I don't know half of you half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
It seems like in the past week I've been about to type a blog post out seven or eight times and every time I haven't felt like writing it after I'd begun. Today that will not happen.
As you may have heard spamed throughout the news media, Microsoft is unveiling its new operating system, Windows Vista, to consumers tomorrow (or midnight tonight if you prefer). Online there has been a lot of talk about the new OS and questions have been raised, some praise has been given and a lot of complaining has been offered. I've been using Vista for quite some time now and I'm a bit tired of some of the whining going on out there.
The biggest issue is probably the newer graphics that Vista has. It's the thing everyone sees and so its the thing that all of the Apple fanboys are crying foul over. Do Macs have this technology already? Yes. Is it better in Macs? Yeah probably, but why does this make a difference. When reviewing Vista you need to look at Vista for what it is, not for what the Mac-lovers are talking about. Macs have their uses don't get me wrong, and they're quite well made as well, but I don't think it's a valid argument to say, "well since Apple has this type of graphics already Windows version is dumb."
There are other complaints about hardware & software compatibility, but really they're relatively small issues. If your system has the get-up-and go to run Vista then it's probably got supported hardware. If it doesn't, then its time to buy new because yours is out of date.
Vista has some very good features that set it apart and are quite helpful. It has much better security over XP, and while I'm sure its not perfect its actually a quite substantial improvement. There are fantastic parental controls and while I don't need those yet, some people out there may and I am very impressed with what they do. There are also hundreds of tweaks under the hood that while I won't go into them all they will make your experience on the PC better.
With all that being said, I wouldn't suggest running out and buying a copy tomorrow morning. It's expensive if you buy it stand alone, so it may not be worth it to you. If you're a techie I'd say you may want to get a copy, but if not then wait until you buy a new computer that comes with it already installed. Microsoft did a good job, but an expensive and lengthy job, it's a good OS just not good enough to spend $300 to get the ultimate version of it.
It is slightly annoying that microsoft is getting alot of their improvement ideas from other companies, but that happens just about everywhere you look... =P It's actually impressive when a company can spot an idea for what it is and harness into their own products, adding their own improvements on it to make it more worthwhile than the original they got the idea from....
That's neat that it has better security now! That's always a plus... I heard that the new start menu is annoying though, and with how they described it, I'd have to agree, but that's about the only actual down side I've heard about it so far...
The two things I've hated about Vista are as follows (I beta tested even before RC1- when it was called Longhorn and had a clock on the top right. Builds 6401, 6408, and 6597, if I remember correctly):
Its cost/tiers of service.
Its "virgin stack" of networking protocols. Instead of staying with the tried-and-improved stack from XP Pro (which allegedly was taken from a BSD distro), they decided to re-write everything from the network layer (layer 3) down. Back in August/September/October, the stack (tho better featured) faired worse than a Windows 95 stack- complete with its self-ping failure.
I think they've fixed most of that now, but MS needs to stop claiming that its the most secure OS ever, when security is only demonstrated by withstanding the test of time. With security, new is not better.
But you'll be happy to know, HT, that the RIT MSDNAA offers it now :-D
Well for starters Stretch, MS claims that its the most secure ever, I just claimed that it has better security than XP, which actually doesn't mean that its more secure than XP (personally I think it is, or will be shortly). The security enhancements that they have added are quite substantial and while you do bring up some good points about the network layer, as best as I can gather they have done a good job fixing whatever it is that didn't work back in the day when you were testing it in Aug-Oct. Long story short, I feel their security is better, yet frankly I don't care what MS says or doesn't say about the situation.
To Puka, the Start Bar gets a bit of getting use to, in a sense, but its not bad at all, and actually I often find myself just searching for something obscure (thanks to the new search features in Vista) and finding it much quicker than I would have in the old start bar type.
Also, I know MSDNAA has Vista. They got it a few weeks ago.
yep.. i was put on the task of trying to make it look better.. it was hard you know :-)
vista vista.. too bad i switched over to OSX.. which is basically the same thing (look at andrew comings site)
i might get a pc to do some work on.. and get it with vista.. yay.. so then i can have the best of both worlds
lol more Mac silliness. OSX is a great OS and it has its uses, Vista is pretty good itself and has its uses. They have similar features, some of which MS "stole" from Apple. That does not mean that Vista is the same thing as OSX it just means they have similar features.
Like the moral issue or not they are not the same OS, and I don't say that to take anything or add anything to either of them.
Really, the only reason I'm commenting is to say that I've been running Vista since early last summer, and while it's got its downsides--my brand-new laptop doesn't like Aero--it certainly has some nice new features.
Anyway, Calculus is calling.
I leave now.