Microsoft dismissed enthusiasts in Vista marketing
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 03 March 2008 - 14:24 · 52 comments & 18388 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by helmers on 03 Mar 2008 - 14:36
- While I fully understand you can't give specifics very early on, it should not be a problem to at least let the public know what is your target hardware.
And my experience is that most sales personel even today are unable to give you a realistic view of some of these features. There seems to be a lack of knowledge and an abundance of marketing-speek. To the average consumber, "Aero" would probably sound like an air freshener, and "Windows Defender" a computer game.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by Mikee99 on 03 Mar 2008 - 14:44
- Wait, so they are worried about confusing the consumer? They why the hell did they release 4 different editions of the same product? The average consumer can't tell the difference between Vista Home Basic vs. Vista Home Premium vs. Vista Business vs. Vista Ultimate. But they're worried about confusing consumers?
-
#3 Posted by Citrusleak on 03 Mar 2008 - 14:50
- I would say that even if it takes tons of work to explain what the main features of an Operating System are 6 months before public release, it would still be in the company's best interests to explain. Then the consumers will already know whether they want it or not and it could add to the hype.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by n_K on 03 Mar 2008 - 14:55
- "The average consumer would not know whether [s]he needs Aero-Glass or Windows Defender or not," Goldberg said in a Nov. 9, 2005, message. "Retail sales person[s] cannot explain what Aero Glass is or what it will do for them four [to] six months prior to Vista."
As usual, the companies like sheep that are as dumb as ****, follow the crowd, don't ask questions just buy a product because everyone else has it... SCUM ! -
#4.1 Posted by EduardValencia on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:07
- Perhaps that makes them more happy,than the people who know
-
(17 replies)
#5 Posted by Swift33 on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:07
- There's so much stuff coming out of those unsealed e-mails. Apparently they even knew users hate UAC:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/microsoft_e..._users_hate_uac -
#5.1 Posted by EduardValencia on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:24
- Hmmm UAC dislike isn´t new,and everybody knows it,and MS did know it,but that wasn´t the reason why the implemebnted this feature,the fact is that it brings so much security that makes Vista the most secure OS out there,so this guy is ****ing out of the toilet,admit it or not,(UAC)IS THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND SECURE FEATURE EVER DESIGNED BY MICROSOFT.
This guy is a jerk -
#5.2 Posted by Swift33 on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:29
- (EduardValencia said @ #5.1)Hmmm UAC dislike isn�t new,and everybody knows it,and MS did know it,but that wasn�t the reason why the implemebnted this feature,the fact is that it brings so much security that makes Vista the most secure OS out there,so this guy is ****ing out of the toilet,admit it or not,(UAC)IS THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND SECURE FEATURE EVER DESIGNED BY MICROSOFT.
This guy is a jerk
What I mean is, they knew that users hate it so much that they're disabling it. That kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?
Rather than fix it in Vista SP1 with a better implementation, they didn't do anything about it.
Last edited by Swift33 on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:35 -
#5.3 Posted by Foub on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:34
- (EduardValencia said @ #5.1)Hmmm UAC dislike isn´t new,and everybody knows it,and MS did know it,but that wasn´t the reason why the implemebnted this feature,the fact is that it brings so much security that makes Vista the most secure OS out there,so this guy is ****ing out of the toilet,admit it or not,(UAC)IS THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND SECURE FEATURE EVER DESIGNED BY MICROSOFT.
This guy is a jerk
Actually, no. Vista isn't the most secure OS out there. Not by a long shot. Linux already had this feature and it is also far less annoying also than with Vista's version. -
#5.4 Posted by cork1958 on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:37
- (Swift33 said @ #5.2)(EduardValencia said @ #5.1)Hmmm UAC dislike isn�t new,and everybody knows it,and MS did know it,but that wasn�t the reason why the implemebnted this feature,the fact is that it brings so much security that makes Vista the most secure OS out there,so this guy is ****ing out of the toilet,admit it or not,(UAC)IS THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND SECURE FEATURE EVER DESIGNED BY MICROSOFT.
This guy is a jerk
What I mean is, they knew that users hate it so much that they're disabling it. That kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?
Rather than fix it in Vista SP1 with a better implementation, they didn't do anything about it.
50% of the reason I've blown Vista off a couple of my own machines, and the reason of for several other people also!
Instead of just disabling it, which DOES defeat the purpose, may as well blow away the rest of the crap, which includes the WHOLE OS! -
#5.5 Posted by SVG on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:49
- (Foub said @ #5.3)(EduardValencia said @ #5.1)Hmmm UAC dislike isn´t new,and everybody knows it,and MS did know it,but that wasn´t the reason why the implemebnted this feature,the fact is that it brings so much security that makes Vista the most secure OS out there,so this guy is ****ing out of the toilet,admit it or not,(UAC)IS THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND SECURE FEATURE EVER DESIGNED BY MICROSOFT.
This guy is a jerk
Actually, no. Vista isn't the most secure OS out there. Not by a long shot. Linux already had this feature and it is also far less annoying also than with Vista's version.
It IS more annoying in Liunx.. In Vista at least you don't have to enter the password all the time or go around multiple settings to make it automated.. Vista is more secure than any other recent OSes -
#5.6 Posted by Azmodan on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:48
- (SVG said @ #5.5)(Foub said @ #5.3)Actually, no. Vista isn't the most secure OS out there. Not by a long shot. Linux already had this feature and it is also far less annoying also than with Vista's version.
It IS more annoying in Liunx.. In Vista at least you don't have to enter the password all the time or go around multiple settings to make it automated.. Vista is more secure than any other recent OSes
[local@local01 ~]$ su
This let's you log as root, (administrator) and you can run whatever you want with full rights..
[local@local01 ~]$ sudo
This let's you run individual stuff as root.
But what does Vista has?
A big, black screen that prompts you every time you need to install / do something that requires the user's input. So flexible, isn't it? Your knowledge about Linux astonishes me. Don't compare a modular OS like Linux with something that's designed to be fool-proof treating you like a fool. -
#5.7 Posted by Mikee99 on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:59
- (Azmodan said @ #5.6)But what does Vista has?
A big, black screen that prompts you every time you need to install / do something that requires the user's input. So flexible, isn't it? Your knowledge about Linux astonishes me. Don't compare a modular OS like Linux with something that's designed to be fool-proof treating you like a fool.
Um...Are you kidding me? UAC doesn't come up NEARLY as often as Linux and Mac zealots claim it does. Why is it not flexible? UAC is extremely simple for people to follow: You want to do something with administrative actions, like install a program (something that SHOULD require admin privileges), it asks you a simple prompt to cancel the operation or continue. You click Continue. ZOMG WHAT A ****ING NIGHTMARE!!!!!11!!!ONEONE
People hate UAC b/c it's different. The vast majority of Windows users are used to running their systems with full admin privileges. Now that they have to do something extra, something they SHOULD be doing, they think it's annoying. That doesn't mean it's a bad feature! I really don't understand why Linux and Mac users make such a big deal of it, since their OS's are THE SAME WAY! -
#5.8 Posted by JonathanMarston on 03 Mar 2008 - 17:25
- (Azmodan said @ #5.6)[local@local01 ~]$ su
This let's you log as root, (administrator) and you can run whatever you want with full rights..
[local@local01 ~]$ sudo
This let's you run individual stuff as root.
But what does Vista has?
A big, black screen that prompts you every time you need to install / do something that requires the user's input. So flexible, isn't it? Your knowledge about Linux astonishes me. Don't compare a modular OS like Linux with something that's designed to be fool-proof treating you like a fool.
I'm willing to bet you have to type su and sudo more than I click continue. Besides, how is using su different from starting a command prompt (or even better, PowerShell) as administrator?
And to the poster above, what I believe Azmodan means by flexible is that you can use su to log in as root and then you have full authority until you log out, where Vista has you approve individual apps via the continue button.
Last edited by JonathanMarston on 03 Mar 2008 - 17:39 -
#5.9 Posted by Foub on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:03
- (SVG said @ #5.5)It IS more annoying in Liunx..
Hardly. I've used both and Linux is better at this. I bet that you haven't even tried any recent version of Linux. Unlike you I have given both sides a fair try.In Vista at least you don't have to enter the password all the time or go around multiple settings to make it automated.. Vista is more secure than any other recent OSes
Have you seen the Apple commercial where they had the UAC making the PC have to accept or deny after every operation? Its the only one that was true. Yeah, Vista is so secure that the legit users can't get into it.....
To bad it doesn't work on anyone else. -
#5.10 Posted by EduardValencia on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:12
- Foub
Well i can say that i?ve used both linux (ubuntu,fedora) and Vista,and i may say that for the perspective of security,Vista offers much more security than Linux because of the blackscreen and the way that the users interacts with the restriction screen given by UAC,much more advertiser than linux,and for the perspective of comfort,in vista you dont have to introduce passwords to get permissions,in linux ,well you know the commands that has to be taken,for me,it´s just painsful and annoying,since i want things easily done,effortless,well that´s the whole meaning of the OS,making life much easier to any user.
The info around the net shows the results,making Vista much safer nowdays for windows users,than any other user with alternative OS`es
That`s why my brother erased the ubuntu partition,and give it the proper burial.since:
1. There wasn´t a real reason to swith to linux,it didn´t offer any extraordinary funcionality that windwos already was giving
2. Not really more secure
3. Windows has reached a very stable,reliable,and secure (Robust) state,never achieved in history,since the Code has been evolving since then.
4. Has a more ease of use for me than linux,installing compiz in ubuntu took me an hour (damn).
5. No real empiric knowledge can be achieved in Linux,you must study,in order to understand the commands and the way the OS works.
Bye bye Linux
Last edited by EduardValencia on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:18 -
#5.11 Posted by Foub on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:15
- [quote=Mikee99 said,#5.7]Um...Are you kidding me? UAC doesn't come up NEARLY as often as Linux and Mac zealots claim it does. Why is it not flexible? UAC is extremely simple for people to follow: You want to do something with administrative actions, like install a program (something that SHOULD require admin privileges), it asks you a simple prompt to cancel the operation or continue. You click Continue. ZOMG WHAT A ****ING NIGHTMARE!!!!!11!!!ONEONE[/quote]
I actually went out and bought a copy of Vista so I was hardly a Linux or Mac "zealot" (Though, by your statement you are the one who sounds more like one than anything else.) UAC came up far too often, but under Linux it only came up when installing updates (At the start, not for each update.) and for things that had to be installed as root. It didn't come up when running a program though under Linux.
[quote]People hate UAC b/c it's different.[/quote]
Hardly. People don't like it because it is more annoying than anything else.
[quote]The vast majority of Windows users are used to running their systems with full admin privileges. Now that they have to do something extra, something they SHOULD be doing, they think it's annoying.{/quote]
Again, hardly. Most of us love to tinker around with our systems and try out many new things. As I had said, I was so excited about Vista that I actually bought a copy to try it out and did for 6 months before I finally had to dump the POS for something better.
[quote]That doesn't mean it's a bad feature! I really don't understand why Linux and Mac users make such a big deal of it, since their OS's are THE SAME WAY![/quote]
Maybe if this were the only thing that was wrong with Vista, but it isn't. There is much that is wrong with it and has driven many of us to other OSes. Of course they aren't perfect either, but they don't have to be to be better than Vista. It is those, like you, who seem to believe that only something perfect can be better than Vista and try to point out the flaws in other OSes, but we already know all of this and never claimed perfection, only that they were more stable and reliable than Vista is. Many also acknowledge that Linux is far more secure than most other OSes as well. -
#5.12 Posted by Foub on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:20
- (EduardValencia said @ #5.10)Foub
Well i can say that i´ve used both linux (ubuntu,fedora) and Vista,and i may say that for the perspective of security,Vista offers much more security than Linux because of the blackscreen and the way that the users interacts with the restriction screen given by UAC,much more advertiser that linux,and for the perspective of comfort,in vista you dont have to introduce passwords to get permissions,in linux ,well you know the commands that has to be taken.
The info shows the results,making Vista much safer nowdays for windows users,than any other user iwth alternative OS
That´s why my brother erased the ubuntu partition,and give it the proper burial.
Bye bye Linux
Linux's version is still far less annoying. With all of Vista's other many, many, many problems I had to drop it, this was only one. I no longer dread turning on my system. The only thing that Windows has over Linux are games and that to is changing. -
#5.13 Posted by EduardValencia on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:30
- Double post
-
#5.14 Posted by EduardValencia on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:34
- @ Foub
Well mate
In my case windows vista has shown to be very robust and reliable OS,i can assure you that 2 years from now,this OS will dominate,and in a big way,in technical and enthusiast ways.
The comparison between XP and Vista shows the results in the first year
Im sorry that Vista hasn´t done the job for you,and now you are using Linux as your primary,this all resumes in how many users use the Operating Systems,it all resumes in ease of use,if you want to dominate the market.
That clearly Linux wont achieve since the nature of the the different Flavors is much technical,and in a different way ........more restrictive.
UAC was the correct decision taken by Microsoft,because the average person who doesen?t have knowledge about systems,might be at the risk to caught a virus or a security breach
-
#5.15 Posted by Skanks on 03 Mar 2008 - 22:34
- (Foub said @ #5.11)I actually went out and bought a copy of Vista so I was hardly a Linux or Mac "zealot" (Though, by your statement you are the one who sounds more like one than anything else.) UAC came up far too often, but under Linux it only came up when installing updates (At the start, not for each update.) and for things that had to be installed as root. It didn't come up when running a program though under Linux.
Most programs I run never prompt me to run them as administrator, apart from the few (usually old ones) that require it to work. -
#5.16 Posted by Mikee99 on 03 Mar 2008 - 22:37
- (Foub said @ #5.11)I actually went out and bought a copy of Vista so I was hardly a Linux or Mac "zealot" (Though, by your statement you are the one who sounds more like one than anything else.) UAC came up far too often, but under Linux it only came up when installing updates (At the start, not for each update.) and for things that had to be installed as root. It didn't come up when running a program though under Linux.
What did you do for UAC to come up? Typically, UAC will appear if you do administrative actions (like install software). Typically, zealots are the ones who bitch about UAC. And if you knew me, you would know that I am far from being a zealot on any platform.
One of the best features about UAC is the ability to disable and re-enable it whenever you want. When you first begin a fresh-install of the OS, you typically want to disable it just so that you can install all of your software without it popping up. When you are done, turn it back on. Again, not a nightmare.(Foub said @ #5.11)People hate UAC b/c it's different.
Hardly. People don't like it because it is more annoying than anything else.
People think UAC is annoying since it's something else they have to do to get something done. After I have spent a while working with Linux and having to "sudo" every admin action I needed to perform, the Vista UAC prompts are like nothing to me. That is why I don't get why Linux and Mac users find UAC so offensive. It's really not much different than what's in their OS, only now, you don't need to enter in a password.(Foub said @ #5.11)Again, hardly. Most of us love to tinker around with our systems and try out many new things. As I had said, I was so excited about Vista that I actually bought a copy to try it out and did for 6 months before I finally had to dump the POS for something better.
Do you know anything about the average computer user? The average computer user doesn't know jack about their system, nor do they care. So long as they can browse the internet, read their email, type a document, view pictures, and IM a little, they are completely satisfied. Now, to these people, having UAC pop up when in the past, they wouldn't have to do anything, will be a nasty transition for these people. So does it really SURPRISE you that average computer users find UAC a little annoying?(Foub said @ #5.11)That doesn't mean it's a bad feature! I really don't understand why Linux and Mac users make such a big deal of it, since their OS's are THE SAME WAY!
Maybe if this were the only thing that was wrong with Vista, but it isn't. There is much that is wrong with it and has driven many of us to other OSes. Of course they aren't perfect either, but they don't have to be to be better than Vista. It is those, like you, who seem to believe that only something perfect can be better than Vista and try to point out the flaws in other OSes, but we already know all of this and never claimed perfection, only that they were more stable and reliable than Vista is. Many also acknowledge that Linux is far more secure than most other OSes as well.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never insulted other OS's for their flaws. Yes, Vista does have flaws, and so does every other OS out there. However, there is also a massive amount of FUD on the internet about Vista that is predominately spread by fanboys, and is largely not true or over-exaggerated. -
#5.17 Posted by toadeater on 04 Mar 2008 - 06:17
- (EduardValencia said @ #5.14)@ Foub
The comparison between XP and Vista shows the results in the first year
You mean that XP outsold Vista? XP is still selling well even though Vista is available.
Yes, maybe in two years Vista will be usable. But then Windows 7 will be released.
-
#6 Posted by Foub on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:31
- This is not the first time that they've considered their customers to be too dumb to understand...... It shows even in their OSes when it wouldn't allow one to setup certain options or features. i.e. Pagefile. Now you can't easily set up the size and the like. There also when they forced authors of other programs to change the names of their software because Microsoft felt that it would confuse their customers as well. i.e. Windows Commander had to change to Total Commander.
-
#7 Posted by tsupersonic on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:37
- The average consumer probably doesn't know what the hell Time Machine is or what Boot Camp is or what Bonjour is... Every OS has their weird terminology for programs.
I think Microsoft + the computer corporations made this "Vista Capable" thing into a huge mess (More so the computer corporations than Microsoft).
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by JiveMasterT on 03 Mar 2008 - 15:46
- I think MS needs to just release 1 single version of Windows that includes everything. The code is already written and so paying for it should be #1 priority right? Well if they made one version at $150 per copy I think there would be a lot more people inclined to purchase it and then we don't need to worry about which version has what features and all that crap.
It worked for Leopard didn't it? -
#8.1 Posted by tsupersonic on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:21
- It's a bit different...
Microsoft owns ~90%+ OS market share, compared to Apple who has ~5% market share. Microsoft can set prices that are attractive to people who want a stripped down version of Windows (aka XP Home or Vista Home Basic). They can set prices on the top of the line version to those who need the extra functionality. Microsoft feels it needs to seperate home users from business users.
Keep in mind with Apple, they have strict control of the Hardware and Software. This means that the OS is essentially tied to the hardware. Sure, Leopard may cost $xxx.xx but what are you going to do with it if you don't have hardware? (I realize hackintosh projects exist). You essientally have to buy hardware to be able to use the OS with Apple.
I do agree with you that Microsoft needs less versions of OS's. Vista in particular... There should be a Vista Home Edition (similar to XP MCE) and a Vista Ultimate Edition (similar to XP Pro, but geared towards business users). That's it, 2 versions...
-
(2 replies)
#9 Posted by plastikaa on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:00
- If they had explicitly said that not all features would have worked on certain machines no-one would have bought those machines and a more expensive one instead... then those people would still complain saying they bought a PC that was more than they needed and got charged for stuff they didnt realise they wouldnt need. If your top priority was getting the best out of Vista the first mistake you made was probably buying a $200 PC expecting it in 6 months time to be able to run the latest stuff.
-
#9.1 Posted by plastikaa on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:02
- Oh yeah and if its so important do a bit of research about it... I do believe the information was available. If you are smart enough to make a lawsuit you are smart enough to read up on a product before you spend your money.
-
#9.2 Posted by ikyouCrow on 03 Mar 2008 - 20:51
- (plastikaa said @ #9)If they had explicitly said that not all features would have worked on certain machines no-one would have bought those machines and a more expensive one instead... then those people would still complain saying they bought a PC that was more than they needed and got charged for stuff they didnt realise they wouldnt need.
that's my main gripe with Apple and their current "take what we give you and stfu" model. you want a Mac? buy anyone you want, but you have to pay for iLife and stuff.
why can't i get a Mac with just the OS and Office on it?
-
#10 Posted by slippery on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:04
- The topic is "Spelling out which features of Windows Vista would work on a given PC might be useful to early adopters...."
My take on it is that vista was released way too soon, and although it had plenty of hype in the marketing department prior to actual sales, they definitely should have spent more time/resources to get the capabilities of the respective versions defined. I think they genericly blanketed pretty much every version of the OS with the term "capable" when in fact most people would have to build an entirely new system in order to run the OS, even most of the very basic entry levels.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by Xilo on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:22
- Crap like this is why Windows XP is still #1.
-
#11.1 Posted by plastikaa on 03 Mar 2008 - 16:32
- I'd disagree... sure its not worth going out and buying to upgrade on your current machine, but I would never do that really with any OS. I change my machines every few years and will stick with XP on my laptop for another year and half until I switch that. But if I was going to change my laptop tomorrow I wouldn't hesitate for a second to get Vista.
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by JonathanMarston on 03 Mar 2008 - 17:23
- There never should have been a "Vista Capable" rating, just a "Vista Ready" - which apparently is what Microsoft had originally planned, but Intel complained because 90% of their integrated graphics are trash and not compatible with Vista. Where MS really failed is when they gave in to Intel...
-
#12.1 Posted by slippery on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:41
- (JonathanMarston said @ #12)There never should have been a "Vista Capable" rating, just a "Vista Ready" - which apparently is what Microsoft had originally planned, but Intel complained because 90% of their integrated graphics are trash and not compatible with Vista. Where MS really failed is when they gave in to Intel...
Vista Ready/Vista Capable - not enough difference. Either way, most machines would need an upgrtade of sorts be it memory or a gpu, its still not right to encompass such a broad term to nearly all new pc's at the time.
-
#13 Posted by ikyouCrow on 03 Mar 2008 - 17:31
- from now on, there should be only two versions: Home and Business, with the difference being stuff like domain-specific technologies (or whatever would fall into that category).
of course, the best solution would be just client and server editions, like Apple does. *shudders
-
(5 replies)
#14 Posted by LTD on 03 Mar 2008 - 17:35
- How about a "works with Vista" sticker?
Done.
As for the Aero effects not working on some (a lot) of systems . . . that's purely MS' fault for bloating the eye-candy.
The fact that Apple's Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard runs on an old blueberry iMac G3/400Mhz/192MB RAM circa 1999 with nearly all of the meaningful Aqua graphics intact (except for the ripple when dropping Widgets on the Dashboard), while Vista can't run its derivative and less productive Aero graphics even on new PCs pretty much tells the tale. -
#14.1 Posted by EduardValencia on 03 Mar 2008 - 17:58
- I have a simple answer to your post:
Technology must go ahead,backwards adoption isn?t an option,so installing it in a old machine is ridiculous,for the good of technology,OSX is good for the hardware it was designed ,wich pretty tells you how limited it is dealing in the wildlife consumer market where thousands maybe a millions of configurations are available,the rest for OSX (In the wild),it will be so faulty that apple can become the next laughing clown in the tech industry.
Windows Vista is an Interstellar OS,and semi-modular,like no other today,that?s why mechanisms like UAC are neccesary,because there are multiple ways of use by people in this OS,thus,it needs more security than any other.You can take it as a social manner.
UAC is the perfect solution to user ignorance,in fact,in all MS history this has been the mayor flaw in their design,an instance in the OS that adverts the user "Hey watch out",intrusive,perhaps...necessary,it is
It has given good results? :yes,despite that a minority knows how to disable it,but the rest,they use it and are quite undisturbed,like many people who i know. -
#14.2 Posted by turtledude23 on 03 Mar 2008 - 18:10
- (LTD said @ #14)As for the Aero effects not working on some (a lot) of systems . . . that's purely MS' fault for bloating the eye-candy.
Im sorry, is that an Apple fan boy complaining about a company selling a product based on it just looking nice???? -
#14.3 Posted by LTD on 03 Mar 2008 - 18:58
- (turtledude23 said @ #14.2)(LTD said @ #14)As for the Aero effects not working on some (a lot) of systems . . . that's purely MS' fault for bloating the eye-candy.
Im sorry, is that an Apple fan boy complaining about a company selling a product based on it just looking nice????
No, it's an Apple fan boy comment complaining about a company selling a product based on it requiring a huge resource drain to run the eyecandy, when the competition achieves (arguably) better effects on extremely dated hardware.
MS sells this product based on it selling the same product under previous versions, some of which are vastly preferred over the most recent version.
-
#14.4 Posted by ikyouCrow on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:09
- (LTD said @ #14.3)(turtledude23 said @ #14.2)(LTD said @ #14)As for the Aero effects not working on some (a lot) of systems . . . that's purely MS' fault for bloating the eye-candy.
Im sorry, is that an Apple fan boy complaining about a company selling a product based on it just looking nice????
No, it's an Apple fan boy comment complaining about a company selling a product based on it requiring a huge resource drain to run the eyecandy, when the competition achieves (arguably) better effects on extremely dated hardware.
imo the whole hardware requirements thing is really about having a Dx10-capable machine. the very fact that you can get Aero to run on discreet graphics (without modifications) mean that the system requirements really have very little to do with the OS performance itself.
running Vista 64 with the Classic style doesn't feel any peppier than running it with Aero enabled at the highest level of translucency. -
#14.5 Posted by Ledgem on 04 Mar 2008 - 06:03
- (EduardValencia said @ #14.1)I have a simple answer to your post:
Technology must go ahead,backwards adoption isn?t an option,so installing it in a old machine is ridiculous,for the good of technology,OSX is good for the hardware it was designed ,wich pretty tells you how limited it is dealing in the wildlife consumer market where thousands maybe a millions of configurations are available,the rest for OSX (In the wild),it will be so faulty that apple can become the next laughing clown in the tech industry.
I'm sorry, but I've heard this argument so many times and I think it's utter garbage. You think that Apple hardware is all the same? They update their chipsets just like anyone else. Some of their systems have a graphics chip from ATI, some of their systems have from nVidia. How is that different from the PC world? Big deal, Apple decides on the changes - they're still supporting many different configurations. You think that's any less commendable than what Microsoft does?
Now let me tell you something that I find amazing, as a non-programmer: Apple supports TWO processor architecture types. That's right, they're using the x86 Intel processors (their OS does run on AMD as well, see the Hackintosh project) and they're still supporting the RISC Power processors from IBM.
So tell me: can Apple really not compare to MS? And no, I'm not an Apple fanboy or MS hater, but let's give credit where it's due please.
-
(4 replies)
#15 Posted by +ispamforfood on 03 Mar 2008 - 17:55
- Hey, I've got an idea! Let's focus on what Vista can DO for you, instead of its flaws, real or imagined. Seriously, how about some Vista success stories (of which there ARE many)?
This whole lawsuit is bull**** by the way..... Microsoft is not responsible for idiots who don't do their research before buying a $800+ machine. Buyer beware... Before i even considered buying vista, i studied, double and triple checked the list of minimum requirements and recommended requirements for Basic and Premium/Business/Ultimate. Someone with half a brain would know to do the same.
Don't you just love a country where its legal (and encouraged) for people to sue and blame others for their own stupidity? -
#15.1 Posted by GEIST on 03 Mar 2008 - 18:36
- (ispamforfood said @ #15)Don't you just love a country where its legal (and encouraged) for people to sue and blame others for their own stupidity?
And that M$ big wig thinking nobody could explain to an average user what Aero is just shows how stupid they think most people are.
Last edited by shockz on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:27 -
#15.2 Posted by Azmodan on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:23
- (ispamforfood said @ #15)Hey, I've got an idea! Let's focus on what Vista can DO for you,
That sounds like a mom trying to give her son a speech about how good is his alcoholic, abusive father
"HEY, HE PAYS THE BILLS!"
"But mom, he hits you..."
"SO WHAT? DO YOU WANT TO END UP IN THE STREET? Now, get to the market and buy some beers before your father gets home" -
#15.3 Posted by ikyouCrow on 03 Mar 2008 - 19:50
- (GEIST said @ #15.1)(ispamforfood said @ #15)Don't you just love a country where its legal (and encouraged) for people to sue and blame others for their own stupidity?
And that M$ big wig thinking nobody could explain to an average user what Aero is just shows how stupid they think most people are.
can you explain what Aero is? some would say it's the UI, others would say it's the visual style. Aero is supposed to be the collective UI experience (from new dialogs to notifications and visuals and such) but how can a non-geek convey that to potential consumers?
they should've just been honest about the system requirements up front and avoided this whole issue.
-
#16 Posted by James Riske on 03 Mar 2008 - 22:22
- I don't know what all the moaning is about, I used Vista for a few months and I despised it, I think it's about as worthless as a mac os, however the UAC was no problem at all and I thought it was one of the best things M$ has ever done.
-
#17 Posted by hagjohn on 03 Mar 2008 - 23:50
- Another non-story and I have to say that I agree with that was listed in the intro... I doubt that the normal person even knows what Aero is... hell, most users can't tell you what the destop is or what a browser is. I work in tech support, so I have first hand info.
-
#18 Posted by carmatic on 04 Mar 2008 - 02:18
- it would be nice if microsoft was more enthusiast friendly than that, like there was a time when intel prevented people from overclocking on their motherboards but now they do it publicly , if microsoft can take something of a similar direction, the enthusiast crowd will be very happy
"The average consumer would not know whether [s]he needs Aero-Glass or Windows Defender or not," Goldberg said in a Nov. 9, 2005, message. "Retail sales person[s] cannot explain what Aero Glass is or what it will do for them four [to] six months prior to Vista."
The message was just one of hundreds made public last week in a class-action lawsuit over the Windows "Vista Capable" marketing plan.