digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at smh.com.au

Microsoft top brass 'burned' by Vista problems

smh.com.au — One executive, Mike Nash, complained he was "burned" so badly by compatibility issues he was left with "a $2100 email machine".

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • caccia, on 03/26/2008, -115/+117Good, Vista is Garbage.
    • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -50/+33Have you ever used it? Doubtful.
      • freedomknight, on 03/26/2008, -18/+55do you need any other proof even when Microsoft executive himself says its garbage ?
        • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -26/+13Yeah, I do. Did he set it up himself? What was the circumstances of the problem? What else did he do to cause the issue?
          • freedomknight, on 03/26/2008, -2/+20Go read the article, he baught a laptop with vista, on which even some of the microsoft software won't work. And lack of drivers.
          • TimDigg, on 03/26/2008, -11/+2Maybe he's trying to lower the stock price so he can buy up

            ...right before SP2 comes out.... ya never know....
          • ThndrShk2k, on 03/26/2008, -3/+13"Yeah, I do. Did he set it up himself? What was the circumstances of the problem? What else did he do to cause the issue?"
            He's a goddamn Microsoft executive. He should know how to set up a machine, and to make it work.
          • bulkhater, on 03/26/2008, -1/+12He was a high level Microsoft executive. If even HE couldn't get hold of tech staff who could get it running, what chance do the rest of us have?
          • bc289, on 03/26/2008, -11/+4This was while they were developing Vista. And the fact that there were no vista drivers at the time was not so much Microsoft's fault. Either way, that was awhile ago.
          • subliminalurge, on 03/26/2008, -12/+2"He was a high level Microsoft executive. If even HE couldn't get hold of tech staff who could get it running, what chance do the rest of us have?"

            Wow. Microsoft needs to hire me then. All of my Vista machines are in perfect working order.
          • capiCrimm, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4@subliminalurge

            the problem isn't a box working in perfect order. The problem is do you know how to fix it when it's not(assuming it's fixable, and not royally *****). If your Ford Pinto's still running does that mean your a good mechanic?
          • Septimus, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Most executives, no matter what company, no utterly ***** all about day to day technology let alone how to fix a driver issue. They make 'decisions', informed or otherwise. That is it. Most exec's, even in MS get there from being time served and not ***** up too badly during that time.
        • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -14/+3He was an early adopter. Those problems don't exist any anywhere near the same fashion they did YEARS ago. get over it. the PC marketing machine just doesn't bash the other like apples unjustly does. You didn't hear microsoft bashing apple about its OSX10.5 at release was deleting files that you moved.... because microsoft has class, whereas apple does not. And linux doesn't have any support because the people that make money off of their good products (ADOBE) won't go there cuz their code will just be haxed out. so unusable to me. i hate it when people push these piddly stories.
        • EvilWalksWithMe, on 03/26/2008, -11/+3I need further proof, as personally, I have never had a problem with it.
          • bulkhater, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6I'm very glad it lets you get to your webmail and digg so effectively. I look forward to hearing from you once you've had to set up 10 of the damn things on a business network with shared drives and networked printers. Where I work, a single Vista machine took up more IT resources than 10 XP machines, three Windows 2000 servers and two Windows 2003 servers combined.

            I've also had to run a few applications through Vista for QA purposes. There's NOTHING to like about the OS unless.
        • specialK16, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5"And linux doesn't have any support because the people that make money off of their good products (ADOBE) won't go there cuz their code will just be haxed out."

          Because they are on Linux... but can't they "hax" out their codes in Windows too? I fail to see your logic.
        • jhaks, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2RTFA. He didn't say it was garbage. He said the driver support from third party vendors was poor. Any OS that doesn't have driver support is going to provide a poor experience. Luckily this is not even an issue anymore so you're only making yourself look like a dumb ass troll for bringing it up. Third party hardware and software companies dropped the ball so can we all stop pointing stupid fingers?
      • MalenfantX, on 03/26/2008, -18/+9It is inferior to XP for games, but looks nice on a Home-Theater PC.
        • TimDigg, on 03/26/2008, -14/+6unless you're playing a DX10 game
          • bulkhater, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4If your game isn't DirectX10, your performance will be terrible compared to XP or 2000 on the exact same hardware.

            I don't want to hose my entire game library for one or two DX10 games. If I want to castrate my gaming experience like that I might as well switch to Mac and run all my old games through Parallels or VMWare.
        • gimmeit, on 03/26/2008, -5/+2only if you have a ***** graphics card.
      • bulkhater, on 03/26/2008, -11/+14I've used it. It's cumbersome, convoluted and poorly designed. It needs a LOT more hand holding and setup to be functional and lacks basic stability. It's the Windows Millennium of its day.
        • EvilWalksWithMe, on 03/26/2008, -9/+5I call *****. Mine has been stable and provided no problems from day one. The only issues I ever had, were third party software and it didn't take long to find alternatives.

          Get off your high horse and stop regurgitating someone else's dribble.
          • bulkhater, on 03/26/2008, -4/+3Changing the IP address took 20 minutes thanks to the sluggish performance (On a high end PC that came with Vista) and the numerous confirmation dialogs. Settings have been moved and renamed for no reason and the entire interface is inconsistent. I'm not regurgitating anyone else's "drivel" but speaking from experience.

            I liked W2K and after SP2 came out for XP I found it to be a great OS. I make my living using the Windows platform, but Dear God, Vista is a terrible operating system designed with no regard for enterprise deployment. Heaven help you if there are any changes to your network that require a setting change. Something that takes 5 minutes in XP or W2K takes up to twenty in Vista.

            It's a steaming pile of garbage. You can shill and troll for Microsoft all you want, but they'll have to make major changes to the OS in the next service pack to make it practical.
          • GliTCH82, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4I stopped reading after "Changing the IP address took 20 minutes". Really? Do you think everybody else spends 20 minutes changing IP addresses in Vista? Maybe you ***** up your machine somehow?
          • bulkhater, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1@GliTCH82

            No, most people just turn off all those damn security prompts, something corporate policy wont let me do on these boxes. Because Areo is so sluggish it can take 20 to 30 seconds for each prompt to even come up and then another 10 to 20 seconds to clear after it's been clicked. Multiply that times close to a dozen security prompts and you have 10 to 20 minutes of waiting for the sluggish OS to respond for what SHOULD be a less than a minute's work.
      • Xplodzion, on 03/26/2008, -7/+7You're the type of person I just mentioned in my main post. The guy who says "You've never used Vista lololol"

        Aparrantly, people who hate Vista have never used it, even though I hate it and I have used it 3 times and uninstalled that POS 3 times.
        • EvilWalksWithMe, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5You can't have hated it too much, as you still used it again, twice!
        • Xplodzion, on 03/26/2008, -3/+7I had 10 seconds before the stupid edit timer ran out, work with me here!

          I meant to say, I tried to like it so I kept going back to it, but it's just horrible, I just don't like it.
      • GliTCH82, on 03/26/2008, -4/+9I've really got nothing more to say except all of you that have used Vista and ended up with ***** experiences are doing it wrong. I know for a FACT that Vista runs faster on higher end machines than XP does.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRm4hk5uRo0
        • homercles337, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5Exactly. This "vista effect" is really nothing more than an "idiot effect." *nix users know what they are doing, mac users dont and trust apple to make decisions for them, and windows users split those groups. Windows users who know what theyre doing have no problems. Windows users who are idiots kick and scream when they have to learn something new.
    • graycat, on 03/26/2008, -23/+44I have. It's *****.
    • callmejordy265, on 03/26/2008, -29/+33why do you think it is garbage? I use it on a daily basis and never have any problems. Digg me down, but everyone is always talking about how much they hate vista, yet they never say why.
      • SniperSlap, on 03/26/2008, -18/+28Resource hungry for no reason.
        Hardware support.
        Restrictive licensing.
        Pointless editions.

        If none of these are a problem for you, it means you are a mainstream computer user and have no place in even forming an opinion on this stuff. Enough has been said from alphas, betas and RCs until today to outline each one of those points.

        Vista is nothing more than a cheap cash grab. Contrary to popular belief, wanting to make money does not forgive a ***** product.

        The difference between running Vista and XP is that running Vista you get less of your computer to use.

        You have kool aid on your mouth.
        • solidcube, on 03/26/2008, -1/+9I don't think it's a "***** product." At worst, it's "Meh." As I mention below, it's much better once SP1 is installed, which begs the question of why they released it in its 2007 condition, but whatever. It does still have a number of problems with it. For me they're mainly related to the interface-- I really hate the new filesystem organization in explorer. Also, you have a good point about it being a cash grab. Pointless editions? Vista ITSELF is a pointless edition. It doesn't add any new functionality worth the cost and the resource hogging.

          Gotta wonder though why a multibillion dollar corporation can't do better than this.
          • PoopStick, on 03/26/2008, -8/+2SP1 makes it better? lol keep drinking the Kool aid
          • SniperSlap, on 03/26/2008, -6/+3Better with SP1? What's better?

            You fanboys have your heads so far up your asses. You just take what you're told and regurgitate it verbatim.

            What's better? Just "it" in general? This gesturing sounds like it's coming from the same geniuses that brought us the TCO *****.
            The OS is still a pig. It's still slow. In fact, I'd say about every single complaint that people have with the OS is still present following an update that is supposed to "fix" everything.

            Fix doesn't mean "Everything is better because I was too stupid to notice anything wrong in the first place."

            Again, if you aren't technical DON'T COMMENT ON IT. You don't understand at all what's going on.
          • solidcube, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4After SP1, drive thrashing pretty much went away. Performance seems to be much smoother, and it seems to handle memory much better. Applications that previously caused seemingly pointless disk access no longer do so. Perhaps "better" isn't as good of a term as "less *****." It still has nowhere near the stability of any of my 8 linux desktops on far inferior hardware. But then, neither did XP.

            Oh, and unbunch your undies.
        • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -11/+3spoken like a true linux fanboy. my linux rebuttle. run photoshop.
          • capiCrimm, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3okay, load up wine. Pow. Another alternative, run a VM.

            Although, GIMP handles 99% of what a normal user would do and IMHO has a much nicer(although different) interface. Especially if you have multiple monitors. If you really need that 1%, then photoshop isn't that hard to get running.

            The only thing left that linux has a hard time with is games written for windows, although wine and it's alternatives do a fairly decent job. It's also lacking a subset of native games(although a small amount do exist). Anyway, it's not as if MSFT is superior in that it can run linux and mac only apps.
          • bulkhater, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Why must everyone who hated Vista be a Linux fanboy in your mind?

            Most the MICROSOFT fanboys I know hate Vista.
          • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4first of all, gimp is nice for free. and it does do something better, like gradients, sure. but it doesn't have a fraction of the refined design or integration that the adobe suite does. But why run emulators when i can run the real deal and enjoy it full res, full speed, w/ no bottle necks, w/o all the hassle? I wouldn't even know where to begin setting up a twain device in linux to integrate with photoshop running in wine.
          • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1@ bulkhater: i did my research and looked at his profile. Research is a skill i learned from jr high. I thought they had jr highs in canada. hrm. maybe not. cuz unlike most of digg, i like to make INFORMED comments, now stfd.
          • capiCrimm, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4@skeletorcares

            WINE stands for WINE Is Not An Emulator.

            Wine runs photoshop and other exes natively. I.e. from a user perspective they act like any other app. The main problem is that everything is reverse engineered(obviously, since your nice pal MSFT isn't handing out info). Normally, though, it does it's job fairly well. There are even apps that RUN FASTER in wine then on windows. Some run slower, but overall there isn't much of a speed hit with most apps.

            Wine gets better and better, but it isn't 100%(especially for smaller apps and games). Sometimes those programs rely on unspecified behaviors/bugs in windows that aren't there in wine. That's what the VM is for, it's 100% guaranteed to work. Plus you can still access those files from the linux partition, so it's really not that bad.

            (Although, admittedly I don't have any need for it since I run OSS-only(with minor exceptions).
          • skeletorcares, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1and the twain scanner?
        • EvilWalksWithMe, on 03/26/2008, -5/+8Just because someone is a mainstream computer user doesn't mean their opinion doesn't have any merit. A mainstream computer user is just a welcome to share their experience and opinion as you are, Mr leet haxor!
          • SniperSlap, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1It does matter when people are running around with Microsoft ***** in their mouth spurting piles of ***** disinformation.

            There's far too many kiddies on this site who think they know "a thing or two" about computers.

            Far too many.
        • brianara3, on 03/26/2008, -11/+9Resource hungry for no reason = Who cares... it runs great on my quad-core intel w/4gigs of ram. If your too cheap to buy a "real" computer, don't run vista.

          Hardware support. = Has supported everything I have purchased since I got it. If you want it to support your 10yr old scanner... buy a new one, they are about $30 now

          Restrictive licensing. = How many computers do you install your 1 licensed copy on? I have yet to see an issue on my legal single computer with OEM install.

          Pointless editions. = Yeah... I'll give you that one. There is no need for a desktop OS to have 5+ versions. Granted, there are over 100 linux distros to choose from though.

          Overall, I have been happy with vista. There have been some issues, but a little google searching and I find a solution. Most of the items I have fixed before were patched in SP1.

          The only real issue I have seen is software makers not updating their 3-4 year old titles to run in vista. Get a clue, it's here to stay.. so update if you want to survive.
          • PoopStick, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3Load xp and see how fast your computer becomes... to bad you wasted your money vista.
          • SniperSlap, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2brianara3, you have no clue what you are talking about.

            First off, why should everyone buy a new computer to run an OS that - dare I remind you - barely runs on the new systems it comes on?!?!

            I'm not too cheap to buy a real computer, I'm sure if it fancied me I could go out and buy yet another laptop, or build another desktop on top of the two I got within the past year. You've pretty much proven that you're an ***** at this point.

            Second, again you show your (youth?) lack of comprehension here. Restrictive licensing means Microsoft will actually sell you an OS with the intent to tell you what you can and cannot use it for. Legally a business or individual cannot use a home edition of Windows for work. Microsoft wants to charge them more for the different wording - and little else.

            Third, I'm glad you're not 100% lobotomized. But you miss the point with Linux. The distributions do not equate the same as the editions of Windows. Don't try to compare two things as equal just because you're too much of a moron to figure things out properly.

            Try not giving a knee-jerk reaction and acting like some blowhole teenager going on an internet trolling rampage. There are people out there who know more than you and trust me - I am one of them.

            That means when I "updated" I "updated" years ago to Linux and I've got a lot more to show for it than you.

            Bragging about a computer like yours while running Vista on it is like having an extremely hot girlfriend who also happens to be a cripple. You're only going to get so far. Enjoy your undiggs fanfag.
          • KillPenguin, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Quiet Brianara, you're just making people who like vista (me) stupid.
          • brianara3, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Well... first, vista ultimate CAME (no XP option) on my computer... I still run XP on my built one. I don't notice any performance issues with vista on the new one, it actually runs faster than my few year old XP box. If you plan on buying a $500 computer with vista... it will be slow. Just like the $500 XP computers were years ago. Just because a computer "can run vista" doesn't mean it should.

            I personally run linux on my laptop full time... I loaded vista on it for a trial and it was slow and it sucked... so, I switched.

            I also use vista at work, and don't see any issues with it there. It works nicely with all of our apps and isn't that slow.

            Finally, vista is meant for the next gen of computers, not last years model. XP was the same way, and people complained about it then... but, computers got faster and xp ran great on them. I don't see vista being power hungry or slow on any future computer technologies, and this is the base for most OS's (including newer linux).

            Yes, I know... you can run newer linux distros on a 486, but you won't have the same functionality and user interface as a new computer (say... compiz). It's like saying I can still run DOS on a new computer.

          • SniperSlap, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1"next gen computers"

            You have no idea what you're talking about. Save for the raw increases in bandwidth and CPU speeds, the architecture is the same.

            I don't see how systems are made obsolete so quickly and so decisively by an OS that is supposed to be efficient. That is completely backwards to your argument.
      • jestin, on 03/26/2008, -7/+6You bring up a fair point, there is a lot of senseless Vista bashing going on. Still, the bashers make valid points too. One complaint about Vista I would like to dispel, is that it's a memory hog. People notice that more RAM is in use at any given time in Vista than there is under XP. This is true, but it's a GOOD thing. Physical RAM is used primarily as cache in modern OS's, so keeping it full at all times is advantageous. How well Microsoft implemented the algorithm that decides what to fill it with, we don't know, because it's closed source.
        My main complaint about Vista is driver and OpenGL support. While it's debatable whether the driver issues are Microsoft's fault, or the hardware manufacturer's fault, the poor OpenGL support was purposely done to force programmers to switch to DirectX. That alone is enough reason for me to refuse to use Vista on moral grounds.
        • gimmeit, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2what game are you trying to play that isn't directx?
        • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -8/+4Don't forget if you bring up the resources monitor on OSX on a 2gb of ram system, there is always at least 400mbs as 'inactive' when my systems were struggling to stay afloat with the memory they had available to them. Vista came along and saved me from the nightmare that is macintosh despite what the fanboys say.
        • EvilWalksWithMe, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4It's Microsofts operating system, I don't see why it's so wrong for them to push you towards their own technology?
        • SniperSlap, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1I don't see any problem with people ragging on Vista. It's terrible.

          As far as memory use, you're buying into a persuasive and heavily marketed tidbit of disinformation. I don't know what arms-reach MS blogger propagated this steaming turd of information, but it's one of maybe five little tricks the Vista boosters use to defend their pig.

          More memory use is not in fact advantageous. It will reduce CPU performance, force your system to page compulsively and create a bottleneck purely focused around moving information your system *thought* it might need, out for information it *does* need.
          Might I also remind you that Vista is a system that comes with "ReadyBoost" a technology designed to fool people into thinking they can increase performance just by adding some flash storage.

          We aren't talking about a company with a sterling record on optimization technologies. Free memory is better because it is allocated more quickly.
          This is why I've seen more people than I can count do a hard-off on a Vista machine while it grinds for 20 minutes during the shutdown -- AFTER it's done installing 30MB of updates for the 3rd time in a week, fanboys.

          In the end, the extra memory use is not performance tuning and you have no information to support that except for some loosely circulated reflexive ***** fed down your feeder tube.
        • tugger, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2..of course, if you've only ever used Microsoft operating systems, you won't see whats wrong with Vista...
        • jhaks, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3@ SniperSlap

          You should stop talking about things you obviously know nothing at all about. You have obviously fabricated some fantasy idea about how Vista works without actually knowing anything about its implementation.

          Free UNUSED memory is not better and is not allocated more quickly. When you have to load apps into memory you make disk reads; this is a performance killer. This is unavoidable, but if the OS can intelligently cache your most used apps at the correct times before you use them while idle then load times can be instant (which they are in Vista).

          If the system needs memory that is taken by the cache it doesn't take any performance to simply open the memory. It isn't like the memory is zeroed out.

          Ready boost does work to an extent, which really depends on how much memory you have in the system. ReadyBoost works by caching data and apps onto flash. Non-sequential reads from the hard disk is much slower than sequential reads, so these non-sequential reads are done instead from the flash drive while the sequential reads are done from the disk. Of course if you have a lot of ram then Vista is able to cache data into actual memory which negates the need for ReadyBoost. ReadyBoost has been shown to help with startup times since nothing is in ram yet and all has to be loaded from disk.

          Also as for real hard tests and evidence there are a bunch of good articles and tests out there that support what I said above.

          @ Tugger
          I use Linux and Vista and both are fine and work well. Stop trolling.
          • SniperSlap, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1jhaks, it's you who knows nothing.

            So Vista spends most of its time touching your hard drive because of "optimizations"? Even after it has memory allocated for things it is actively using?
            Basically you're disregarding the practical impact and hoping that everyone will agree that Vista is in fact optimizing correctly.

            Of course, in practice it doesn't play out so well and that's why it loves to grind your hard drive.

            Again, if it was so effective, why does the performance and reality point in the complete opposite direction of your fanboy ranting? Can't beat practical evidence. Again, as I've said before: Microsoft admits problems. So why does this even become a question with you? Are you in denial?

            YOU are the one who doesn't understand anything and I wouldn't take any support you get too seriously. The only people who agree with you are those who have no inclination to think for themselves.

            Birds of a feather, right?

            Stop trolling with your disinformation. There are too many stupid fanfags as it is.
      • Triterion, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2Ive had problems with Vista so bad that i've had to reformat the whole hard drive 3 times in 6 months, and with my XP machine I havent ever had to do that in the 6 years that i've had it.
        • tugger, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1actually XP should last a maximum of 450 reboots until it corrupts itself, vista is more like 750. Thats according to tests in the lab with 'approved' drivers only and no other software or internet connection.
          • brianara3, on 03/26/2008, -1/+0Sounds about right... I have to format/reinstall my XP box about once every 6-8 months. This is mostly due to slowness and strange problems it is having. After the reinstall though.. everything seems to run great.
        • joshuair, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Usually reformatted my XP machine every 6 months or so. I dread using Vista. Only thing I miss from the Windows world is games. Damn if the Mac doesn't suck for games.
    • Heilige, on 03/26/2008, -12/+16After using Vista for months I would have to agree. Vista has some neat features and looks nice but other than that it is as if I am running Windows Me again.
      • jhaks, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Sure it is...

        Because we all know ME was stable and robust.
    • doshindude, on 03/26/2008, -17/+17*also a Vista user*
      it really does suck. It's too ***** slow to do anything (even after I run countless CCleaner scans, Adaware/Spybot runs, uninstalls, etc).
      • divided421, on 03/26/2008, -7/+15What are you running countless scans for? Stop loading your computer with junk and you won't ever have to do anything more than empty your recycle bin.
        • piper999, on 03/26/2008, -11/+6When you say 'loading your computer with junk' I take it you are referring to Windows Vista?
        • doshindude, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2because if I don't run scans to get the crap out, Vista is slow as *****.
        • brianara3, on 03/26/2008, -1/+0... What spyware/adware is installed in vista by default? With nothing installed but vista it isn't going to get any faster by loading utils to remove stuff that shouldn't be on there.
      • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -8/+5all unneeded steps now, except uninstall. I ran my last vista machine virus and spyware cleaner free for over a year. Then when i finally decided i should. It didn't have ANYTHING anyways. I upgraded to a newer better computer recently, that has a bit more virus protection, but its never found anything, but i never intend for it to. Virii are a moot point now, move on doucheindude.
        • bulkhater, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3"Virii are a moot point now"

          You must be running Haiku.
      • gimmeit, on 03/26/2008, -10/+2Get a better PC and install the OS from scratch, you won't have these issues. I have a dual core 6400+ black edition @ 3.2ghz, 4gb 800mhz DDR2, and 2x HD3870's. I have a 5.6 rating and haven't had any issues yet. I can play all my games except 2 at full res and graphics. What are the games? Crysis and Everquest 2. Everything else just works. Sorry I have better luck than you....or it could just be that I know how to setup an OS better than some people.
        • brianara3, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Exactly.. my quad-core intel runs great! What are people complaining about slowness for 2ghz p4's?
      • jhaks, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2The last part of your comment just shows how little you know about operating systems and Vista in particular. You're running spybot and adaware when in all likely hood you don't even have spyware on Vista. You're running CCleaner which does nothing but clean out hard disk space. The biggest performance killer these days is poor 3rd party software/drivers and bad software configurations like running too many anti-malware apps.
        • SniperSlap, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Or running Vista which is a hog and takes 4x the resources to complete something compared to any prior OS even made by MS.

          Seriously, we need a thread graph of what it takes to draw a button - or any equivalent basic Win32 UI widget. It would be very telltale for the fanboys.

          (The thread graph was done comparing Apache to IIS in the past, again - very revealing)
    • solidcube, on 03/26/2008, -12/+3Try SP1, it makes Fista much mobetta.
    • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -17/+8I have had zero design crashes on vista, yes, ZERO since i got it in january on my XPS Dell 420 w/ 24" monitor that cost $2K. on the 'top of line' mactels that i know the company paid $5K+ for, crashing photoshop or flash was a daily occurance. Making them unusable for what i need. I love my vista. And am happy to be rid of that ***** macintosh 'comptuers'.

      Sorry earlier adopters, vista rocks now though.
      • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4Just cuz you idiots try to bury it doesn't mean its any unless true.
        • pmr12002, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Probably Mac Fanboys burying you.
          • SniperSlap, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2They're bad for that:

            Apple sucks.
        • BCModder1, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1no what makes it less true is vista does crash, so either skeletorcares is lying or has been extremely lucky cause myself along with a vista fanatic friend of mine have had it crash on us, I actually had to re-install vista for the 6th time in a week. first 5 were cause it kept booting hardware off*lack of knowledge on my part partially I managed to finally fix that* although the 6th time cause it locked up on me 6 times last night and all I was doing was upgrading wow to burning crusade and using my browser, I tried using the last known good settings from the start up to the recovery tool on the install disc and both failed miserably. before anyone says it to I have a system designed for running vista, as for my friend she's a game programmer so yea insane system designed to handle it.

          not to do bashing but fact is I'm just tired of fan boys saying I have no problems with it as if that will make the ones many others are having will suddenly disappear because they don't want to believe they exist. that's like Linux or mac fans saying there's nothing wrong with their OS's it's just total BS in general.
          • brianara3, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1.. I haven't crashed either since I got my computer 6 months ago. Crashes are normally caused by 3rd party drivers, software or bad hardware
          • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1For real. No problems major problems. The only thing i have a slight issue with is Opera being too strict about its javascript and crashing (i'm a technical designer), it happens during testing. That is my only crash. But as far as Adobe is concerned, it works way better on Vista then i've ever had it work on any other OS. I've quit jobs before because I kept getting fed up with doing the work so freaking slow compared to working on a PC. Now i'm on my PC and i get about 2x more done, and i've got a huge hubris about not saving my stuff while i'm working on it. It'll bite me one day, i'm sure, but it hasn't happened in 4 months.... so vista gets my huge thumbs up.

            so i have alot of extra time for my shows since it automatically records my tv and removes the commercials from it.
        • wolfzbane, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2i've been running Vista since September 07 and have had zero crashes or errors. On my computer with 3 gigs of memory, I've had no performance problems and it runs games and everything else I've wanted to run with zero problems.

          I still have XP at work and I wish I were running Vista
      • KillPenguin, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3I was considering listening to you but then you said you bought a Dell.
        • skeletorcares, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Got a great deal, quad core, 4gbs, 24" monitor. i've got 1.5TBs 32mb cache in it. Auto record tv tuner. awesome remote. Nice style, 18:1 card reader, bluray. .... i've had mac people tell me before 'you can't tell anyone i said this but [reluctant] yes, your computer is super awesome.....' And it is, i'm so happy with it. Came with minimal crapware, came with photoshop elements. So i love it so much, i don't really care if you don't listen.

          Have you ever hugged your computer? I have.
          • KillPenguin, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I'm glad you're happy, but would you mind sharing exactly what the price of this "deal" was?
          • skeletorcares, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1as said above, 2k, thats $$1.4 mil less than a similarly equipped mac. I'm sure i could have been a bit cheaper if i built it on my own, but then i would have gotten the cool case w/ the all the ports. i got 500 off for the config base i got, and another 200 off after talkign to them on the phone.
    • divided421, on 03/26/2008, -10/+10So what exactly is so bad about Vista (unless of course you had it installed OEM)? I have it on three machines from a $200 laptop to a $1500 desktop. It is solid as a rock, starts faster than XP, and loads all my programs faster than XP ever would. Yes, it eats RAM for breakfast, but releases it whenever a program needs it (photoshop, crysis). Turn off aero for a new level of Windows 2000-ness.
      • vvortex3, on 03/26/2008, -9/+1IT ISNT OPEN SOURCE!
        • BCModder1, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2@vvortex3
          dugg down for idiot fanboyism and a lack of a refute with actual information or evidence to give reason for any negative or positive side to the previous commentor's post.

          well that and dicks like you give us people who can objectively like linux/open source software without shoving it in peoples faces a bad rep and much harder time in general.
        • brianara3, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2So... when was the last time you actually edited/compiled the source of something?
    • specialK16, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I use Vista Ultimate, and it's not that I like it, it's that I just don't give a *****. There are some nasty ***** here and there, but I can live with that.

      But I feel like such an idiot when I ran into this comments, I might move back to xp.
    • LucasKane, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6Running pretty nice with 4 gigs of ram
    • Dobby156, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1i have it is fine, i would switch, unless i had to.
    • GibitStylin, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2As a software programmer, i must say i really do not have many problems with vista. I however was lucky enough to get vista business edition (64bit) for free through msdn. It runs fine on my computer and i have had all the different version of sp1, which has actually added a lot of stablility. all in all i actually like it more than xp.... i run 2.6 overclocked AMD Athlon 64 x2, 4gb mem, 7800gt video, 2.7 tb in raid5, and 2 20" ws lcds, so i could give a f*ck if it doesnt perform as fast as xp. id rather game on my consoles anyways.... ps, i could always boot xp, or ubuntu from my tri-boot menu if i really wanted too.
    • MxM111, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4First of all, the article is about problem with (non-MS) drivers, not Vista itself.
      I had loads of problems with Vista first half of the year since its release, but presently, once all drivers become updated, vista runs really smooth even on my 1GB laptop. And with new 2GB desktop it is really terrific. I can't see myself going back to XP now when Vista finally works.
      Try to go to sleep mode or hibernate in XP when you have 3D full-screen application (e.g. game) minimized - the application will stop working - not so in Vista. There are many little perks in Vista that make it nicer and more usable than XP.
  • DiggLive, on 03/26/2008, -62/+39"I cannot understand with a product this long in creation why there is such a shortage of drivers"

    Vista's issues all relate to software/hardware support. I haven't had any issues, but of course I built my own. Vista is going to suck if you get some pre-installed piece of ***** with a Celeron processor and Intel integrated graphics. I don't blame Vista, I blame the computer makers.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -13/+32Why? I know these are crappy computers, but with an OS that makes poor choices for performance just so it looks better is really, well, an OS related problem. Lets not forget that people have been doing similar things on similar computers with different OS's with little issues.
      • nazadus, on 03/26/2008, -21/+6I do dearly hope you don't have more than 512MB of memory... otherwise you are wasting it.
        Personally, I never found Vista to be slow unless I'm doing developing and 3D gaming at the same time... but hey.. maybe I just have a computer than can handle it. On an odd note, that same computer didn't run well with Linux... I gave it two shots with Ubuntu...
        Runs well with XP however you won't be able to buy XP from an OEM after June 30...
        • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -2/+14What exactly do you "develop" that requires high such resource utilization on a box capable of running 3d games on Vista? Are you a QT developer rebuilding it from scratch in a VM after each code modification or what?
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -2/+13...Uhm... If its wasting my resources AT ALL, Its bad. I don't care how. I do development and I want tests to be accurate and I want to be able to use most of the power available. If you have 512 MB, 500 of it will be used for Vista. Have fun playing SDL Pong without using Swap memory, because thats about all that will fit after your done booting up on a computer with a small suite of software installed.
          • jakem1, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3Oh for god's sake just buy some more RAM - it's not expensive these days.. XP doesn't even run that well with less than 1Gb of RAM. 512Mb of RAM in 2001 = 2Gb of RAM in 2008..
          • tendonut, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2The last time I checked, OS's shouldn't require more RAM over time to do the same tasks you have always done...I thought updating your OS was suppose to make it better and more efficient, not eat up more memory. Why did XP work fine with 256MB back in 2001 but now require 1GB to run as smooth as it did years ago?
      • piper999, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1They aren't crappy computers though are they? People who think that are either snobs or just don't know how to configure and maintain their systems. I still have a Celeron PC from 2001 running XP that runs just as fast as the day I bought it which incidentally I suspect is a lot faster than the Vista computers that a lot of people in this thread are running. These are the kind of people who think that when their computers slow down they have to run out and buy more hardware instead of just finding out what the problem is and fixing it.
        • tendonut, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Just about every bit of extra spending money I come across is from people who pay me on the side to make their computer work like it was brand new. They call GeekSquad, and they say you need a massive memory upgrade, a faster processor, etc. etc....Yet they don't run Windows updates and all they use is FF and MS Word....They call me, 20 minutes later it's brand new again...The idea that computers don't just randomly get slow and require upgrades to continue doing the exact same tasks they always have just blows their mind. Office 2000 doesn't require 256MB or RAM one week and 1GB the next week for no reason at all.
      • jhaks, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1So Aero takes a lot of resources? WDM only takes 13-23 MB of ram and uses almost no CPU. All of it is off loaded to the GPU. Of course if you buy a crappy machine with a shared memory graphics chip that has been hacked to work with Aero you will get a crappy experience. Again this is the fault of OEMs.
    • Remmy, on 03/26/2008, -6/+26Yeah. Software/hardware support... let's see, that covers everything you do with a computer, doesn't it?
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7For most people using Vista, that, internet and e-mail and your all good. Of course, thats WHY they're using vista.
    • Phocion55, on 03/26/2008, -11/+59Compiz Fusion runs flawlessly on one of my boxes with integrated Intel. So it CAN be done on what you call "piece of *****" hardware.

      People need to wake up and understand that you don't need the latest and greatest hardware to be able to do these kinds of things - just because Microsoft says so.
      • aywwts4, on 03/26/2008, -5/+25I don't even understand what is taking so many resources, a little rolodex alt+tab, semi-transparent window edges and a split seccond of transforming upon minimizing? Thats 512 megs of ram (just for the effects) and a good graphics card?!

        You can run all of ubuntu and compiz on 350 megs and integrated graphics, all with a crap load of virtual desktops, a 3D cube with reflections that you can whip around, unwrap, and spin at a push of a button, and a ton of different effects from the cool to the shamelessly showy (Having your windows ignite into flames upon closing or folding the window into a paper airplane and having it fly off the screen)
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -2/+22I agree, Compiz Fusion definitely puts Microsoft in its place about whats /REALLY/ needed to perform a 3D desktop. It does even more and doesn't choke as easily.
      • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -2/+22I've seen Compiz run flawlessly on a Gateway from 2001 with 256MB RAM and a 32MB video card. So what's Microsoft's excuse?
      • Stonekeeper, on 03/26/2008, -3/+12It also runs well on a eeepc! You know, that thing people laugh at and call a "toy". Glad my "toy" does better than a vista machine and at £200, the joke's on you!
      • SniperSlap, on 03/26/2008, -2/+9I've been trying to tell people this for ages. Microsoft just won't let some people understand just how inefficient their software is.
      • tendonut, on 03/26/2008, -1/+7Wait, so I don't need to buy the new Dell computer with 2GB RAM, Core 2 Duo, GeForce 8800GTX, and a 1TB HDD if I want to edit my MySpace, write a paper for school, and listen to music ALL at the same time? You mean I could do that with a 500MHz Pentium III with 256MB RAM? That's not what the Dell guys say!
      • Amiga500, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2No, we aren't going to buy it. You and your Charlie Chaplin/Hitler Icon have always trolled on Digg. Every problem someone has, you retort with “It's no a problem for me”. Go screw yourself. No idiot on here is dumb enough to believe you run anything with anything. You lying ass.
        • Phocion55, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Block button's next to my name. Feel free.

          And the icon is Charlie from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".
    • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -3/+31Well, if the guy who uses the Windows logo as his personal icon on digg says Vista is cool, it must be true.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -3/+18DiggLive is well known to be a complete *****.

        I mean, yeah, exactly!
    • championchap, on 03/26/2008, -15/+11oh ***** off.
      Vista bluescreens every 5 minutes on the system I built myself 2 years ago.

      I THINK it's the motherboard. Anyway, here is the spec.
      Abit KN9 Sli
      GeForce Asus 7600GT
      AMD Athlon 4200 X2 (AM2)
      2GB Crosshair RAM DDR2
      500GB Samsung Sata2 HDD

      Duno about you, but I would have assumed Vista would have run on that.
      • Murdats, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6well that would be why, I wouldnt recommend using a pre-beta version for testing.
        RTM date was November 8, 2006
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2I had that problem before a lot with the release version. It would bluescreen often ~15 minutes after bootup... I think it was Aero's fault.
      • chris9902, on 03/26/2008, -5/+3blue screens are hardware problems. You should be thanking Microsoft for them for the fact your hardware didn't continue to be in use and catch fire or something.
        • Everen, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2That is not always the case. Faulty software/drivers (even drivers for software stacks, a la Intel's Host Media Processing Stack) can cause a Bluescreen.
          • chris9902, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1But on Vista you nearly never see a driver blue screen. It's even rarer on 64-bit since only certified drivers work.
          • DarkShroud, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Vista changed the way drivers work. So if a driver crashes it can no longer take the OS with it.
      • tendonut, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Yeah! And why weren't there any drivers for my GeForce 7900GT for my Windows XP machine 8 years ago! XP was suppose to be the best thing since sliced bread when it was released a year later!
        • Amiga500, on 03/26/2008, -3/+28 years ago? Really? Because the 7X series from Nvidia dates back to June 2005. Ooops. What? A Linux user LYING again? No wait... it can't be????
          • tendonut, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2You clearly missed my point. I am trying to use NEW hardware with OLD software...
            *****..
    • momsshizzle, on 03/26/2008, -21/+6Wow, the truth is always dugg down. I dugg you up dude. The idiot should have researched before getting Vista. Sounds like a Linsux user.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -6/+9You sound like an idiot. What a coincidence! You ARE an idiot. Get off the internet, and kill yourself. Take DiggLive and AppleMacMan with you. We HATE you, all of you.

        Honestly, how can you be more wrong? Correct answer: YOU CAN'T. So Vista sucks with some computers because WHY? Because Aero's an inefficient piece of *****, and yet its enabled on some ***** Intel GMA it shouldn't be enabled on because Microsoft needed good press. Guess what? Vista Sucks! People were right. Aero sucks, and nothing has been done about it yet. Grow a brain. Microsoft is a corporation, they do things to get money. Is it not obvious?

        And Linsux? Honestly? Lets put aside the fact that I probably know more than you about any OS for five minutes. If you can't install Linux properly without help, then you need mental help. If you can't do basic tasks and install new software and games on Linux properly without someone doing it for you, you have problems. If you can't find out what version of a Linux binary to download because you don't know the architecture of your computer, your an idiot. What the ***** is wrong with you? You probably never even tried it, and you feel like your somehow entitled to say this?

        Fun fact: This text is worth more than you.
        • hypertension, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Well AppleMacMan can probably stay...
      • theaceoffire, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3Yousucks user.
    • Hangly, on 03/26/2008, -2/+9Microsoft has been blaming hardware for all its problems for decades. I wouldn't expect that to change anytime soon.
    • jdpwnsyou, on 03/26/2008, -6/+7My Vista works extremely well. I'm not sure what special kind of idiot it takes to not be able to work it.
      • Amiga500, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1Think of all the idiots using computer 10 years ago.... now we have twice that many, if not more. The overall ratio of competent users to morons stays the same, which is the real problem. Not only that, we have the Internet, where one dumb ass can piss their pants about a problem (regardless of cause), and a horde of equally ignorant queers will jump all over it.
  • MAGZine, on 04/22/2008, -44/+147You can't call Outlook Express 'email', email client, or anything of the sort. You can, however, call it a piece of *****.

    Sorry, couldn't miss taking a shot at outlook
    • justok, on 03/26/2008, -12/+43you missed. common mistake for n00bs. Outlook Express and Outlook are different.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -13/+14Unfortunatally, Either you knew what he meant and your being an *****, or your just an *****.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3in the same way, it's hard to know what you meant, because you apparently can't use spell-check in outlook.
      • PintOfGuinness, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Sausages.
      • Dobby156, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1he right, OUTLOOK, is very good.
    • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -4/+6@justok
      Which is solid and which is runny?
    • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -5/+25But it's the best email client out there if you need to send automatically executing vbscripts to your friends and coworkers.
      • uu2b, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3Maybe, if you're still using Outlook 98. That's been prevented now FOR YEARS.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -6/+4I don't like Outlook or Outlook Express, but its obvious that Outlook Express is no more than a joke of an email client compared to Outlook, which at least has some ground as a program.
    • smurfassassin, on 03/26/2008, -0/+9I agree with your point, but isn't it "Windows Mail" in Vista?
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Yeah, they finally figured out that "Outlook Express" is a really ***** name for a simple email client.
        • DarkShroud, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah it's too simple since they have a more advanced program called "Outlook."
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/26/2008, -4/+10While outlook express may be garbage, outlook 2007 is sweet. I plan my life in outlook.
    • momsshizzle, on 03/26/2008, -10/+4Dugg down. Outlook 2007 is the best out there.
    • DarkShroud, on 03/26/2008, -5/+17Microsoft removed Outlook Express from Vista. They wrote a new program from the ground up called Windows Mail. People who've actually used Vista know this.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -10/+8Its the same exact ***** thing with a new GUI. People who've actually used XP know this.
        • jakem1, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Are you three years old? Every post of yours seems to involve loads of unnecessary swearing and abuse. If you can't come up with a rational argument without having to resort to this sort of language you should probably just step away fro the keyboard.
      • doshindude, on 03/26/2008, -8/+3Ones who also use Vista but aren't retarded know it's the same ***** program with a different name.
      • tugger, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1Since when did microsoft write ANYTHING from the ground up?

        Vista has over a million lines of ***** (that no-one in MS knows what it does) carried over from XP. nmnnotmyname is right, mail just has a crappy new ui.
      • DarkShroud, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Is this the best you guys can come up with? Seriously how many of you have even hit puberty? And here I was expecting a moderately informed response like Windows Mail copied Thunderbird. And no it's not just a new GUI, it's a new damn program. If any of you pre-pubescent tards ever bothered to actually read documentation on MS products you'd find out much of Vista uses a different code based than XP; especially after SP-1. Vista even has UNIX built in; no version of XP has UNIX code.
        • MAGZine, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1dugg down for bringing puberty into this, and basically calling others immature when they try and share their views on a particular topic.
    • fizzak, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1(Insert scarcasm here for the uninformed) "Sure try Lotus Notes then, MUCH BETTER!!!..."
  • lobsterxcore, on 03/26/2008, -11/+53Pretty sure this was on front page like a week ago...
    • badqat, on 03/26/2008, -2/+20Closer to a month ago...
    • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -0/+15I'm pretty sure it's been on digg's front page at least once a week since the news broke.
      • Beylan, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Only this time they left out the part about how they defrauded people on the "Vista Capabable" and "Vista Ready" programs at Intel and other chain partners insistence so they could meet their end of year quotas on obsolete hardware like the 815 graphics chip.
    • AndreiOttawa, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2This has been around for a long time. I don't understand why people keep submitting it.
    • Zera, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Yep, the "Private Email" that is the focus of the discussion was from February 25, 2007, less than a month after Vista was released. You can see the date in the article's image between Balmer and the other guy.
    • maloventevil, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1WHERE IS THE OLD NEWS BURY!!!!
  • chandan333, on 03/26/2008, -42/+73XP ROCKS
    thats it.
    • nazadus, on 03/26/2008, -5/+21Wow. I never thought I would read that on Digg with a positive rating... especially considering how much people said they would /never/ move to it back when it was first introduced. Seriously go Google the XP adoption rate and how many people said it offered nothing over 2K.
      • theaceoffire, on 03/26/2008, -3/+7XP service pack 2 really was amazing.
        • PintOfGuinness, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5Sex with your mum was amazing, now go and get a life!
      • BuddyDoQ, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5To be honest, I only "upgraded" to XP over 2K to get 64bit mode in games with my last hardware upgrade a year or so ago. Functional differences are minimal, and the only real benefit I've seen in daily use is the boot time. If not for idle curiosity of the 64bit functions, I'd still be on 2K. Unless all the new games start coming out DX10 or Vista only, I don't see a valid reason to upgrade.
    • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -4/+17Sometimes something seems really *****, until you try something worse. I thought Visual Studio 2005 was a buggy piece of crap, then I tried Visual Studio 2008, and now I think VS 2005 is a masterpiece.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -6/+5Dugg down, both are really ***** buggy pieces of crap. I preferred Code::Blocks over both >_<
        VC6 was nice... AT THE TIME. Now looking back that standards incompliant compiler is the reason most students can't learn real C++. I guess its really the schools faults at this point, they have options now, and they aren't taking them.
    • domokunt, on 03/26/2008, -9/+16Wait till windows 7 comes out, then Vista will be the new cool.
      • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -3/+23Just like how Windows Me was the new cool when Windows 2000 came out. Oh wait.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -3/+14And finally, someone realizes the difference between XP's transition and Vista's transition.
        • grumpyrain, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4You do realise 2K was released 4 months before ME right?

          ME was a kneejerk when they realised that 2K had too many driver incompatibilities to force a transition to the NT kernel. It is also pure evil.
          • LocalDocal, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Not completely accurate. Windows ME was supposed to be the 'home edition' version of 'Windows 2000'; that is why one is named '2000' while the other is named 'Millennium'. They're basically just two sides of the same coin (except one side is exceedingly disfigured by scratches while the other side is relatively clean).

            In all honesty, though, this just makes the Vista situation looks worse. Instead of comparing the transition from Windows ME to Windows 2000 then to Windows XP, you're comparing the transition from Windows ME to Windows XP.
        • SteveMax, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5If I remember it correctly, Me came out after 2k. However, 2k was never marketed to home users.
      • doshindude, on 03/26/2008, -6/+5No, Vista will never be cool.
    • elpohl, on 03/26/2008, -2/+11But it sure didn't rock right out of the bat! Hell... the company where I work in still has +500 workstations with Windows 2000 Pro.
      • ifknot, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2I just now replaced W2000pro on my Vaio laptop with Ubuntu 7.1 and everything works! Am impressed.
        • lisaawesome, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I run Windows 2000 Pro on my home computer still, and I have never had the problems I hear/heard about with ME or Vista. I don't see any reason to upgrade when I have never had a problem and it does everything I need it to. I think this "need" to run out and upgrade every time something new is released is all about this "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality and I am not going to be some over consuming debt ridden retail whore. That ***** makes me sick.
    • knelto, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1JOKEWOOD ROCKS
    • Isandunk, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I bet you never thought you would say that.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1XP was refined over the years to make a good operating system. Microsoft will either do the same with vista or just scrap it and move to Windows 7.
  • mehan, on 03/26/2008, -42/+20it sounds like the problem described is a lack of drivers for Vista. that's the hardware manufacturers' fault, not MS's.
    • kazamx, on 03/26/2008, -4/+15Its true that lack of drivers is one of Vistas problems. Ubuntu doesn't get any slack from people though about lack of wireless drivers.
      • jakem1, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Except Microsoft doesn't write the drivers that have been causing problems.
    • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -2/+12Depends on if the hardware was supposed to have been validated as "Vista capable" (which it apparently was) by MS. Also depends on if the driver api or the kernel were properly tested and stable. If the api is *****, you cannot blame vendor developers for the interface MS created for them to use
      • 4pple5auce, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1MS has been working with these vendors for years though. They should already be familiar with .NET handling drivers as it somewhat did in XP. I blame the hardware manufacturers for shorting their vista driver development teams.
    • aywwts4, on 03/26/2008, -1/+14Also, Microsoft's 64 bit edition requires all drivers be signed by microsoft before they can run, so even if you can find drivers that work, if they haven't been signed you are still out of luck. There used to be workarounds, but Microsoft disabled them with a patch, so formerly working hardware now fails on every boot.
      • magamiako, on 03/26/2008, -11/+3You fail, sir.

        And whoever dugg this comment up fails. Re-read the bit about driver signing. It requires drivers that operate in "kernel mode" be "digitally signed", not signed by Microsoft. However, getting a driver signed by Microsoft counts as a digital signature.

        You can very well sign a driver yourself if you invest in the money for a driver signing certificate from Thawte or Verisign, which isn't exactly cheap. However, you do not have to get a driver "signed by Microsoft" for it to work.
        • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -3/+8Probably was me who dugg him up. Sorry I am unfamiliar with the commercial tyranny-machine semantics, I've barely touched MS crap in nearly a decade for philosophical and practicality reasons.

          Either way, his point is still valid and I would have still dugg him up. It is BS to have to pay extra money or steal to support hardware you've already paid for and/or been using
        • aywwts4, on 03/26/2008, -1/+7Oh well in that case I take it all back, I will just tell my now out of business hardware manufacturer to pay Verisign money instead, what a great solution that completely negates my point. (Sarcasm)
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5His point stands.
      • drmsux, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2You can still use dev signing with a self-generated cert. Worked for me.
        http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?article=476
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3BCD used to be able to do it. Someone tell me if they took the option out in Vista SP1 - That will stop me from even bothering with it.
        • aywwts4, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3If you are talking about this command "bcdedit /set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS"

          Yeah, they broke that with some patches, it's an impotent command now, safe mode loads without driver signing, but even with the command vista will block drivers.
      • graycat, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1I'm running windows XP 64 bit right now - and I've never had that problem.
    • domokunt, on 03/26/2008, -15/+7Don't let truth get in the way of a good m$ bashing.
      • saisumimen, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3But, if you had bothered to read the ***** article... IT WAS A TOP MICROSOFT EXECUTIVE DOING THE BASHING, ya douche.
    • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -4/+17Funny that so often I read (in defense of Windows' slow development pace) that, "Microsoft has to support every piece of hardware and every configuration on the planet!", yet when the issue is lack of drivers, it's suddenly the hardware vendors' fault. Which is it Windows fanboys? Does Windows support hardware or does hardware support Windows?
    • secleinteer, on 03/26/2008, -0/+11Hahahahaha. Why is it that people are so quick to blame Linux for not having support for many hardware devices and for many popular applications, but when the same thing happens with Windows, it's the other companies' fault?
      • graycat, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Actually that was the case with linux about 10 or 15 years ago. The drivers available for linux far outnumber what is provided for windows at this point.
        I personally have never had a problem finding the right driver for any hardware I am working with on Ubuntu.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3No, people still get pissed off about Linux not having drivers...
          I never had trouble either, even this generic TV tuner card works pretty good.
        • theaceoffire, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4I had one issue with a really old tv tuner card, but even that was fixed with a little research (Apparently they made so few of them that most people didn't know it existed).
        • SniperSlap, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4Indeed, driver availability in Linux is getting to be quite impressive. Zero effort for the most part even on the non-Ubuntu distributions!

          This is a problem where FOSS - unlike Microsoft - will rise to the challenge and just fix the issue rather than engage in all kinds of damage control.
      • tendonut, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Because MS is a huge multi-billion dollar company that has money to throw around to fix the problems, yet choose not to. As stated before, if the APIs suck ass, the hardware developers don't have much to work with. Linux is a whole different story. Hardware developers have full access to anything they want, yet choose not to develop for Linux because it's adoption rate. At least they generally allow 3rd party drivers to be created so someone ELSE can take the initiative.
  • mal1964, on 03/26/2008, -22/+11How is OS X Leopard doing?
    • banmaster, on 03/26/2008, -14/+8less than 1/20th the penetration of windows. Thats how.
      • mal1964, on 03/26/2008, -6/+6Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant as a OS is it having any problems?
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -12/+6Besides being kind of... well.. being crappy. I guess not.
    • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -8/+10It's still *****!
      • hypertension, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2... says the Vista lover.
        • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1No. Just that Leopard sucks ass.
          • hypertension, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0No it doesn't. Maybe I can find a 5 year old to teach you how to use it! :-D
    • Nanite, on 03/26/2008, -5/+4I've been using leo since January and it's great. Rock solid, no problems running older Mac software, or old Windows software for that matter (parallels,) And it's even faster than OS 10.4 Tiger. I've never experienced any of these things with Vista, which wont talk to my printers and is dog slow, SP1 did absolutely nothing to fix it either.
    • trizzlelv, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1It runs a little slower on my puny Macbook than Tiger, but the lightning quick Windows XP runs faster than my dual core Dell!!
  • diablozx9, on 03/26/2008, -31/+11UBUNTU
  • Shadowgamers, on 03/26/2008, -29/+20Because driver compatibility problems are all Microsofts fault.
    • arcticblue, on 03/26/2008, -4/+20Yep, just like how wireless driver problems are [insert Linux distro]'s fault.
    • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -7/+6DISCLAIMER - pasting from above

      Depends on if the hardware was supposed to have been validated as "Vista capable" (which it apparently was) by MS. Also depends on if the driver api or the kernel were properly tested and stable. If the api is *****, you cannot blame vendor developers for the interface MS created for them to use
      • Shadowgamers, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3The sarcasm was lost on you obviously
        • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1You don't understand the definition of "sarcasm", obviously.
          Your sarcasm implied the driver problems are not Microsoft's fault. In this instance they seem to be. I was clarifying the issue to illustrate why and how.
          Since you prefer to remain ignorant of such issues and pretend you know ***** you obviously didn't by asserting I was somehow mistaken in my interpretation, I will simply follow suit with everyone else and bury/ridicule your stupidity.
          Have a nice day, moron
        • Rebel1280, on 03/26/2008, -2/+0LOL i have a boss that is exactly like you way to funny........but your smart :)
    • FUR10N, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2yeah I know, In most cases its not Microsoft's fault, the other vendors were just too lazy release new drivers, and as usual everyone wants to blame microsoft. I've been using Vista since launch and I've had only one driver issue which was witch a five year old set of speakers.
  • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -18/+42It always astounds me how free software can do as well and often better than MS. Even with their billions of dollars in profits and well-paid engineers, developers and supporters worldwide *still* have to go out further out of their way and lose more time/productivity to support it than with any of the alternatives.

    I wish more users and professionals would just spend the extra few hrs getting used to the alternatives and save the whole world and themselves a lot of stress (and money). It's a worthy investment
    • diablozx9, on 03/26/2008, -8/+11Ubuntu
    • kazamx, on 03/26/2008, -8/+11PCLinuxOS
      • gkwillie, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Radically Simple. Best Decision I made in a long time.
    • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -12/+2Good luck getting support for it if there's a problem. Sure there's community support with forums, but if your business looses money because of a flaw in the OS or one of it's assemblies, you're screwed.
      • div2n, on 03/26/2008, -1/+12Ubuntu offers paid support. So does Red Hat and Novell. Your assertion is complete absurdity.
        • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2So if KDE fails or I find a bug in it, Ubuntu will fix it? How about installing Oracle? Do you still need to recompile the kernal after the installation? You can take your "absurd assertion" and cram it. Leave the open sores platform where it belongs, swirling the bowl.
          Sure, Red Hat runs well, just don't use for anything at the enterprise level.
      • spinlock99, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Does Microsoft support Windows? We're still having trouble from the daylight savings time switch and I'd love to get them to help fix the problem.
    • greyrat, on 03/26/2008, -5/+6Wireless. Why ers Less. WIRELESS!!! Fix it.
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/26/2008, -4/+5Free software may work on the server side but production apps like open office leave a lot to be desired when compared to MS Office.
      • jestin, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6In my experience, the only thing left to be desired is obscure compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary file formats. I always hear complaints about how a file created in MS Office doesn't open right in OpenOffice, but if you create a document in OpenOffice and save it in ODF, MS can't even open it out of the box. How on earth is that a fair comparison? OpenOffice supports more formats than MS Office, it runs on more systems than MS Office, and all it's specs are open, yet people seem to ignore these facts as actual features. To me, that's what I'm looking for in an office suite.
        • jhaks, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2You're side stepping the point. Office 2007 is better than OpenOffice when it comes to usability, design and features.

          Some open source software can't really compare to their closed source counter parts. Gimp and Photoshop is another example.
        • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Exactly! But what about other *nix apps? Gimp and OpenOffice are the only ones that are ever compared. What others apps have parallels to other OSs??
    • derekge, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Mepis 7.0 - try it, you may not even need to install any drivers!
    • heathuff23, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1yes...free software that you cant play games on...basically ubuntu gives you the same problems as Vista...it makes it a $2,000 email machine...thats why I use XP
    • XHashmeerX, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Alternatives are nice...but standards are better.

      I don't care if there's 100 different word processors for example, but if one can't read the other's, or can only read half of the others...that ***** just doesn't fly in the business world.
      • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Damn skippy!! I wish I could digg you more than once.
    • Zera, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1The "Private Email" that is the focus of the discussion was from February 25, 2007, less than a month after Vista was released. You can see the date in the article's image between Balmer and the other guy.
  • Murrabbit, on 03/26/2008, -33/+97$2100 computer? He was using a Mac!
    • banmaster, on 03/26/2008, -27/+19Thats not a computer. Its just overpriced FisherPrice junk.
      • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -13/+32OS X Leopard a fully-certified Unix distribution. Windows is the toy OS by comparison.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -9/+4Yeah, thats the COOL part of OSX. The GUI? Well, FisherPrice doesn't quite describe it...
          • hypertension, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1You're very bitter about OS X. Ex-girlfriend (or boyfriend) a Mac user?
        • MisterThePlague, on 03/26/2008, -4/+19Comes down to personal taste, but I find OS X downright minimalist and classy compared to the over-the-top flashy sparkly gaudiness of Vista. It's a big step up from XP though, whose default blue theme is the pinnacle of "Fisher Price".
        • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -3/+15XP looks like pre-school ***** by default IMO. Vista to a lesser extent
          That was my first thought the first time I saw XP at a computer outlet "WTF... it looks like a UI for pre-schoolers!" (Mostly because of the colors I think)
        • PueSi, on 03/26/2008, -11/+5Yeah Windows is such a Toy, i wonder why it has by far the largest market share at work.
          If OS X is oh-so capable why do most users end up needing to use Windows alongside? Why bother using OS X in the first place?
          If you need Unix, use Linux. Apple hardware is not worth the price tag no matter how shiny the case is.
      • Darph.Bobo, on 03/26/2008, -12/+18I smell Mac envy! Painful isn't it?

        No amount of bad-mouthing OS X is going to make it true you have to accept the truth no matter how painful it is. Btw, don't forget to do your virus scans and updates, watch out for spyware, adware, trojans, worms, malware and DON'T click on any email attachments! LOL! what ***** fool you are.
        • PueSi, on 03/26/2008, -9/+5Dont forget to boot Windows to play games!
          When you need another OS to have the same functionality you're doing it wrong.
        • digitalpencil, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5^^ Yeah, cause the ability to run every piece of software available, native through BC and emulated through crossover, vmware or parallels is obviously a negative...
        • Wesside, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Its a negative on OSX Digitalpencil. And its a negative BECAUSE it can't do it natively, you have to install another OS to do the job for it and thats just sad.
          Dont get me wrong, Vista is garbage, and ending support for XP is just a bad idea, but OS X is not god, Macs give you e-mail internet and itunes that doesnt crash the OS, that isnt exactly a shining star in my book
      • quic, on 03/26/2008, -5/+2when will people learn never bash apple when your on digg?
    • monkeyboyx, on 03/26/2008, -2/+8lol...nice one..yeah probably.
    • ifknot, on 03/26/2008, -4/+5He can't have been otherwise it would have worked:
      http://scissormonkey.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/for- ...
    • bubbles19518, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2shoulda, woulda, coulda right?
    • digitallysick, on 03/26/2008, -1/+7Or he went to best buy!
    • Allibaster, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2Must have been one of those dual quad core mac pros or something....Maybe high end macbook pro.
    • tugger, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2thats odd because his email clearly says its a sony vaio... but then again most of the macs unique hardware features appear on the high end sonys eventually. Except reliability, thats is.
  • dOOBiEx213, on 03/26/2008, -12/+9Early adopters or test dummies? Never get software/hardware when it's first released.
    • smotpoker, on 03/26/2008, -2/+9Duh, what morons would expect something that was already supposed to be professionally tested and sold as stable to perform in a reliable/stable manner? Pffft
    • diablozx9, on 03/26/2008, -5/+9MS charges for its software,, it should test it before its released. I have NEVER seen any Linux distro released with even a fraction of the bugs that Vista has.
      • dOOBiEx213, on 03/26/2008, -8/+5Really? You've never seen any driver incompatibility issues with Linux? Link please.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6Bugs != driver incompatibility.
          • dOOBiEx213, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1These "bugs" are minor annoyances...and no, I'm not a rep for Microsoft...I've just learned to accept the "Mark of the Vista"
        • freedomknight, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3Ok then, Vista has AC97 Audio bug. Even XP automatically detects that device.
    • dontaskagain, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Ubuntu 8.04 hasn't driven me into a brick wall yet, well not figuratively at least... i did walk into a wall while looking at the pretty wobbly window animations..More IRL ECC PLX KTHX BI
  • alienunknown, on 03/26/2008, -10/+39It's a shame that most people don't seem to realise that there are viable alternatives to windows. Every time a new version of windows is released there is always some huge controversy. Though, vista and ME seem to be the worst. Why do people continue to buy this crap? I don't mean those that buy a new PC that has it pre-installed but why go out and pay hundreds of dollars for crap software?
    • diablozx9, on 03/26/2008, -7/+25Whats even funnier than Vista functionality is those people who will defend MS even though they haven't tried any of the free alternatives.
      • pathy, on 03/26/2008, -11/+11Or the ones that bash Vista without having tried it?
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8Ooh, Ooh, I've tried it, does that mean I have rights to say it sucks for the completely obvious fact that two different WM systems on different OS's can do more and perform better than Vista's?

          Let's not forget how they cheated for Intel. Or for how some software still doesn't work in it.
        • evilregis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I've used it. Increased hardware requirements for... what? My beef is that there's absolutely no advantage in upgrading to Vista... zero payback for the increased computing requirements and subsequent costs.
      • nazadus, on 03/26/2008, -8/+7Indeed, however many of the people harping on Vista are just parroting what others have said without REAL experience.
        Or they might have been running it on an older machine that probably would barely run XP.
        It's very much like the friend of mine who is a Linux zealot, but swapped.
        If you walk in to *anything* expecting it to fail, then it WILL fail. Linux, Mac, and Microsoft will all fall flat on their face if you are *looking* for problems.

        As an admin, Linux is a painful choice for a business with more than 20 people. Think of how to manage those updates. Hope you don't have to dual boot or Ubuntu will whack your boot loader on the next kernel update (had this happen to me frequently).

        So yes, there are free alternative. There are also not-so-free alternatives. The question is: Does the OS do what you want it?
        If their computer comes with Vista and it is able to print, run quicken, do a few games, check email, and surf the net then they are usually happy with it. If the interface, such as Vista or OS X, is different - then they will hate it merely because it is different. These are also the exact same people who bitched about going from 98->2k->XP and pissed and moaned about every single thing.

        [edit: damn, this comment system still sucks... does double lines..]
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Managing updates? Easy. I update to newer GIT versions of software every week. It ought to be easier to get releases, especially from distro updates. I've tried doing a small network test with updates. It didn't take that long to figure out ways to reliably update them all. You just have to work on the setup.

          Of course the situation really depends on what your trying to do.
      • magamiako, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7Do you know what a "domain" is? Do you know what Active Directory is? How about LDAP? Group Policy? GPMC? What about Access Control Lists?

        On the flip side, do you understand how to use mod_rewrite in httpd.conf? Do you have a patch management policy? Who do you call if something in the software breaks and doesn't work as it should?

        If you do not understand what any of these mean to the world of IT in the workplace, then you do not clearly have an understanding of what the clear differences are between Windows and Linux.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5I know this stuff. And I agree, People say Linux and Windows are different, they don't even know the half of it.

          On the flip side... It doesn't really matter, does it? The point was both OS's can do the same things if you know how.
        • magamiako, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6Not necessarily. Both OS' do things very differently, with Group Policy being a primary difference between them. Centralized patch management is also something that isn't easy to do with Linux machines. There are certainly ways to automate patch installation via scripts, and running patch upgrade schedules, but there's nothing quite like WUS for Linux in the business.

          Not to mention the tight integration of MIcrosoft Office, Windows, with MOSS that in its entirety supports SSO. While there are some fantastic CMS' released in the open source world, nothing quite matches the deep level of integration and interaction of these products. There certainly could be, but I guess most OSS developers have no desire to actually get something like that up and running as it's not core to what they build their OS' for.

          You can do centralized authentication with Linux machines. And in fact, you can have Windows machines central authenticate to a Linux-based LDAP server, with obvious losses in things like GPO. You can also get Linux to authenticate to a centralized Windows domain via PAM. Neither of these are easy feats, but are doable (with lots of painful effort). Either way, this just comes down to the authentication part and issuing Kerberos tickets that requires heavy changes in the Samba and PAM realms.
          • Tenoq, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6Bollocks. Host a local repository and add it to your clients. If anything, that's EASIER than WSUS.
          • magamiako, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Host a local repository? Easier than WSUS? lol. Okay...I don't get the "easier" part, but it is certainly doable. Just a lot more difficult to manage than doing so on Windows.
          • theaceoffire, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3@magamiako
            However, it does have a strong advantage... you can patch any program you want on their system.
          • sirhomer, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Setting up winbind on Ubuntu Hardy and openSuSE (or any distro with YaST) is pathetically easy. It's even easier then joining a computer to a domain in Windows, for instance, it does not require a reboot (or two reboots for name changes). LDAP makes more sense with Linux however, since you can do stuff like assign login shells and scripts to different users and groups (offering similar functionality to AD GP).
          • JosephStalin, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Someone hasn't heard of Zenworks... Zenworks can manage both SUSE and Windows desktops.

            Also, Canonical now has a tool similar to that called Landscape for managing Ubuntu systems. I haven't had time to test it out yet, though. Here's the press release:

            http://www.ubuntu.com/news/landscape
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7From a server side point of view, you could ramble on for days about the differences, weak and strong points of each. It won't change the fact that pretty much the same thing can be achieved without much hassle on both.
        • magamiako, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2No, it cannot be achieved with little hassle on both. There are things that both do stronger that are more difficult on the other.
        • sirhomer, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Are you listing differences or what? LDAP on Linux is very common, Active Directory compatible (which is pretty much an LDAP/Kerabos implementation by Microsoft) and GPO can be set up in Samba. Access Control Lists have been in Linux for A LONG time. There is even a POSIX standard for ACLs known as "POSIX Access Control Lists". The relevant command for manipulating POSIX ACLs in Linux are getfacl and setfacl. Linux can do a lot more then most people think.
    • pathy, on 03/26/2008, -2/+12I consider it worth it, I suppose.

      I used XP for years, it was well worth the price I paid for it.

      Windows is a familiar OS for me, and I know the programs I like, I know how to work the OS, I know it's little quirks, and I know how to get around them. If I switched to OS X or Linux, I'd have to go through this learning process again. I have tried both, but Windows is still my prefered OS, thus I will spend the money to get it.
    • PueSi, on 03/26/2008, -5/+10I've tried Linux (Ubuntu) and i still prefer Windows, I'm currently using Vista.
      The reason i chose Windows over Linux is because there's nothing i can do on Linux that i can't on Windows, you can't say the same thing about Linux without having to mess around searching on forums hoping for things to work. It's not Linux's fault though, it's the lack of support from the hardware/software manufacturers, hopefully someday that will change and when that day comes I'll gladly try again.
      Linux is completely usable but *for my needs* Windows is better. $99 is not that much money for a once every 5-7 years.
      I don't even care about OS X, it's more expensive and restricted than a Windows machine and you end up having to use Windows in some way.
      When Apple start selling OS X for any hardware i'll gladly give it a try.
      • theaceoffire, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3Actually, that is part of the reason I went to Linux (Ubuntu).
        Yeah, it can do almost everything (and in some cases, far more) that you can do in windows.
        However, it is highly unlikely that Ubuntu will start installing unavoidable spyware (Genuine Advantage), disable systems for possible piracy, or drop support and force you to buy a system 3 times more powerful for the next OS.
        • heathuff23, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2riiiight...I want to see your linux box run Crysis and COD4
          • theaceoffire, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1It can't, it also can't run Vista. Even if you installed XP, Vista, or whatever, it still couldn't run those.

            But it is a wonderful OS, and I really enjoy it. I can also play portal, and World Of Warcraft, and that is cool with me.
    • Rebel1280, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3I have tried other Linux distros (Ubutno, Xandros (for an office enviroment) ) I still like my XP better simply because i game alot but man you cant beat Linux when it come to home theater boxes they are the best!!
      • theaceoffire, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Also, try pSX (For windows and linux).
        Its a great PS1 emulator for those games you can't buy anymore... great addition to my ubuntu emulator box.
    • Hangly, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3That's how the upgrade treadmill works. It's the reason all of us who work in IT still have jobs.
    • reqage, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2People buy this crap software because it is imposed on them by PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc... Most people don't build PC's other then the tech savvy crowd. People just assume the latest and greatest OS will work out of the box because of how long XP has been around.
    • dartmanx, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I have two reasons I can't switch to Linux:
      1. Itunes (shut the hell up, I don't tell you what software YOU should use, and I purchase my music legally)
      2. A decent NLE (Non-linear-editing) application for creating DVDs from my home movies.

      I used to need AOL (my wife refused to give up her AOL email and forums), but she has her own laptop now.
    • Naryuu, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2for gaming.
    • kkireyev, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0I have a dual-boot Vista/Ubuntu GG on my laptop.. I keep trying Ubuntu every so often, but there's still plently of problems with it: e.g. installing emacs gives me some gcc error, wireless doesn't always work, connecting exernal monitor results in only 2/3 of the screen being shown. I'm sure all these problems are fixable, with enough knowledge or internet searches, but I just don't have the time on any given day to tinker with it. (BTW i'm a PhD student in computer science)

      Plus things like MATLAB for Windows and MS streets (great when you're travelling) don't work for linux, maybe with Wine...

      Vista works just fine for me.

      K
    • tugger, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1because windows users are sheep, just following the herd.


  • kolop1, on 03/26/2008, -35/+103That's funny. I use Vista and it works fine. I built a 900$ PC.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/26/2008, -12/+6You BUILT a PC. You can do a LOT more than ***** companies like Dell and HP. I should know, I have a 500$ PC next to this one that can run Vista nicely (Or as nicely as it gets, amirite?)
      • grumpyrain, on 03/26/2008, -1/+7I purchased a prebuilt PC (from a local shop) for $AU690 (including 19" LCD, no OS). AMDX2 6000+, 2GB, everything else on board. If I didn't get the monitor it would have been under 500. Vista I had through MSDN.

        We are talking about a US$160 CPU here and less than $100 in RAM. It runs Vista flawlessly. If you can't get yourself a reasonable computer for well under 1000, you are being ripped off.
    • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/26/2008, -6/+10Vista rocks on my $700 Gateway. I did nuke the OS on the hard drive and re-install everything from my MSDN subscription. Never use what was pre-installed.
    • Tenoq, on 03/26/2008,