I'm not going to sit here and post various links. All I said was I have read various sites that say Vista will be the last OS M$ ever makes. I'm sure there is many other sites that have a different view. So be it. I don't believe everything I read.

Your right M$ dosen't have to tell anyone about other OS. But the PC makers should. After all why is it I can't get a Notebook from Dell with no OS installed?

I'm not going to sit here and post various links. All I said was I have read various sites that say Vista will be the last OS M$ ever makes. I'm sure there is many other sites that have a different view. So be it. I don't believe everything I read.

Microsoft is already moving forward with their next operating system, they have said so publicly.  I can go on any anti-MS site and read all kinds of garbage, but it doesn't make it true.

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+looks+beyond+Vista,+sees+Vienna/2100-1016_3-6029241.html

PC makers do not have to tell anyone either.  If a PC maker decides it wants to use Microsoft alone then that's their right. 

All I said was I have read various sites that say

Yes, and you also said that you read that the RIAA was trying to shut down the internet.. https://forums.wincustomize.com/?forumid=144&aid=137796#1069609

On this 1 GHz machine? No thanks. XP barely runs decent on this setup.

Then you have other issues..

After all why is it I can't get a Notebook from Dell with no OS installed?

You can't buy a notebook from most manufacturers without an OS installed.

It was forced upon us by M$

(censored)
As Brad stated earlier,

, the market once had real options. Windows or OS/2. The market chose Windows.

I remember those days very well. MS promoted the hell out of Windows and came out on top, similar to the betamax VHS scenario. betamax was better quality but VHS won out because of heavy promotion.
And so what if it came with your PC. You've always had the option of formatting and installing something else.

Good lord, will you just get away from the "conspiracy theory" sites.

Back on topic Island Dog...
I just obtained my Technet Plus which includes Vista Ultimate and have put it in to heavy testing. What I see so far is that my current A/V solutions (Trend Micro Neat Suite or SAV Corporate ) are not compatible yet. First and foremost I need to rely on a solid, corporate solution for anti-virus. Also I had to jump through SERIOUS hoops to get Admin tools for Server 2003 to work.
I think all of those issues will be resolved in a few months. Will have to see.

I just got Vista RC2 installed on my laptop...my first experience with Vista. My graphics card is integrated, so I don't get to have aero on it. The laptop runs much faster now! I only had one problem with software....AVG! So far, all my other programs work well on it. I haven't put Windowblinds on it yet, though. I sorta like how the OS works...is way different from XP. I'm just gonna take a wait and see attitude, before I make any desicions about getting Vista when it comes out.

Then you have other issues..

What do you mean? I bought what I could afford at that time. No worries.

Good lord, will you just get away from the "conspiracy theory" sites.

Didn't know sites like ZDnet (Not ZDnet itself but credible sites like it) and Linux websites were conspiracy sites.

As far as the RIAA thing I thought it was a good read. I figured I would share. You guys share stuff I find useless as well. I don't make fun of you for it.

So just how does it become unstable?

Install user!   

I've read more blogs and reports lately that state Vista will be the last OS M$ ever makes.

I saw that as well, but it was more suppostion than reality....and certainly not fact..

The article I read was 'supposing', that if Google and other developers were heading in the direction of net based/online apps and OSes, then PERHAPS Microsoft would follow suit to compete in those areas of personal/business computing. However, despite the suggestion that MS may consider more web based software, at no time was there ever a confirmation that Vista WOULD be MS' LAST OS installed via disc to a HD. Furthermore, as ID has already pointed out, MS announced it has begun work on its next PC based OS.

And by the way the market didn't choose Windows.

It most certainly did....it's not like the alternatives were hidden under rocks or locked away in Fort Knox to prevent their use....and Bill Gates certainly didn't go into the coffin building business so he could bury them. The alternatives have always been there for PC manufacturers and consumers alike. It's just that ease of use and convenience became the name of the game....greater interoperability with 3rd party apps, which MS had, not to mention the better of the marketing strategies and a highly saleable product with which people could truly identify....something which cannot be said of Apple/Mac or Linux because neither manufactures or markets in such a way as to appeal to a wider audience, which is something MS does very well.

That's it in a nutshell, Kona....there's no conspiracy going on here. MS were the greater strategists and sought to appeal to the greater audience with functional software and OSes for anyone and everyone building or owning a PC....no more no less.

As for Vista, whether or not it'll run on your 1Ghz machine, it IS the future of Windows for the next few years and you WILL eventually feel the need to upgrade because 3rd party devs are already geared up for it and you'd be left in the PC wilderness if you don't keep pace with what is to become universal technology. Okay your XP's doing all you want it to right now, but as this newer technology evolves, you're gonna find it useful only for soiltaire and your current games, cos browsers, messengers and email clients and the like will be developed for Vista and beyond, no XP backports.

As for Vista, whether or not it'll run on your 1Ghz machine, it IS the future of Windows for the next few years and you WILL eventually feel the need to upgrade because 3rd party devs are already geared up for it and you'd be left in the PC wilderness if you don't keep pace with what is to become universal technology. Okay your XP's doing all you want it to right now, but as this newer technology evolves, you're gonna find it useful only for soiltaire and your current games, cos browsers, messengers and email clients and the like will be developed for Vista and beyond, no XP backports.

I'm NOT upgrading to Vista. XP runs my games just fine. I run old games - stuff that Windows 2000 can run. FF will always run on XP and my email is web based. As far keeping up with newer technology I have Linux for that.

I'm not gonna to get Vista. If I buy a new PC with Vista on it I'm gonna say no to the EULA and either put Linux or XP on it. Then I'm gonna sit back and smile when threads like "I have to buy a new Vista License because MS said mine is pirated (Because when Vista called home things got fouled up. Vista is supposed to call home every 2 months)" or "I can't play any MP3 files because Vista says they are illegal" and stuff to that effect. Why would anyone spend 500+ dollars for a buggy OS that barely runs on most hardware when XP does 90 percent of what Vista will do and is a bit more stable?

I know I'm a little late to this game, but....

Hey Kona! Long time no see! It funny that some things never change...like your uninformed and clueless posts. This is one of the best yet! That's an extremely strong set of statements for someone who's probably never even seen Vista...right? LOL

I, on the other hand, speak (type) from experience. I run it full-time on my main home system, my primary desktop at work, and several other test systems at work. I have been using it for about twelve hours-a-day for the last six months or so. I also will probably deploy it to several hundred systems in my enterprise by the end of the first half of 2007.

...so, I can pretty much say with confidence that your post is a complete and total load of bunk...dripping with FUDI (Fear Uncertainty Doubt Ignorance). You couldn't be more wrong on just about every point you tried to make.

If you were just trying to stir the pot...you got me.

Otherwise, thanks for the laugh. This was a good one!

I know I'm a little late to this game, but....

You made your point just the same. I've been telling Kona pretty much the same for a while now, cos yeah, I've been running Vista for a few months now and find it to be quite safe, secure and stable. Judging from your post, Orion, you're pretty happy with it as well....as are so many who HAVE actually tried it out.

As for the Vista won't play DRM/copy protected music?DVD's, etc....I have a Joss Stone CD that point blank refuses to play in XP using WMP 11 and the same ROM drive as used for Vista, yet that very same disc plays perfectly in WMP 11 in that very same ROM drive when booted into Vista. I also have music files (WMA's MP3's) that were ripped from old audio tapes, which to all accounts and purposes, according to Kona, shouldn't play at all in WMP11 in Vista, but they DO....no problemo.

Guess for some, there just hasn't been a tinfoil hat made that's big enough.

Been running Vista since Beta 2 release. First I had it on my Intel 930 system. Ran great! Then RC1 was released so I installed it on my Core 2 Duo 6800 system. Ran even better. Now I have RTM on the Core 2 Duo 6800 system. Could not be a better or more trouble free OS in my opinion. When it finally hits the retail stores I'll get 3 copies for my three main computers (I'll be leaving 2 others running XP for a while).   

Judging from your post, Orion, you're pretty happy with it as well....as are so many who HAVE actually tried it out.

Yes, quite happy. This OS is this admin's dream. I have had a few problems with it...but it certainly isn't the fault of the OS. I've had to spend a few hours this last week re-coding some inter-process-communication I had been doing because the more limited scope of access a system service has (good). They've also tightened up spawned process security (also good). I spent another couple of hours figuring out that when you force login with a smart card (as we do), you can't spawn a process as another user with a local profile (only net credentials). This was all due to the quick-and-dirty programming I had done. UAC is very interesting, but I do think I will have diminishing returns.  Don't even get me started on how awesome the new Remote Assistance program is.    While these are changes that require me to adapt, they are for the better, and I am better for it.

Some people just fear change.  I never ever want to be looked at like another admin in another org at work...or Kona. They're just now running XP because they're being forced to (no w2k or NT allowed anymore...thank God!). Last year she said that "XP is the worst piece of crap that MS has ever released...worse than 98!". After I asked her how long she has used the OS, how many machines had she deployed it to, or what were her specific gripes and/or problems with it, it wasn't much of a conversation anymore because she stomped off in ignorant anger. She's always being "hacked" at home. She has zero respect from any of her piers, and is pretty much a laughing stock.  With people like this, sometimes it's a wonder to me that we're still not using stone tablets and chisels.

As with 2000 (and SP1, SP2, SP3), and XP (and SP1, SP2), or any other MS product that my division has "early adopted"... I will be the one laughing when Patch Tuesday(tm) rolls around every month, and my security guys don't have anything to do....for a while.

I like to live on the bleeding edge of computer technology...It's very challenging, and very fun. I haven't been burned too bad yet after doing it for 25 years...except for that whole socket 423 thing.

...yawn...

...yawn...

I'm getting sleepy too...waiting for my $1200 keyboard.

No plans to use Vista until a rig breaks badly enough to need replacement.

Some people just fear change. I never ever want to be looked at like another admin in another org at work...or Kona.

I don't fear change. If I did I wounldn't use Linux. I just can't afford Vista that's all.

Guys enough is enough. If Vista turns out to be an awesome OS and works great so be it. That's cool. I will in the meantime use Linux/XP. When I get a new PC maybe I'll use Vista. Time will tell.

So let's quit bashing Kona K?

You know guys, I know kona very well from a Linux forum. Frankly, a lot of the things that have been said on here are simply not true. As you claim that kona was spreading FUD about Vista, so have you been spreading FUD about Linux. I can't just stand at the sidelines and watch you guys pummel poor kona--let's set the record straight, shall we?

Microsoft might have a good OS in Vista. I have a test machine on which I am running Vista Ultimate. I also have 5 other computers with at least one Linux OS each. I can say with confidence that all of this falls well into my area of expertise (and no, I don't feel pretentious saying that).

Someone brought up a good point, one which many people have brought up time and time again when Mac OS X or Linux is compared to Windows. If Linux or Mac OS X are really that good, then why aren't they more popular? Why is Windows, as bad as so many Linux and Mac fanboys claim to be, so abysmally bad and yet so popular amongst consumers? The reason behind this lies back in history about 15-20 years. This is back when Microsoft was first getting off its feet. This is a time when there was no Linux and Apple was making good, yet expensive computers. IBM made a mistake in that it let everyone make clones of its microcomputers--Microsoft landed a gold mine because it was the pretty much the only company ready to provide a crude, yet usable OS to the microcomputer public, called DOS. Microsoft's Disk Operating System was nothing special; it was actually rather crude. Yet it was all that was needed. Apple computers needed special hardware and a special OS--DOS worked on every microcomputer manufacturer, of which there were many. There was no viable UNIX alternative because UNIX, at the time, was designed for big, expensive mainframes with costly and specialized hardware. The industry had one choice--Microsoft. Given, it was a brilliant move. When Microsoft upgraded to a GUI, then all the way up to Windows 95, it kept doing a lot of things well, like providing developer tools that were excellent, yet locked people into its platform. Brilliant. Ever since that time, Windows has been the standard. It's not because it's necessarily easy to use or more secure--it's because of the smart market moves that Microsoft made back in the early days. That is why, to this day, Windows comes pre-installed on virtually all consumer computers. It's not because it's better--it's because that's the way it has always been.

Next, people often bring up that Microsoft is just a good company and that if Linux or Mac OS X were as popular as Windows is, the amount of viruses and spyware and malware for them would be just as high. While it is true that many people don't target open-source software just yet because it hasn't gotten into the mainstream, a closer examination reveals the fallacy and one-sided thinking that lies within this simplistic argument. Linux and UNIX, on which Mac OS X itself is based, are engineered as multiuser operating systems. They have a well developed notion of file permissions and ownership. Also, a lot of UNIX/Linux operating systems exhort the user to not log in as root, something that happens on Windows all of the time. Logging in as root (administrator), is dangerous--Linux makes sure that it's harder for a regular user to get casual root access unless that user knows what s/he is doing. Without root access, any attack is limited in what it can do. It might be able to delete a single user's files, but the overall system is unharmed. The same functionality exists on XP and Vista. Mind you, from what I've seen, Vista has much improved its security. Whenever I am about to make something that might affect the system, my screen darkens and I have to give permission to continue. This is brilliant, if late. The same has existed on Mac OS X, UNIX, and Linux since the beginning. Yet, Microsoft deserves praise for the implementation--it is a step forward in the right direction. Now, back to the original argument. Take, for example, two popular web servers, Apache and IIS. Apache is open source. IIS is made by Microsoft. Apache is by far the most popular, yet the least exploited, while IIS, which is not as popular, is much more exploited. It doesn't matter how popular something is--it matters how secure it is. True, the more popular something is, the more likely there is going to be a larger group of people paying attention to it. But, if, like Linux, Apache, and most other open source tools, the code is well-designed, it should be able to resist attacks.

Now, I don't hate Microsoft. They are a good company that has created a bad image for themselves by forgetting how they got into this game and what they do. Microsoft has come up with some great things in the past. For example, Windows XP shipped with a technology called ClearType. This dramatically improved the readability of text on screens, especially LCDs. Have you ever turned ClearType off and tried to read something? It looks abysmal. Kudos to Microsoft for coming up with such a good technology--some might consider the readability of text more important than the fact that there's shiny icons. Also, Microsoft has a very good keyboard and mouse department. They make good products--I own several and I love them. Look at other technologies that have come out of Redmond, such as DirectX. That's a pretty good API, if you ask me. They also make good games, such as Flight Sim, which showcases they DirectX technology. Also, Microsoft has been a key player in the adoption of many technologies that exist today--they do have quite a bit to do with driving the way video cards are developed. They also make a pretty darn good Xbox. I don't hate MS--I like to look at things objectively and not let my random emotions guide me into hasty decisions. Some might say I'm a pragmatist.

Saying that Linux has inferior technology is just unfair. Linux has a lot of great technologies--someone that has never even tried it shouldn't exactly blurt out random FUD--it's just as rude as the FUD that people have been spreading about Vista. Why can't we stick to the facts and keep it clean? For example, have you seen AIGLX+Compiz on Linux? For those that don't know, it's 3D Desktop Effects. In my opinion, they are amazing--lightyears ahead of what Vista has. But I can't speak for that--it's a matter of opinion. Some might like Vista's UI much better, some might be longing for the good old days of Windows 3.1. However, from what I have seen, 3D Desktop on Linux is much more advanced and efficient. I ran a test in which I installed Fedora Core 6 (a distribution of Linux) and Vista Ultimate on a low-powered machine. The machine is an HP Pavilion 8766C, with a 900 MHz PIII Processor, 640 MB or PC-100 RAM, and a GeForce FX5200 graphics card. This was enough to run glass on Vista. Now, the 3D Desktop effects did very well on Linux. There's things like transparencies, virtual desktops mapped onto a rotate-able cube, and an expose like feature, among others. While it did stutter sometimes under load, for the most part it was smooth, so long as there was nothing that was accessing the processor too much. Now, Vista was a different story. I understand that this is an underpowered machine--this is why I chose it for my tests. Even when I opened a Control Panel window in Vista (running Aero Glass) and dragged it around, things got laggy and jerky, with the processor usage jumping up to MAX. Again, weak machine, but you the idea. Now, I'm not bashing Vista. There were a few things in there that I saw that I actually liked, like the sidebar. Also, there's a lot of new programs that come bundled with Vista these days--like DVD-making software. This is a good thing. However, trying to run Media Center on that weak computer was probably the most painful thing that I have ever tried to do. As soon as I put it on my Kentsfield QX6700 processor with an nVIDIA 8800 GTX and 4 GB of 800Mhz DDR2 RAM, the thing flew and flew, but so did Linux. Fair is fair. However, beyond this, Linux has been the development hotbed of a lot of technologies that quite a few people have not noticed. Things like OpenLDAP and ssh. Things like a fully network-enabled X server. Linux is full of many technologies--at this point in time, with regards to operating systems, anything that Linux can do Windows can do. Anything that Windows can do, Mac OS X can do. Anything Mac OS X can do, NetBSD can do.

An area that I see Linux to be lacking in just support. There's a lack of popular applications, such as many games and tools, like Half Life 2 and 3dsmax. Yet, it's a good OS with lots of potential that excels in security, flexibility, and efficiency. The reason that Linux isn't more popular is that it doesn't come pre-installed on commputers and it lacks application support at times, although almost all applications that are available for Windows have open-source equivalents on Linux. Yet, there are a few important ones like Photoshop that keep people from switching, which keeps Linux from growing that fast, which in turn keeps software vendors from making applications for it, which in turn keeps it from growing. Although, if you look at previous trends, Linux has been growing exponentially for a few years now. Things are looking good.

Now I will end the hijack and get back on topic. There are so many things that I wanted to write that I couldn't find the time for--I do have finals this week that are important to me. One thing that I have liked so far out of Microsoft product lineup especially has been Office 2007. The new GUI is amazing, a great improvement. Good job Office development team. The text in the program itself looks much better, anti-aliased and all. Also, Windows Media Player 11 is a great improvement--I really like the GUI. Windows Defender is also a great addition for people that need to keep their computers safe. There's a lot of good things coming from Microsoft. There's also a lot of bad--I don't like the Windows EULA. Also, Internet Explorer 7 hasn't fixed any of the things that have made it so bad in the past at rendering pages--my job as a part-time web developer has gotten no easier, only harder, now that I have to check for IE6 and IE7. So, I have already decided that I will buy a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro this August for about 3500 dollars. Obviously, those come pre-installed with Mac OS X, an excellent OS. I'll probably dual-boot Linux on it. My guess is that when my dad is shopping for a computer in a few years, he'll most likely come to me and ask me for help and I'll of course direct him to a brand-name PC that comes with Vista or its successor, unless Autodesk and Dassault Systems start making software for Linux (the man makes a living off of CAD). Me, I'm happy with having Windows on a machine for games and Linux on my other machines for everything else.

The only thing I hope for is that computer users stay stupid--it's job security

I can't just stand at the sidelines and watch you guys pummel poor kona--let's set the record straight, shall we?

Sorry, but I have to set the record straight.  This was a question I posted on many forums to guage the response of the community.  The original question that's in the title was "what is your plan for Vista"?

This thread was injected with someones pro-linux and anti-MS comments, and users responded to the comments.  The same would happen if someone came on linux forums advocating Windows.

Anyways, linux is lacking in way more areas than support, and it's certainly not a gaming platform, but we can save that for another thread.

  

 

Sorry, but I have to set the record straight. This was a question I posted on many forums to guage the response of the community. The original question that's in the title was "what is your plan for Vista"? This thread was injected with someones pro-linux and anti-MS comments, and users responded to the comments. The same would happen if someone came on linux forums advocating Windows. Anyways, linux is lacking in way more areas than support, and it's certainly not a gaming platform, but we can save that for another thread.

The fact remains that unless you provide cold, hard facts as to why you say so, it doesn't make it true. I believe I answered the original question about my plans for Vista as well--I'm NOT getting it, but maybe you didn't have the patience to read through all of my post. I'll admit it was long.

Oddly, we never get a similar thread on our Linux forums. Sure we get people angry when someone that has been using Linux for a day or so comes in and starts bashing it just because of inexperience, but we don't get flame wars and we don't gang up on a single person and yell at him/her because of computing beliefs.

You can say that Linux isn't a gaming platform, which is true--there aren't exactly that many companies that make games for it. You can find out why above. However, as a programmer of 6 years, I can tell you that the Surge Engine that I am working on right now runs 24% faster on Linux in OpenGL and even 5% faster with DirectX emulation. As you may or may not know, emulation is rather slow. To have it run faster with emulation, well, I'd say speaks for itself. As for any other areas you may claim that Linux is lacking, I'd be curious to see as to what examples you can provide. If I say that XP is lacking in many areas, would you believe me? Wouldn't you at least want one example, not a bundled up mix of emotions and tribal knowledge on the subject from a forum that doesn't even deal with it? Instance.

What will happen is people will eventually make the move to Vista as consumers start purchasing new computers with Vista installed. As others see it and start liking the glass and everything, other consumers will switch. It should have market dominance within two years. Businesses will need a hardware rotation before it happens. But it will happen, with Linux and Mac OS X fairly growing in the background.

Don't preach to me about *nix you poser. I've been using it (and administering it) since before you were born, so I'm well aware of its advantages and disadvantages. Read the thread again genius, nobody spread FUD about *nix.

The bottom line is, kona starts out with:

I'm not gonna to get Vista. If I buy a new PC with Vista on it I'm gonna say no to the EULA and either put Linux or XP on it. Then I'm gonna sit back and smile when threads like "I have to buy a new Vista License because MS said mine is pirated (Because when Vista called home things got fouled up. Vista is supposed to call home every 2 months)" or "I can't play any MP3 files because Vista says they are illegal" and stuff to that effect. Why would anyone spend 500+ dollars for a buggy OS that barely runs on most hardware when XP does 90 percent of what Vista will do and is a bit more stable?

Then, after a sound thumping, refines it down to:

I just can't afford Vista that's all.

So then #$%#$%^ say that to begin with! How can anyone not expect to get beat-up over that, I have no idea. This was a classic kona posting tactic: Type before you think. Maybe it's an attempt at trolling...I'm not sure, but I love it when kona posts on a technical topic...it's always been a blast!

We weren't bashing *nix...we were putting kona in his place...get over it.