From the Windows Vista Blog:"Last week we showed a video of the Mojave Experiment to a small group of folks here on campus. Today we are excited to share the results with the public.
For those new to the Mojave Experiment, it's a focus group effort we initiated a few weeks ago. We interviewed and polled 120 participants in San Francisco, in hopes of better understanding everyday users' perceptions of Windows Vista and seeing whether there really is a gap between perception and reality. We wanted to see how people reacted to Windows Vista when they were not aware they were seeing Windows Vista. We recorded our discussions, and today you can see them for yourself."
Video: >> Click here <<
When people i know tried Vista i didn't like it, at least they knew why. Many people are just driven by whining of the media and blogs or anti-vista campaigns...
I don't mean that people have to buy Vista to see if they like it, but they can install a trial or better yet, keep the copy that comes with computers nowadays instead of asking friends or technicians to remove it and place XP on them right away.
My friends and me are running an italian website about computers and technologies and many of our readers are complaining that Vista is horrible and they would like to downgrade to XP. All those support request drove me to write an article to explain why downgrading to XP is not necessary, not suggested and not the best idea.
The article (in italian) is here; for non italian readers, here is a google-translated version of the article (bad translation to english, though).
The base copncept is: if you buy 2.5 TurboDiesel car, would you replace that engine with a 1.9 diesel version just because the second one (no turbo) has lower fuel consumption and lives longer than a turbo engine?
When you buy a PC with a OEM copy of Windows Vista, you are SURE that system will work, because you already paid someone at your PC's manufacturer to find out what hardware works with Windows Vista. In fact, who is having problems after installing Vista? People with custom built machines that loves to perform upgrades with their own hands.
I am working with Vista since the beta phase and I had few problems only at that stage; after that, I installed Vista on my "Vista-capable" notebook (HP Pavilion DV2600) and I use it for my everyday work.
Second of all, just because you've had good experiences with your machines does not mean everyone else has. Clearly, the testers had good experiences on their machines, or else this product wouldn't be out on the market.
People want to downgrade, because XP will most likely perform better ("faster" in the user's eyes). That's nothing like downgrading to a non turbo engine or whatever your analogy is. Even so, with your analogy, I'd take the non turbo with gas prices like these! What users have a problem with is the fact that Vista is indeed slower on any given machine as it does considerably more processing than XP. There are a lot more processes running in Vista, whether they are all useful or not, I don't know, I haven't looked into it.
Another thing they will notice, is a constant bickering from UAC. Yes, its keeping your PC safer, but its extremely aggravating when you have to confirm everything. For instance, I was renaming files that weren't created by me, I had to "allow" for each file (around 15 files or so). UAC should have some sort of intelligence, and let me rename the other files as well without asking for me to allow again (within that specific folder and using that specific extension). Obviously, in the Windows folder, this should not be done and UAC should bug the crap out of you then. But this was files that some games had created, not essential OS files. Some programs didn't even have permission to modify their own .ini files! Talk about stingy.
Also, I wouldn't count on an OEM copy working with your machine guaranteed, as it could be unstable. In a perfect world, it should work fine, but don't count on it.
Right now, I'm currently running Vista Business, and I'm using my "custom built machine". I've only had a few issues, and mostly they were Creative's fault, but MS is to blame as well. I tried installing Creative's supposedly un-gimped audigy drivers, which was a major mistake. Near the end of the installation, the PC blue screened on me, and the DLL was Creative's audio driver. I restarted and.. wait, I can't boot Vista now! So, I threw the disc back in, did a repair, and I could boot back in again (thankfully MS has improved the Repair option from XP, as I could never get it to work properly with XP). Then I couldn't install the drivers, not even Daniel_k's fixed drivers, because it was complaining that there was already an installation. This was Creative's fault here. I ended up having to reinstall Vista (i searched high and low for creative's files, manually as well as using 2 different driver cleaners) and Daniel_k's drivers gave me no issues (Thanks, Daniel_k!
Other than UAC, the experience has been pretty smooth. There are a few aesthetic issues I have, and I think they are terrible UI decisions (ie the start menu) but I won't get into them. I do like Vista to a point, but in my particular case, gaming performance is definitely faster in XP, but with my 8800GT, its not really a difference worth crying about.
All those useless running in Vista are called DRM. Here's a post I found that explains it:
This is the life of a microprocessor under Window Vista:
Each milisec:
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this movie is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this MP3 file is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this CD is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this movie is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this MP3 file is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this CD is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Work a little bit for the computer user. Stop! Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this movie is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this MP3 file is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this CD is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this movie is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this MP3 file is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this CD is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Work a little bit for the computer user. Stop! Report this to Microsft server. . . . . .
Wondering why it is slow and why the system constantly access the network?
That’s why!
All those useless running in Vista are called DRM. Here's a post I found that explains it:
This is the life of a microprocessor under Window Vista:
Each milisec:
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this movie is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this MP3 file is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this CD is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this movie is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this MP3 file is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this CD is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Work a little bit for the computer user. Stop! Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this movie is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this MP3 file is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this CD is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this movie is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this MP3 file is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this CD is a legitimate copy. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Work a little bit for the computer user. Stop! Report this to Microsft server. . . . . .
Wondering why it is slow and why the system constantly access the network?
That’s why!
That post is absolutely rubbish. Vista has SUPPORT for "DRM" used in things like Blu-ray films and such, but it does NOT CONSTANTLY CHECK EVERYTHING YOU DO. Nor does it report back to Microsoft's servers constantly. It doesn't need to, for a start, it can just perform those checks when it checks for windows updates. What's more, it would cripple Microsoft's servers.
Not believe me? Go download an illegal MP3 or a copy of a CD and see if Vista lets you play it. Oh look, it does!
Ugh, don't make things up to make your point.
If you perform a file operation no multiple files outside of your control, you only get prompted once.
[i]This is the life of a microprocessor under Window Vista:
Each milisec:
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
Check if this version of window is legitimate. It is. Report this to Microsft server.
You have been lied to. Vista has no such functionality. Clearly it would be stupid to design software this way.
Vista may verify that your system is legitimate when installing updates over Windows Updates, but that's it. And XP does exactly the same thing.
Never happens. Unless you're playing a DRM'd video, and it only contacts the server of the DRM technology. Again, XP does exactly the same thing. Don't like DRM? Great, don't buy any videos that use it.
MP3 files do not support DRM, so you never ever ever have to worry about any kind of rights management activity for an MP3 file. Or for any other non-DRM'd content.
Again, you have been lied to. Music CDs do not contain DRM. If any of them do (Sony rootkits and such), that would work exactly the same on XP and has absolutely positively nothing to do with Microsoft. Well, except that Vista x64 blocks such rootkits with PatchGuard.
Perhaps you should learn a bit about Vista before you copy and paste FSF lies and propoganda around other forums.
I can't believe you want to the whole trouble of refuting my post point-by-point. To you and Kushan and 39 Thieves, you guys need to stop taking things so seriously.
This is called satire. Look it up in the dictionary.
I can't believe you want to the whole trouble of refuting my post point-by-point. To you and Kushan and 39 Thieves, you guys need to stop taking things so seriously.
This is called satire. Look it up in the dictionary.
What a BS Excuse from Captain555.
The irony of this, is that the Mojave Project, is also a satire.
Does this mean I gotcha too ?
Does this mean I gotcha too ?
It's Official!
Everything that Captain555 says from now on, are all satires.
Signed & PWND,
29th of July, in the year Two Thousand and Eight.
Ugh, don't make things up to make your point.
If you perform a file operation no multiple files outside of your control, you only get prompted once.
By renaming I meant to say changing the extension, and yes it asked me every time. I don't know if its the same thing as renaming but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. I was changing the file extensions for intro movies for Crysis, so I don't have to sit through them every time I try to play it.
But don't try and tell me it doesn't harass you all the time, because that's a load. Regular users aren't going to bother checking what it's asking, they'll just be annoyed that its continually asking, and they'll just allow everything they see. UAC needs to be a little more intelligent to annoy users less.
But then is this secure? Why isn't it elevated to begin with?
Do you know why they can't edit their own .ini files? It's because they've just dumped them in with the application itself. With Windows Vista, as far as I know, it is better practice to store the files in a location such as Application Data, where the files can be edited without the need for a UAC prompt.
I can understand that UAC may be frustrating to some people, but it has been put there for a reason - your security. It seems that people see it as a chore to just click on 'Continue' when they are sure that the application they are granting permission to is safe. Otherwise, just click 'Cancel'. It is not that hard.
Smctainsh
Do you know why they can't edit their own .ini files? It's because they've just dumped them in with the application itself. With Windows Vista, as far as I know, it is better practice to store the files in a location such as Application Data, where the files can be edited without the need for a UAC prompt.
I can understand that UAC may be frustrating to some people, but it has been put there for a reason - your security. It seems that people see it as a chore to just click on 'Continue' when they are sure that the application they are granting permission to is safe. Otherwise, just click 'Cancel'. It is not that hard.
Smctainsh
I think its a terrible idea to store data for programs in multiple areas. It should just be contained in Program Files. The only advantage I can see is that it makes it easy to copy all the data and move it in one go. But then, thats not guaranteed to work with every application, and the contents seem to be more than just .ini files.
Not only that, but it seems I can't even access that folder! Shouldn't I already have permissions for it considering I'm logged on as an administrator?
Do you know why they can't edit their own .ini files? It's because they've just dumped them in with the application itself. With Windows Vista, as far as I know, it is better practice to store the files in a location such as Application Data, where the files can be edited without the need for a UAC prompt.
I can understand that UAC may be frustrating to some people, but it has been put there for a reason - your security. It seems that people see it as a chore to just click on 'Continue' when they are sure that the application they are granting permission to is safe. Otherwise, just click 'Cancel'. It is not that hard.
Smctainsh
I think its a terrible idea to store data for programs in multiple areas. It should just be contained in Program Files. The only advantage I can see is that it makes it easy to copy all the data and move it in one go. But then, thats not guaranteed to work with every application, and the contents seem to be more than just .ini files.
Not only that, but it seems I can't even access that folder! Shouldn't I already have permissions for it considering I'm logged on as an administrator?
The application itself should be stored in C:/Program Files. Its settings should be in the registry or in your Application Data folder. Unfortunately, some apps store settings in C:/Program Files (although I thought Vista rerouted that to C:/ProgramData?). You do have access to Application Data, it's just hidden.
Explorer isn't elevated to begin with because it'd be horribly insecure. It'd be like running XP as an admin, or disabling UAC and running as an Admin.
Assuming something is crap and then seeing a "wow" design does not negate the fact it's crap!
May we know how much "pro" are you?
The fact that you didn't like does not mean that every "pro" has to dislike it.
It just serves this very campaign. Try & Decide (assuming that you did try it).
Vista is more than just the Aero interface, by the way...
Mac's rule
Linux Rules
Windows bad/evil/crap/rubbish
Assuming something is crap and then seeing a "wow" design does not negate the fact it's crap!
You should be banned or warned for that comment. Your basically saying that those of us here on neowin that actually like vista aren't pro's.
Also how are you a pro if you can't even spell Aero right?
That's what 'scratching the surface' really reveals, I think.
Mac's rule
Linux Rules
Windows bad/evil/crap/rubbish
Erm many people would say you're pretty wrong theres, Vista is good, Mac is pretty good and Linux is getting there.
Second video from the right, top row:
"Maybe it has more to do with the user than the actual application". PEBKAC, you're it.
Likewise when the other guy said "I like that security feature". Maybe he really said "I like the security features NOT" when the stupid UAC kept popping up, but they edited the rest out.
Last edited by dvb2000 on 29 Jul 2008 - 11:20
Windows Vista IS fast, Windows Vista is SECURE.
if you didn't use vista, you would say something like that
Likewise when the other guy said "I like that security feature". Maybe he really said "I like the security features NOT" when the stupid UAC kept popping up, but they edited the rest out.
I can say the same thing about your comment. On both my computers ( an old pentium m laptop and a core 2 duo) vista is faster then xp was .
Also uac doesnt pop up if you dont run programs that require admin rights.
Maybe you people are seen what you want to see. Beside game using DirectX10, everything run faster on XP than on Vista.
Maybe you people are seen what you want to see. Beside game using DirectX10, everything run faster on XP than on Vista.
Well, that's just incorrect. Maybe some other games do, all depends on your drivers. But applications in general start much faster on Vista and are more responsive. At least on modern hardware.
Maybe you people are seen what you want to see. Beside game using DirectX10, everything run faster on XP than on Vista.
Prove it.
Maybe you people are seen what you want to see. Beside game using DirectX10, everything run faster on XP than on Vista.
Well, that's just incorrect. Maybe some other games do, all depends on your drivers. But applications in general start much faster on Vista and are more responsive. At least on modern hardware.
From my own experience Vista boot way faster than XP and run faster too on good hardware. My PC has 2Gb of ram, an Opteron 180, a 8800GTx and a Raptor HD and Vista is much faster than XP.
On older machine with 1Gb of RAM and with integrated graphic card (what you find in most if not all big companies) XP is generally faster.
Last edited by LaP on 29 Jul 2008 - 17:09
My point exactly, you seems to see what you want to believe. That's certainly not my experience.
This is based on my own experience, I don't need to prove anything.
On older machine with 1Gb of RAM and with integrated graphic card (what you find in most if not all big companies) XP is generally faster.
I do 10 to 12 upgrade back to XP every months, and every time the PC is a lot faster under XP. That's why I have to wonder where you see those great improvement. I just don't see them.
-ps We have 4 Vista Home Preium boxes here on ethernet - no issues. period! GO MOJAVE!! lol!!!!
Tell that to me,i'm a Marketing Professional
Anyway, I've been a longtime Windows XP user and I can say that Windows Vista is amazing. It's better, faster, and more secure than XP and I can't go back. I currently run Windows Vista Ultimate x64 with SP1 and it runs without a hitch. I've come across significantly less bugs than I did with XP and the Aero UI is a welcomed change. Certainly much better than the old "Fisher Price" look in XP.
hahaha, here you go:
"Wow, I thought Linux is just for System Administrators with attitude issues! I mean, I wasn't even aware that it has GUI that looks like the Start Menu!"
"I am so happy using Linux with Wine, because I can use UltraEdit-32, MS Office, and even play games like Starcraft or Crysis. Wine is so effective in emulating Windows, I want to switch to Linux!"
"I am having so much fun tinkering with the kernel, that I don't mind getting my actual work done!"
Last edited by thenonhacker on 29 Jul 2008 - 17:56
hahaha, here you go:
"Wow, I thought Linux is just for System Administrators with attitude issues! I mean, I wasn't even aware that it has GUI that looks like the Start Menu!"
"I am so happy using Linux with Wine, because I can use UltraEdit-32, MS Office, and even play games like Starcraft or Crysis. Wine is so effective in emulating Windows, I want to switch to Linux!"
"I am having so much fun tinkering with the kernel, that I don't mind getting my actual work done!"
BINGO!!
I should show this to my friend who recently bought a brand new Dell and asked them to install XP instead of Vista on it. Why XP? Because another friend of his who doesn't run Vista said that it was garbage and he should stay with Windows XP. He's got a 4x faster computer than me and he's now running this 7 year old OS. He feels really foolish now, but there's nothing he can do. Meanwhile, his so called 'friend' gave him advice based on absolute nothing other than other Vista-bashers!
I've been running Vista and Server 08, and I'm sorry it is much better than XP. I used to have to spend so much time tweaking XP and installing other software to get it the way I wanted. Vista is just plain better.
+1
BTW, Digg this FTW!
http://digg.com/microsoft/New_Windows_Vist..._Mac_Propaganda
Last edited by thenonhacker on 30 Jul 2008 - 03:01
"You just blew my mind"
Awesome...
this is a great ad compaign.
on a personal notice, I was one of those Vista bashers..til I decided to try it myself 7 months ago.
Ive not looked back since then, Vista is great. Enough with the hate.
A while back my dad said to me when he talked about getting a new computer, you'll never get me to install that garbage on my computer (referring to Vista). He's never once even seen it or worked with it on any computer ever. And yet he has very strong feelings about it. I've brought him around, since I've been using it for over a year now, but it shows how people can be swayed simply by hearing negative talk from others who consider themselves to be 'in the know'.
And as for the ad campaign, no matter what...you can't polish a turd.
http://news.cnet.com/The%20slow%20road%20t..._3-5746046.html
http://news.cnet.com/The%20slow%20road%20t..._3-5746046.html
Indeed.
Ever run XP SP2 on 256 megs of RAM?
It's about as bad as Vista on 512. And 256mb of RAM when SP2 was released was much more expensive than 512 was when Vista was released.
"As for the ad campaign, no matter what...
I am still in deep denial and can't accept the fact that people had clouded perceptions about Vista.
I can't accept the fact that this experiment has made people look at things objectively."
It's about as bad as Vista on 512. And 256mb of RAM when SP2 was released was much more expensive than 512 was when Vista was released.
Oooh sadly I have that one beat - XP SP3 on a 98mb machine. 5 of em. Which I was (sorta) responsible for.
(not actually my fault - I was having to teach special needs IT using these machines and our IT dept thought they were all hunky dory - I didn't and neither did the people who used them!!
It's about as bad as Vista on 512. And 256mb of RAM when SP2 was released was much more expensive than 512 was when Vista was released.
Oooh sadly I have that one beat - XP SP3 on a 98mb machine. 5 of em. Which I was (sorta) responsible for.
(not actually my fault - I was having to teach special needs IT using these machines and our IT dept thought they were all hunky dory - I didn't and neither did the people who used them!!)
I know the feeling. I remember when XP came out.
No one had adequate RAM for XP back then. The same can't be said for Vista's release: 2 gigs in early 2007 was pretty common. 512mb in 2001 was not.
Last edited by MioTheGreat on 29 Jul 2008 - 19:45