rokdcasbah
got me a date with botticelli's niece
i find it funny that people are bashing vista and at the same time criticising people for wanting to run legacy apps.
the issue is not that vista does not have new features. it does, and there are many of them. but there are some issues, notably:
1. many features, most notably a newer and smarter file system, that were promised some years ago are still not there
2. for most users, xp still does what it needs to.
3. hollywood approved, aka "defective by design"
obviously #2 is a dealbreaker. but you know what? outside of business, "most" people are part of botnets. i'm happy to see these people being forced to upgrade. we're one step closer to having most people's desktops not running as root without a firewall. so uac's annoying? let 'em cry.
vista requires more metal, sure. so has every new release of windows. the great thing about this time around is that there are some very mature linux distros out there, that ordinary people can install. and having to wait for drivers is not microsoft's fault, unless you're waiting for 64 bit and they refused to sign them or something. on 32-bit afaik the vendor can release whatever they want. but usually the hardware is stamped out as cheaply as possible and barely supported. last year the vendors had some actual work to do. some of them did it, some of them showed just how cheap/lazy they are.
---
i do not enjoy defending microsoft. they do terrible things, like impeding the progress of the xo...poisoning the iso...destroying decent companies by stealing code..spreading fud about linux & foss because that code isn't available for stealing...funding sco to do the same. but just because somebody's second cousin's friend-of-friend said vista was gay or whatever, doesn't mean that it's not a decent product. like everything else, it has its downsides, and it's up the individual whether there's value in the upgrades.
the issue is not that vista does not have new features. it does, and there are many of them. but there are some issues, notably:
1. many features, most notably a newer and smarter file system, that were promised some years ago are still not there
2. for most users, xp still does what it needs to.
3. hollywood approved, aka "defective by design"
obviously #2 is a dealbreaker. but you know what? outside of business, "most" people are part of botnets. i'm happy to see these people being forced to upgrade. we're one step closer to having most people's desktops not running as root without a firewall. so uac's annoying? let 'em cry.
vista requires more metal, sure. so has every new release of windows. the great thing about this time around is that there are some very mature linux distros out there, that ordinary people can install. and having to wait for drivers is not microsoft's fault, unless you're waiting for 64 bit and they refused to sign them or something. on 32-bit afaik the vendor can release whatever they want. but usually the hardware is stamped out as cheaply as possible and barely supported. last year the vendors had some actual work to do. some of them did it, some of them showed just how cheap/lazy they are.
---
i do not enjoy defending microsoft. they do terrible things, like impeding the progress of the xo...poisoning the iso...destroying decent companies by stealing code..spreading fud about linux & foss because that code isn't available for stealing...funding sco to do the same. but just because somebody's second cousin's friend-of-friend said vista was gay or whatever, doesn't mean that it's not a decent product. like everything else, it has its downsides, and it's up the individual whether there's value in the upgrades.
