.
      • DotNetWill, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2You are aware every OS loads like this. You get control over the UI and then as low priority threads in the background the services startup
  • Lou3000, on 04/18/2008, -18/+73Congrats, you paid $300 to be a Beta tester.
    • olenick, on 04/18/2008, -11/+5$400 for Vista Ultimate, plus the cost of dealing w/ the reboots, flaky behavior, and updates; to be fair, my experience is that SP1 has made Vista work about as well as XP used to though. On the other hand, the new Ubuntu machine I bought for testing cost $700 but I could've configured it -- total, hardware and software -- for the same price as the OS alone! There are a few kinks, but it's faster and seems way more reliable than Vista. My 11 year-old commandeered it and installed 30 games: says something that a child who's never used a Linux OS before in his life can grab it and do that with no help.
      • alarchy, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3Or $170 for the OEM version. Or you could pay 500 bucks for an Intel quad-core from Dell with 3GB of memory and Vista Premium. Golly, that's cheaper than your $700 "free OS" machine.
        • digitalpencil, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3What quad-core can you get from Dell for $500?
          This isn't me trolling, i just went on their site and when I check $400-$800, you can't select anything other than pentium dual core and celeron. The cheapest quad core I can find is $999
        • MacParrot, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Have a link?
        • alarchy, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4http://www.searchalldeals.com/deals/view/40302/0/D ...

          They've been doing promotions like this for the past few weeks. Sure, it's not easy, but you can get them cheap as heck legitimately.
          • MacParrot, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Well I'll be. Someone who actually backed it up WITH a legit link that wasn't BS. Dugg you up sir.
          • digitalpencil, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1That is a pretty good deal.. still ony got 1gb ram and no graphics card but does come with a 19" monitor!
          • alarchy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1If you configure it with no monitor, you can grab 3GB of memory and a low end dedicated graphics card for roughly the same price :)
    • ZippyV, on 04/18/2008, -7/+1If you were a beta tester than you got Vista for free.
      Nobody buys the Full Product, only OEM which cost me 185 € in Belgium. It's probably even cheaper in the US.
      • Biznarie, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4I guess people do buy vista boxed... idiots.
      • designerutah, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1He was alluding to the feeling that Visa, even today, is STILL a beta!
    • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -11/+4The vast majority of people get their OS bundled with new machines, and never have to pay $130 for a Service Pack.

      That aside, way to jump on the hate-train. Nothing like taking something completely normal and making it fit your false worldview.

      Haha! Vista is in Beta! Boy, you sure are clever.
    • illt, on 04/18/2008, -4/+2if you paid for osx, you would have paid close to 500 dollars to get what it is today, and at least 200 dollars before it came out of "beta" (in terms of how you consider vista beta)

      and don't be ridiculous...home premium is aobut a 100 dollars, and not nearly as beta as osx when it first came out
    • tnoy, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5I paid $179 for Vista Ultimate 64 OEM at a Fry's and its worked flawlessly since day one.
    • Planets, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2I paid $120 for an upgrade version and then used the workaround to install a full version of Vista.

      Where'd you get $300 from again?
    • Kazbaeden, on 04/18/2008, -3/+4Vista Home Premium OEM costs $99. Ultimate costs $70 more (and really isn't worth it if you don't care about bitlocker). Don't know where you people are getting these $300-$400 numbers from.
    • CorrosiveMan, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1See:
      http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Vista-Home-Premium-S ...
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013O77GM/ref=am ...
      • Planets, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Then don't get Ultimate. It's useless.
    • NecroDigg, on 04/19/2008, -3/+0Wait, since when do people pay for software? I'm confused.
    • yournamehere, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2I paid $25 for Vista Home Premium edition
  • vinnyvenus, on 04/18/2008, -8/+13Well technically everything is a work in progress. Nothing is perfect.
    • fuzzlog, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2Yes, and there are more polished work in progress items than others.
  • shadowspawn, on 04/18/2008, -4/+9more room in the markets for linux polishing and deployment, methinx.
  • Klowner, on 04/18/2008, -5/+15When did he learn to string 4 words together in a row? *throws chair*
    • fauxdeluxe, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9During the SP1 development cycle I'd imagine. They only let him out of his cupboard at launches.
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/18/2008, -10/+11Ballmer wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
    • FKnight, on 04/18/2008, -8/+2How many multibillion dollar software companies did you say you ran?
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7I don't have to be a plumber to know when a pipe is leaking.
    • digitalpencil, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1*doesn't
  • neocr0n, on 04/18/2008, -8/+21Nothing you drop £200+ on should be a work in progress.
    • shaka999, on 04/18/2008, -6/+4I've bought new cars that have turned out to be "works in progress". At least an OS is [relatively] easy to patch.
  • tubaros, on 04/18/2008, -6/+12Linux is a work in progess, and thats free!!!! Maybe our payment for Vista should be a "Payment in Progress"? Ill give em £10 now for a copy of it. then more later on.
    • fuzzlog, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1At least, you can make it rock solid.
  • uselessexpert, on 04/18/2008, -15/+17Regardless of what the digg crowd thinks of Vista, my Dell XPS with Vista Ultimate kicks ass.
    I don't see the need of switching to Apple.
    • ArthurSucks, on 04/18/2008, -4/+5Macbook has better battery life?
      • Planets, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5Okay. What if he doesn't use a laptop? Also, better battery life wouldn't really make someone switch a whole operating system.
    • designerutah, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3So don't switch. Enjoy your Vista experience. But does that mean that other people don't have reasons to switch? Or stay?
  • ronk, on 04/18/2008, -9/+14Lol! This just made my day! The goof ball is at it again. Dance monkeyboy!
  • zeromous, on 04/18/2008, -12/+27No comments here on windows 2008, which of course was a dream to install and set up.
    Definately a step up from the wonderfully stable Windows 2003. By the way Win2k8 is based on Vista and supports Aero and all that.

    Vista isn't as mindblowing as XP was to most (who were used to win98 at the time).
    I think all the haters just need to relax. Yes MS could have delivered something better. They didn't, so get over it. Its not like Vista is any worse than XP (it isn't) and its not a far cry from some of the more favored OSes out there. The only difference is the geek squad is so mobilized against Vista.

    I'm an admin for an extremely large company, and I support all flavors of Unix and Microsoft. Some dating back 20 years. Vista and win2k8 are actually nice in some ways. But you'll never hear the self appointed digg-police/geek squad saying that.

    Most of you have no idea what you are talking about, and those that claim to should put up or shut-up, rather than polluting the tubes, with their collective irrational hate.
    • wageslaven, on 04/18/2008, -10/+6"Vista isn't as mindblowing as XP was to most "

      Because the user experience between 95/98 and XP was a vast change (few used 2K before that). Vista feels like XP, but under-the-hood, they are very different. NOT changing the user experience too much (ie; making changes that improve the experience and not just change for change's sake (from a UI perspective)) should be considered a *success*, but alas, this is Digg, and the Vista hate-machine are still pumping out the FUD.

      Though, I think the real story of Vista is starting to cut through all that FUD. Too many people have actually used it now and all the wild-eyed lies clearly didnt have any attachment to reality. Holding up the myths is becoming very difficult.

      I mean, look at this story. Total empty nonsense. And the same one about Windows7 from Gates a couple weeks ago. Take a few words out of context and literally apply them to the Vista FUD that they've so heavily invested in.

      The FUD has been stretched so thin trying to cover up reality, that its about to (already has?) popped.
      • zeromous, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure why people are digging you down. Vista is at worst annoying. At best, its rock solid. On average, its XP with some shine.
    • mrraven200, on 04/18/2008, -5/+8It's all good until Vista's DRM kills someone due to not not displaying HD medical images. And no I am not a hater I am typing from XP here on a dual boot Xp/Ubuntu Vaio notebook and i have a Mac G5 tower. Whatever works, the thing is Vista doesn't work. The good thing about that though is that people are selling their perfectly good Pentium M notebooks and whatnot cheap on Craigslist in the rush to "upgrade," notebooks that run XP or Ubuntu just dandy and do everything I need to do including video editing and web development with a mere gig of ram.
      • zeromous, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4No you're a hater.

        "It's all good until Vista's DRM kills someone due to not not displaying HD medical images."

        This is FUD and would simply never happen.
        • mrraven200, on 04/19/2008, -2/+1Bzzzzzzttttt already happening:

          "Since when did you think that DRM would not apply to medical imaging. Speaking as a physician, we ALREADY have this problem. The medical image DICOM format has been split into various flavors by competing software vendors who do their best to make sure that you have to have THEIR viewer in order to see files saved in their version of the format.
          Further competing hospitals are choosing not to install viewers that would allow MD's to look at films that were taken at their competition ( or perhaps their IT staff can't be bothered to install them -- either way the result is the same). This proprietary behavior is already hindering patient care.
          Vista's enhanced DRM only aggravates this nonsense!! "

          http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/0 ...
          • zeromous, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Bzzz "Vista's enhanced DRM only aggravates this nonsense!! "

            Enhanced DRM has NOTHING to do with medical imaging. You tacked that on at the end with an article that has nothing to do with medical imaging...from the classy IT rag theinquirer/register no less.

            Yup you have me convinced that there is a DRM issue with mission cri