The Reluctant Pirate

[Peter]

Exactly was i was about to say

// peter

Actually, the new distros such as Ubuntu *are* easy. I am writing this
message using Ubuntu and I have just gotten through installing dozens of
useful programs such as Flash, Java, Real Player and many others. To
install them, all you have to do is look on a list, tick the little square
and click on "apply". Too difficult for you, Mike? I would say that's all
helluva lot easier than installing programs like IE7 for Windows. When I
installed Ubuntu, there were 204 updates. All downloaded and installed
without a hitch and, get this, NO REBOOT! I also just timed how long it
takes Ubuntu to boot up on an AMD Athlon 800 Mhz with 512 RAM vs. my AMD
Athlon 3000+ with a gig of RAM running XP Pro and Ubuntu was faster!

Not only that, with Windows, you gotta install hardware drivers. With
Ubuntu, it recognized and installed all the drivers during installation.

And, to top it off, with Ubuntu I can use the same CD to install it on as
many computers as my little heart desires. No WPA, WGA, WGA/N or any other
of that nonsense. Ubuntu is free and they even paid the postage to mail it
to me in Spain.

So, fanboi, what's "easier" about Windows than Ubuntu or are you just
making it up as you go along like you always do?

Alias

 

[Alias]

Exactly was i was about to say

// peter

Watch Mike come up with an insult, like calling us trolls, instead of
addressing the content.

Alias

 

[Dale]

Wow. That's amazing. You must be clairvoyant or something <grin>.

Dale

 

[Peter]

Infact I like Microsoft alot - i really do think that their programs etc are
very good. Also OS and stuff.
But i really dont like the way they spilt up software - like with Vista - it
comes in 6 versions. SIX versions. Why oh why?
Yes i know that
it-is-because-daddy-and-mommy-also-have-a-chance-to-use-vista-compared-to-enterprises
- but look at the prices. And think about it: who will ever buy the cheap
version? who will buy a version that cries out loud
i-am-cheap(-and-therefor-i-stink)? I might be wrong but i think Microsoft
thinks that real life is like having the customers standing in front of a
table with lovely food on and then Microsoft as the middleman telling that
1/6 part of the entire food can be baught for $x. A bigger solution can be
bought for $x*2 and the entire solution can be bought if you throw $x*6 at
the table.

But that is not how it works. Maybe in the Microsoft-world customers would
start talking about the size of their belly but in real life there are
(almost) no low-level standards. My computer completely dont care if i
install Word or the entire Office-suite - and i think its the same with
Vista - who the hell wants to buy Vista Crap when they can get Vista Super -
not just because they are being convinced that
'this-product-fits-you-soooooo-much' but because the computer dont care and,
most important at all:
i-dont-care-about-weird-programs-i-might-never-use-like-InfoPath but still:
i need it and i dont like that Microsoft splits it up so that i cannot
afford the expensive versions.

Anyway - have a nice ax-mass (just to quote Leela)


// peter

 

[Dale]

Back in the days of Windows 95/98/ME vs. Windows NT Workstation/2000
Professional for the desktop, Microsoft said that the next generation of
desktop operating systems after the upcoming Windows XP would combine into
one single core. The implication (or at least the common inference) was
that the future would hold just one version. Now, they've gone from two
versions of desktop OS not to one but to six. What a support nightmare! OS
a la carte.

Dale

 

[Mike]

Back in the days of Windows 95/98/ME vs. Windows NT Workstation/2000
Professional for the desktop, Microsoft said that the next generation of
desktop operating systems after the upcoming Windows XP would combine into
one single core.

Which is exactly what happened. All versions of Windows now have the same
core. No more Windows 98 which was different from NT Server which was
different from Windows 2000.

The implication (or at least the common inference) was that the future
would hold just one version.

No, that was never the implication. If you inferred that, you inferred
wrong.

Now, they've gone from two versions of desktop OS not to one but to six.
What a support nightmare!

You mean like when they were supporting Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, NT 4, and
NT 3.51 at the same time?

The difference now is that the basic OS is the same, only
features/functionality/included apps differs.

OS a la carte.

Which is a Good Thing. People would be plenty pissed if Ultimate was all
there was. Or Home Basic!

Mike

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

XP exists in XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center, XP Tablet, XP Pro x64, XP
Starter, XP Home N, and XP Pro N. How is that two versions?

 

[Peter]

Which is a Good Thing. People would be plenty pissed if Ultimate was all
there was. Or Home Basic!

Tell me... why would people get pissed off if Ultimate was the only and
final OS? do you think that Ultimate hasnt got it all?

My problem is just that Microsoft thinks people choose their OS like if
people were standing around a table with plenty of food thinking about the
capacity of their stomach.

I am not sattisfied with a half OS when i know there is a bigger version
just around the corner (and x3 amount of money).
Give me one version of everything - whats even the difference - like for XP
Pro and Home - they ripped the IIS out if the spine - but that was almost
it. It would almost be the same as ripping out Minesweep...
Of course - i had the Pro-version i bought an OEM. But what makes Microsoft
think that making two versions of XP was a great idea? - okay - it was an
important thing they ripped out, the IIS was important for development but
come on - there was no legal reason to actually create a Home Edition of
Windows XP. Why not go XP Pro all the way? Maybe somebody like the cheaper
Home Edition but i bet it has something to do with the price not the fact
that they prefered a version without IIS...

So now - why do we have to be confronted with six versions of Vista when
Vista, despite 5 years overdue, isnt that different from XP. Nothing - after
all - really changed. I havent found the feature that makes my life easier
and i am not happier. Ohwell - as a designer i like the transparency and
stuff like that. The design of the UI is better than XP and maybe even
better than MacOS - great work - thumbs up - but still - i havent found
anything that XP couldnt do. And dont slam me with the
security-hammer-thing. Maybe Vista has more security on both levels (local
and internet-local), but i never had any issues with XP either - in Vista i
just get this UAC-warning for something as simple as copying a file. Come on
party-people! its like "you have created a document on the desktop. Vista
needs to be restarted before changes can take place". Its like having a
cool-looking OS with very-very-very old-school security. I know its possible
to deactivate UAC and so i did just when Vista finished the installation,
but still. Its not funny anymore.

I still dont get it. Whats the problem in merging all the version into
Windows Vista Supa Edition and then sell it - forget about the crappy
versions. If people gets Windows Vista Supa Edition i think most of them
will be happy cause they simply got it all. No one needs to tell them to
upgrade fram Home Basic Enterprise Edition to Home Basic Big Enterprise
Edition...

I sometime thinks that Microsoft _wants_ to be more complicated than they
have to... and i dont know why. Enlight me please you clever msvp


// peter

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"why would people.."
Because they would pay for the features they would not need.
In reality if there were never an option, they would only complain about the
cost which would be significantly higher than if a less expensive option
were available.
People need and want choices and Microsoft has given them.
What do you have against choices that come with lower costs?

Each of the features ads cost to the total development.
With 4 versions of Vista, not 6, people can tailor their needs with
available resources.
I do not count Starter and Enterprise since their availability is very
limited to their respective markets.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

There is more to the differences of Windows XP Home and Pro other than IIS.
Ability to connect to a domain is a major one as is EFS and the list goes
on.
But most home users do not need those features and should not have to pay
for what they do not need or receive.

"there was no legal reason..."
Legal has little or nothing to do with it.
Microsoft made a decision to give the buyers a choice of features and price.
I would prefer Microsoft gave a choice and I decided.

"despite 5 years overdue"
Not true at all since Windows XP was released 5 years ago.
Sure it would have been fine for Vista to be released earlier, but do you
really want Vista as it was two or three years ago which would have been
more in line with the previous release schedule of OSs at about 2 - 3 years?

"two versions of XP"
Incorrect.
What about Media Center and Tablet editions?

"And dont slam me with the security-hammer-thing"
Then you rule out some of the best features since Vista is more secure than
Windows XP Gold.
With any product, ignoring a major benefit simply because one does not
benefit is no reason to ignore the masses that may benefit.

If UAC bothers you, perhaps you are using a Beta.
UAC has gotten better with each new build to the point that I have no
problems with Vista RTM.

"Microsoft _wants_ to be more complicated"
If that means buyers should do a little research before spending their
money, what's new?
Buyers should always do appropriate research or face the consequences of the
choice.

If the auto makers took your view, everyone would be driving the same make
and model since that is what someone determined would suit everyone
regardless the cost.
But you would find very few would be server since there are a wide variety
of needs and available resources.

 

[Mike]

Tell me... why would people get pissed off if Ultimate was the only and
final OS? do you think that Ultimate hasnt got it all?

But it also has the highest price. Plenty of people would be pissed if the
only version of Windows they could buy was $400 for the full version or $260
for an upgrade.

Aunt Hilda doesn't need that. She needs Home Basic. Businesses don't
need that. Many *small* businesses could probably use Home Basic.

Toyota doesn't sell just one $50,000 car that's "got it all". You have to
appeal to different market segments.

Mike

 

[arachnid]

"why would people.."
Because they would pay for the features they would not need. In reality if
there were never an option, they would only complain about the cost which
would be significantly higher than if a less expensive option were
available.
People need and want choices and Microsoft has given them. What do you
have against choices that come with lower costs?

Yeah, the "choice" of using the crippled Vista Home that came with
their computer, or paying extra to upgrade it to a usable level.

Each of the features ads cost to the total development.

The ability to run on simulated hardware is inherent in software.
Microsoft didn't have to spend one penny, or generate or alter even one
line of code, to make it possible for Vista to run on a Virtual Machine.
And yet, they charge extra for consumers to run Vista in a VM. Their
concern is pretty clearly not about "saving consumers money".

 

[Mike]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:30:50 -0700, Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
Yeah, the "choice" of using the crippled Vista Home that came with
their computer, or paying extra to upgrade it to a usable level.

One person's "crippled" is another person's "feature complete". Not
everyone has the same needs/budget.

Mike

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"crippled Vista Home"
Not crippled at all.
You can not explain how it is crippled because it is not.
Simply showing a feature you feel you need which is not in Home does not
make Home crippled.

It it does not meet your needs, buy something that does.
The home versions of Vista have their purpose and most home users will be
glad to get Vista cheaper because features they do not need are not
included.

 

[Dale]

I concede the point.

Unlike some of those who are angry or upset about the versions, I had just
commented on how I remembered the events or or how I had interpreted those
events 6 years ago.

I need it all - or at least I want it all - so I am going to pay $400 for a
full version Ultimate license retail the day Vista is generally available.
While I wish there was just one version, or even two - home premium and
ultimate - I don't care much that there are more.

I think that later on a lot of people who fall for buying home basic are
going to care but aside from home basic, all the other versions appear to be
very well targeted as far as I can tell.

Dale

 

[arachnid]

"crippled Vista Home"
Not crippled at all.

Yes it is. Microsoft has artificially (via EULA) removed the ability to
run Vista Home in a virtual machine and then charges about $200 extra to
grant you the right to run Vista in a VM. As I already pointed out, the
ability to run on virtual hardware is inherent in software and isn't
anything that Microsoft added.

Multimedia capabilities are a necessary part of any modern OS, yet have
been strategically removed from Vista Home Basic.

You can not explain how it is crippled because it is not. Simply showing
a feature you feel you need which is not in Home does not make Home
crippled.

Virtual Machine technology is something most home users need. It provides
an easy way to separate user accounts, to cleanly separate Internet
activities from private records, and to quickly try out new things without
putting your primary installation at risk. If Microsoft really cared about
their users' security they'd be encouraging, rather than discouraging, the
use of VM technology.

It it does not meet your needs, buy something that does. The home
versions of Vista have their purpose and most home users will be glad to
get Vista cheaper because features they do not need are not included.

Their purpose is to give consumers a barely usable OS and then charge them
to add the features they're likely to need.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"Their purpose..."
That is your opinion.
Mine is that it gives the buyer a choice.
Along with the choices come features and a cost.
Microsoft get blamed by you because a choice of a lower cost version is
available.
If you had your way, Microsoft would get blamed by those that feel the price
could have been lower with less unneeded features.

If Microsoft did as you suggested, prices for the cheapest Vista would be
higher and those not wanting or needing the features would be forced to pay
simply because some like you feel you know what the others need.
Give the buyers some credit, many research and buy what they need to begin
with.

I like choices where I can determine where my $ go and so do many others.

 

[William Poaster]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:25:31 -0700, Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

<snip>


Top posting crossposting moron.

<PLONK>

 

[Dale]

Yes it is. Microsoft has artificially (via EULA) removed the ability to
run Vista Home in a virtual machine and then charges about $200 extra to
grant you the right to run Vista in a VM. As I already pointed out, the
ability to run on virtual hardware is inherent in software and isn't
anything that Microsoft added.

You get a lot more additional functionality than virtual machine support by
upgrading to Ultimate or Business.

Multimedia capabilities are a necessary part of any modern OS, yet have
been strategically removed from Vista Home Basic.

I hadn't heard that Home Basic didn't include Windows Media Player 11. Is
that something new?

And while I have been glad to use the included media players in all Windows
versions, I tend to agree with the EU on this one. Multimedia is not part
of "Operating System". It is a specific functional application and not part
of just operating the hardware - with the exception of the startup sound.
That said, unless you can send us a link to where it is documented that Home
Basic won't include WMP 11, then you're still wrong. There is multimedia
functionality built in to Windows Vista.

Virtual Machine technology is something most home users need. It provides
an easy way to separate user accounts, to cleanly separate Internet
activities from private records, and to quickly try out new things without
putting your primary installation at risk. If Microsoft really cared about
their users' security they'd be encouraging, rather than discouraging, the
use of VM technology.

Virtual aachine technology is not anything home users (as targeted by
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic or Premium) need or would know how to
use. Vista has great user separation built in. Even as administrator, I
cannot get into other users documents unless I take specific action to
override the default security.
IT Professionals and developers need virtual machine technology. Those are
users who should be using Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate. On top of
that, it requires a separate Vista license for each virtual machine you
install the OS in. Home users are not going to buy several copies of Vista
to run on one PC.

Their purpose is to give consumers a barely usable OS and then charge them
to add the features they're likely to need.

Or perhaps the purpose was to create a fully powered high end desktop OS for
IT professionals that need it and yet not charge consumers for features they
don't need and will never use.

Dale

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

Yes it is. Microsoft has artificially (via EULA) removed the ability to
run Vista Home in a virtual machine and then charges about $200 extra to
grant you the right to run Vista in a VM. As I already pointed out, the
ability to run on virtual hardware is inherent in software and isn't
anything that Microsoft added.

It's not $200 to get Vista Business, which includes VM rights. No, it's
not something Microsoft added to Windows, but that's really beside the
point. Open Source developers dictate the terms in which their software
may be distributed or used. Microsoft is certainly within their rights to
dictate what they want.

Multimedia capabilities are a necessary part of any modern OS, yet have
been strategically removed from Vista Home Basic.

Vista Basic has every multi-media capability that XP Home and Pro have.
What it doesn't have is Media Center, which is "Tivo" like functionality
that most people don't really use. Home basic as Media Player, It has
Picture Galleries, it has the ability to play music and videos... Watch
DVD's, etc... It just can't act like a Tivo without an upgrade or extra
software.

Simply put, you're totally wrong about this.

Virtual Machine technology is something most home users need.

No it's not. Most home users would never use it, much less even figure out
HOW to use it. Certainly some home users will have need for it, but then
most of those people aren't likely to be running Vista Home (either basic
or premium) they're power users, and will likely want to run Vista Ultimate
for it's other features.

I think the case of someone wanting to use Home Basic or Premium and
Virtual Machines, other than for development and testing purposes, is
pretty slim to non-existent. And for development and testing your MSDN
license overrides the software license and allows this.

It provides
an easy way to separate user accounts, to cleanly separate Internet
activities from private records, and to quickly try out new things without
putting your primary installation at risk. If Microsoft really cared about
their users' security they'd be encouraging, rather than discouraging, the
use of VM technology.

Most users wouldn't even be able to figure out what VM technology was, much
less how to use it, and you know that.

Their purpose is to give consumers a barely usable OS and then charge them
to add the features they're likely to need.

There are no features in Vista Ultimate that an average home user would
need or even know how to use. There are certainly features that a business
user or home poweruser would use, and that's why Ultimate exists...

 

[caver1]

Virtual Machine technology is something most home users need. It provides
an easy way to separate user accounts, to cleanly separate Internet
activities from private records, and to quickly try out new things without
putting your primary installation at risk. If Microsoft really cared about
their users' security they'd be encouraging, rather than discouraging, the
use of VM technology.


Their purpose is to give consumers a barely usable OS and then charge them
to add the features they're likely to need.

Almost three years ago, on January 7,

11 2004, Jim Allchin, the senior executive at

12 Microsoft, sent an E-mail to Microsoft’s top

13 two executives, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer,

14 and the subject was losing our way.

15 Mr. Allchin says, I’m not sure how the

16 company lost sight of what matters to our

17 customers, both business and home, the most,

18 but in my view we lost our way. I think our

19 teams lost sight of what bug-free means, what

20 resilience means, what full scenarios mean,

21 what security means, what performance means,

22 how important current applications are, and

23 really understanding what the most important

24 problems our customers face are. I see lots of

25 random features and some great vision, but that

(3814)
1 does not translate into great products.

2 He goes on to say, I would buy a Mac

3 today if I was not working at Microsoft.”

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?page_id=8582