Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ten Reasons to Buy Windows Vista

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the lesser-of-evils dept.

851

pennconservative writes "Michael Desmond, writing for PCWorld.com, gives us ten reasons to buy the next version of Microsoft Windows. Some of his reasons sound compelling, and it definitely sounds like Microsoft has found yet another way to ensure market dominance for a few more years. Desmond also gives a few reasons not to buy Vista, but the most compelling of those is the hardware required to run it. Since Vista will likely ship on every new computer anyone buys, I don't see that being a major roadblock."

cancel ×

851 comments

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14749953)

lolololol

can they all run it though? (0, Flamebait)

DuctTape (101304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749968)

This assumes that every new computer will be decked out enough to be able to run it. Obviously they won't have to have a decent 3D card to run it with the fancy desktop bell & whistles.

DT

Re:can they all run it though? (5, Informative)

pennconservative (934296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749972)

The article points out that they actually give you two options for the desktop. If your computer can't handle the new, fancy look, you can simply use the Windows Classic look. That way users without the high-end hardware can still run it.

Re:can they all run it though? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750076)

In other words, they're (apparently) taking away the current theming engine used in XP. And (ugly default theme aside) that's an improvement, how?

Re:can they all run it though? (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750140)

that's an improvement, how?

Compared to the XP fisher-price look?
Just be grateful, OK.

Re:can they all run it though? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749976)

This assumes that every new computer will be decked out enough to be able to run it.

Every new computer that carries the "Designed for Windows Vista" sticker must meet minimum system requirements.

what do low-end machines run on then? (5, Interesting)

DuctTape (101304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750001)

Every new computer that carries the "Designed for Windows Vista" sticker must meet minimum system requirements.

Will they get XP if their system does not meet the requirements? Surely Dell will sell a low-end machine that might not have the hardware to run Vista? Or worse yet, they sell a machine that meets the minimal requirements, and performs like a dog. I wouldn't think that they'd want that perception, right?

DT

License pricing; Trusted HTTP (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750054)

Will they get XP if their system does not meet the requirements? Surely Dell will sell a low-end machine that might not have the hardware to run Vista?

Depends on whether Microsoft raises the system-builder license price for Windows XP once Windows Vista is released. Depends further on how many web sites with no close substitutes, such as the web site for the only provider of a given product or service in town or the provider of a service for which you have a long-term commitment, plan to require Windows Vista and its rumored support for Trusted HTTP [slashdot.org] .

Re:can they all run it though? (4, Interesting)

PDXNerd (654900) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749988)

They will if they want to have a "Made for Windows Vista" logo on the outside, which would be all major PC manufacturers. Trust me, most OEMs are already well aware of the Microsoft Logo requirements for Vista. If it's going to ship on your PC (and by ship I don't mean your brother's girlfriend's ex-boyfriend's PC company down the street) it will probably be logo'd. If it has that logo, it will run Vista just fine.

Re:can they all run it though? (1)

wormnet.org (955561) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750186)

That may or may not be completely true. In the days when XP first came out, we saw boxes with that "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on them, and most of them were grossly underpowered. Just because you can run XP on a minimum of 256MB of RAM doesn't mean you should. PC manufacturers regularly shipped "bargain" PCs configured this way and they ran like crap. Then again, maybe the PC manufacturers will have learned from previous mistakes and are going to ship PCs that are actually going to run the OS to spec, instead of just being able to boot it.

One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749973)

DRM. Why would you pay for your own shackles?

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750032)

You're a fucking idiot. Please get your facts straight before stating crap like this. Vista won't have "DRM" like you say it will.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750128)

Sorry Billy, but your crappy OS will.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750160)

Don't be too sure. As the article points out in the last lines:

Meet the old boss, same as the new boss

... also, it mentions that Windws Media Player is being redone ... again ... so we won't know until the final product ships, and maybe not even then (the article also states that updating is aso being changed - its no longer browser-based, so maybe DRM will be a "drive-by" install when you first go online).

The simple fact is we don't know, so to say that it won't is BS, especially since Microsoft HAS been making a lot of noise - they want their own iTunes-style franchise. (I know, another case of Windows Mac Envy)

Re:One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (5, Insightful)

waveclaw (43274) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750049)

DRM. Why would you pay for your own shackles?

Avereage Joe: But they were sooooo shiny! And look at all the pretty 'features.' And everyone's getting or got a pair! Besides, they go so well with my gamer clothes...I mean work suit.

The number one and number two reason people will buy Vista: it will come on their new PC and it will play all the video games sold for PC (that Average Joe cares about.) You can talk about 'compatibility' with work, but Windows 98 with Office 97 is all that takes for most cases. As soon as Duke Nukem comes out, you can be sure it will have a 'Made for Microsoft Windows Vista' sticker on it.

Re:One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (0, Troll)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750100)

You can talk about 'compatibility' with work, but Windows 98 with Office 97 is all that takes for most cases.
You misspelled "Linux and OpenOffice" (except that they're much better than the things you mentioned).

Re:One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (-1, Offtopic)

Mike Savior (802573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750141)

...Duke.. Nukem..?

Re:One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (3, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750188)

Sig: You're = You are. Your = Belonging to you. Their = Belonging to them. There = A location. Get it right, please..

So what you're saying is "All You are Location Belonging to them Please?"

Re:One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (5, Funny)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750168)

As soon as Duke Nukem comes out, you can be sure it will have a 'Made for Microsoft Windows Vista' sticker on it.

Are you serious? When DNF comes out Microsoft will have dropped support for legacy OS's like Vista!

Re:One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (5, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750099)

Gates: "It puts the shackles on its wrist, or it gets the hose again."

Ballmer: Put the fucking shackles on your wrists! Or I'll fucking kill you!!! (Throws chair.)

Re:One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750123)

Don't forget the bi-directional firewall... wooooooh. Go Microsoft... innovation, innovation, innovation!

Re:One good reason NOT to buy Windows Vista: (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750174)

Well, I'd rather have Vista + DRM/"Shackles" than nothing.

Then again, I'd rather have Mac OS X Tiger than either.

But does Windows Vista come with DRM of any sort? Or are you referring to the music DRM it is compatible with?

So... (4, Insightful)

TERdON (862570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749974)

what feature will I get that I don't already have in Mac OS X 10.4?

I skimmed the list rapidly and I'm already using the equivalents to at least half of them, probably more (I wrote "skimmed"). Some of the features I have even used for several years...

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750008)

Running thousands of applications, including most new games....... ;-)

Re:So... (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750075)

With crippled OpenGL and those non-admin-running restrictions, I doubt _Vista_ will be able to run most _current_ applications and games. Lots of stuff will have to be rewritten.

Windows is still the compatible choice (0, Flamebait)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750017)

what feature will I get that I don't already have in Mac OS X 10.4?

Compatibility with more games. Other than WoW, what popular MMORPG runs on Mac OS X?

Compatibility with more vertical-market apps such as the one used by your employer.

Compatibility with more peripherals sold at retail stores.

Compatibility with web sites that are made exclusively for Microsoft Internet Explorer technology and for which there are no close substitutes.

Re:Windows is still the compatible choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750036)

sounds more like incompatibility with the rest!

Re:Windows is still the compatible choice (1)

Transmogrify_UK (902981) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750053)

Compatibility with more games. Other than WoW, what popular MMORPG runs on Mac OS X?

Get a console to play games!

Compatibility with more peripherals sold at retail stores.

Possibly, but I'm unaware of any peripheral I need/want that is incompatible with OSX.

Compatibility with web sites that are made exclusively for Microsoft Internet Explorer technology and for which there are no close substitutes.

Any suggestions of what sites those may be? Even as a Windows/PC user, running Firefox exclusively, I never came across any site worth my time that required Internet Explorer.

Re:Windows is still the compatible choice (1, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750090)

Get a console to play games!

Which non-Blizzard real-time sim is well-supported on Mac OS X? Or do you claim that all non-Blizzard RTS games are poorly engineered? Which console supports independent gaming?

I'm unaware of any peripheral I need/want that is incompatible with OSX.

For one thing, the peripherals that switchers may already own. For another, the peripherals that people receive as gifts, either to individuals from family members or to non-profit organizations from charitable donors.

I can't think of any major IE-only sites at the moment; I'll let others respond.

Re:Windows is still the compatible choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750126)

You have never used a Mac.

In other words, Windows is still the monopoly. (-1, Troll)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750122)

Great, so the only reason to use Windows is still because Microsoft is a criminal organization.

Re:Windows is still the compatible choice (2, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750164)

Compatibility with more games.

This may be an argument for XP, but it's not one for Vista. The only game I've heard of so far that will be Vista-only is the next version of Halo and that's strictly for political reasons.

-jcr

Not really. (3, Insightful)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750028)

I actually read though the list, and other than the last three options. (backups, install times, live shared docs) the other 7 were options I've been using for years on Macs.

Granted, not that I'm not happy that Windows is catching up, but I thought it was funny that to me at least, the only new features were the last three listed. All of which sounded very interesting.

Cupertino, start your copiers!

Re:Not really. (0, Troll)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750078)

you've been using IE7 on the mac for years? mac browsers suck.

much of the list isn't really comparable to mac or is vague. security fixes? more media? improved mp3 library? hard to know what he's really talking about. new user interface? hard to say you've been using that on a mac or that you'd want to.

Re:Not really. (2, Informative)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750172)

Let's see. Starting from #1

1. Security. Most of the features mentioned OSX already has in place. It will be nice to have it rolled into Windows, but not a massive change to OSX users.

2. And I quote: "Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover, complete with tabbed pages and better privacy management." Yay! Windows users get Firefox. Again. Which they already had anyway. IE7 is a yawn. Welcome to the internet of 3 years ago.

3. Righteous eye candy: Wow. It's like a Stevenote timewarp listening to the writeup on this feature. Again, welcome to three years ago.

4. Desktop search: Already available in OSX, and Google and Yahoo are already there for Windows. Again this is playing catchup to the market.

5. Better updates: Central (non browser) source of updates. Ooh. Stale.

6. More media: This should basically be titled. "Windows Media Player, now with more iTunes!"

7. Parental controls: That could be very nice, and is unique. As I'm not a parent it's not as important to me, but could be nice for locking down labs etc. to standard hours. This is actually cool.

8 and 9 are both cool options.

10. This is actually a little lackluster for me until I see it in practice. Could be nice but as it isn't working yet, I'll hold off.

So of the 9 updates actually IN the product reviewed, 6 are YEARS old, three are new.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750055)

what feature will I get that I don't already have in Mac OS X 10.4?

The ability to run specific win32 apps.

That is the only difference.

As you've noted that most of the features in Vista (Music management / photo management / drm / desktop search / etc are already present (or have equivilants) in OS X.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750150)

The ability to run specific win32 apps.
Go, go, gadget Darwine! [opendarwin.org]

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750187)

>>As you've noted that most of the features in Vista (Music management / photo management / drm / desktop search / etc are already present (or have equivilants) in OS X.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but i would say, not only are they available, on Mac OS X, they are superior. iTunes, GarageBand, Final Cut, iDVD. Etc. Apple's been shipping this stuff for years. MSFT's just talking about what they hope to release, and talk is cheap.

Given Microsoft's tendancy to cut features like a boot camp barber cuts hair, I'm not too hopeful everything's going to make it to the final release.

Re:So... (2, Informative)

Quevar (882612) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750118)

I went through the list and couldn't find anything that OSX doesn't already have. Keep in mind that OSX (10.4) was released in April 2005. Vista seems to be at least 2 years behind and it's still not shipping yet....

His top ten reasons to get Vista compared to OSX (10.4):
1. Security, security, security: Yeah, I've got that in OSX.
2. Internet Explorer 7: "IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover." Yeah, I've got Firefox in OSX, but I much prefer Safari anyway.
3. Righteous eye candy: Yeah, I've got that in OSX.
4. Desktop search: Yeah, I've got that in OSX.
5. Better updates: "Vista does away with using Internet Explorer to access Windows Update, instead utilizing a new application to handle the chore of keeping your system patched and up-to-date." Yeah, I've got a separate app to deal with updates in OSX.
6. More media: Yeah, I've got plenty of media in OSX - Macs have always dominated this market.
7. Parental controls: Yeah, I've got that in OSX.
8. Better backups: Yeah, I've got that in OSX. I've been using Apple's Backup and also rsync to backup to an external computer for my essential stuff.
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration: Yeah, I've got that in OSX - Bonjour comes to mind.
10. Quick setup: Beta code alert: Hmm, the setup time might beat OSX.

Check out these three movies to see a shipping version of Vista:
http://smartdelivery.watchmactv.com/mactv/mp4/102- TheRealVista1_Fixed.mov [watchmactv.com]
http://smartdelivery.watchmactv.com/mactv/mp4/103- TheRealVista2.mov [watchmactv.com]
http://smartdelivery.watchmactv.com/mactv/mp4/105- TheRealVista3.mp4 [watchmactv.com]

Reasons to buy Windows? (0, Troll)

Communal Account (954236) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749977)

Is there any way to mod this story 'troll'? *me ducks* ;)

Re:Reasons to buy Windows? (4, Interesting)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750069)

Is there any way to mod this story 'troll'?

Actually there is [slashdot.org] .

Re:Reasons to buy Windows? (1)

Communal Account (954236) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750166)

*Whoosh* That was the sound of the joke going over your head.

Misleading headline (5, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749981)

Those are 10 reasons to buy vista IF you are currently running XP. As a Linux user who has always the option to open a maconlinux OSX window, the only reason would be the collaborative environment. All the other reasons were available to me on linux osx or both, since at least two years ago. Heh, the two way firewall :)

Requirements won't be an issue (5, Insightful)

Kasracer (865931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749986)

According to Microsoft, the requirements for Vista are almost as low of Windows XP, you just can't have all the pretty effects and such.

I was reading about Vista last night and it's including features like a revamped sleep mode which is a cross between standby and hibernation. They have have SmartFetch or whatever it's called so it knows what applications you typically use and at what times so it'll preload them into memory making it seem snappier.

All in all, it sounds like Vista will be a pretty good release (at least, in my opinion).

Re:Requirements won't be an issue (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750151)

it sounds like Vista will be a pretty good release

You must be new here...

Re:Requirements won't be an issue (1)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750158)

Microsoft lies. I've heard from people using the beta, and there are tales of 900 megs of RAM in use at boot-up and 50 processes. And that's with Glass turned off. And if it follows like XP64, it'll actually get more bloated as it moves out of beta and toward release.

Re:Requirements won't be an issue (1)

mikeydb (880405) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750178)

Great, another product that'll effectively go into standby instead of powering down. This is looking great in the face of the looming energy crisis if the british media are to be believed.

Honestly (5, Interesting)

gleather (596807) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749994)

After paying for 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP I'm really starting to abandon cynicism and derision in favor of good old practical thriftiness. I just can't afford Windows anymore.

Re:Honestly (1)

dabraun (626287) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750024)

If you are young enough that you can not afford a copy of windows (and you are reading slashdot taking you out the impoverished demographic) then you are not old enough to have bought windows 3.1.

Layoffs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750115)

If you are young enough that you can not afford a copy of windows (and you are reading slashdot taking you out the impoverished demographic) then you are not old enough to have bought windows 3.1.

Even if you're a downsized IT worker who has had to switch jobs to food service?

Re:Honestly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750121)

I remeber Win3.1 but being laidoff I can't afford Windows yet my computer still seems to work even though my paycheck stoped comming in.

New computer? Why? (5, Insightful)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14749995)

Good luck MSFT - you've got a hell of a challenge ahead of you.

The age of the compelling application is mostly over because existing hardware (even systems several years old, and thus dirt cheap) fulfill almost all of the average person's computing needs. I'd wager that 90% (or more) of average household computer usage is spent in two applications: email and internet browser. (the other 10% is word processing, accounting/taxes, etc.)

And no, gamers aren't "average" computer users. They're always looking for state-of-the-art.

Seriously -- other than as a new game platform, why would the average person buy a new computer? Mom & Pop don't understand/care about new video production, DVD ripping, file sharing, etc. They just want to occasionally look something up on the net, buy something off eBay, or get a photo of the grandkids. If they already have a system (and market saturation ##'s suggest that they do) convincing them to shell out a grand for a new box that doesn't offer them anything more than the old one is going to be a tough sell.

Re:New computer? Why? (1)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750040)

I disagree.

A large percent is also spent on listening to music and watching video (esp. the upcoming generation).

Plus everyone has a special program they use depeneding on what they job is. Some people use their video production or audio DAW softwre a lot, others photoshop or other visual studio (or such IDE) or statistical cruncher or MATLAB. THere is always that one program that they use for their livelihood that will demand upgrades.

Re:New computer? Why? (1)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750092)

Noted. Listening to music is a big deal. And I suppose I also forgot IM/Chat.

However, the #ofpeople running Visual Studio is exceptionally low. 1%, tops? Same goes for those making videos, doing number crunching or analysis or whatever. The Fark and /. crowds are very different from the rest of the world when it comes to using computers. We're powerusers and just like the gamers, most of us will upgrade. I was simply trying to argue that most of those running WinXP will have no compelling reason to do so.

Re:New computer? Why? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750125)

However, the #ofpeople running Visual Studio is exceptionally low. 1%, tops? Same goes for those making videos, doing number crunching or analysis or whatever.

1% times 50 different programs = 50%. Even after figuring in people who use more than one 1% type program, that's still a significant number of people.

Re:New computer? Why? (1)

carlislematthew (726846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750045)

Seriously -- other than as a new game platform, why would the average person buy a new computer?

Some people buy a new computer because the old one gets slow and fills up with junk. Too many applications, popups, spyware apps, files... The thought of reinstalling Windows or adding more space just doesn't enter into the thought process.

Re:New computer? Why? (1)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750193)

Gamers are average computer users. Or at least for most families, there's probably someone in the house that wants to play games. Halo 2 for PC is already announced to require Vista, and MS announced a few months ago a MS-certified-type game system for PCs. How much you want to bet that to get the little sticker on the box it has to be Vista-only?

Of course, simultaneously MS has been trying to kill off PC gaming with their consoles, so they might be shooting themselves in the foot after all.

Can somebody name a distribution (1, Informative)

anandpur (303114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750004)

that support out of this box all this

1. Security : Something like Linux or OpenBSD
2. Internet Explorer 7 : FireFox 1.5.x is good enough
3. Righteous eye candy : Something like OS X
4. Desktop search : Google Desktop or bagel
5. Better updates : apt-get or yum
6. More media : Something DRM free
7. Parental controls : non root user?
8. Better backups : rsync
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration : wiki?
10. Quick setup : live CD to harddisk

Re:Can somebody name a distribution (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750198)

How about Fedora Core 5:
1. Linux with SELinux enabled
2. Firefox 1.5 and Konqueror with Opera as an option
3. How about making [gnome-look.org] it look [kde-look.org] the way you [fedoraforum.org] want?
4. With Mono, you have Beagle
5. yum for command line, yumex or pup for GUI
6. Gstreamer, xine, mplayer: all installable through yum(ex)/pup
7. Non root accounts plus lockdown [gnome.org]
8. All sorts of backup scripts [about.com]
9. Wiki, CVS, etc.
10. Anaconda or a live CD

reasons 1-10 it sucks worse than ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750007)

yep that about covers it.
everything on the list is available for linux.
even that collaborative environement bullshit.

oh, gotta love the DRM, and all the built-in backdoors! eeesh!

seems more like 10 reasons to DUMP windows and get OSX or linux!

After reading through his list (4, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750013)

It could also be called, "10 reasons for buying Mac OS X Tiger"....

Any Color You Like, As Long As It's Black (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750029)

So the top reason to buy Vista is "you have to".

Re:Any Color You Like, As Long As It's Black (4, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750183)

Remember the Evil Empire's "where do you want to go today" ads? The real slogan is "who cares? You're coming with us."

-jcr

Opinion from a die hard Windows user... (1)

ditoa (952847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750031)

I read this yesterday and to be honest I am disappointed. The only thing that I really care about is security. Everything else matters very little (to me anyway). I will give Vista a run when it comes out as I have a PC that should be capable of running it (runs the betas fine anyway) then I will make my final opinion. I am seriously considering a switch to another platform though.

Re:Opinion from a die hard Windows user... (2, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750169)

That's great you're considering switching. There are many non-software related reasons for switching away from Microsoft [msversus.org] as well.

Windows Vista is a conspiracy (0, Troll)

kokojie (915449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750033)

Windows Vista is a conspiracy to sell you the latest hardware that no one would otherwise need/want except gamers. Windows Vista force the web browsing, email checking and flash game playing people to upgrade to the latest hardware just to be compatible with the rest of the world.

Wow....it's almost caught up to OS X Panther (-1, Troll)

instantkarma1 (234104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750043)

In terms of user-functionality.

Too bad the current version of OS X is Tiger, and Leopard will be out soon thereafter.

Playing catchup is a bitch, ain't it?

Does that include running win32 software? (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750143)

[Windows Vista catches up to Mac OS X Panther] In terms of user-functionality.

Does that include being able to run the same game software that other people who live on your block or in your university residence hall run, in order to form LAN parties? Does that include being able to run your employer's telecommuting software? (For the price of gasoline to avoid having to telecommute, you could buy a PC that runs Windows.) Does that include being able to use the peripherals that you already own before switching or which are donated to you or to your employer?

paid off loser (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750052)

jesus you have monkey boy bush paying media to hype his fascist, neocon bs. Obvviously this guy sucks Microsofts cock. Give me a break, COMPELLING? give it up.

no one wants it,

no one needs it...

NO ONE CARES

One reason needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750056)

Because you have made to beleive there is no other choice!

http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/PhotoAlbum2.html [mac.com]

No 1 Slashdot reason (3, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750060)

Because you can.


No wait, thats not right.....

Such wonderful reasons! (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750061)

1. Security, security, security: Windows XP Service Pack 2 patched a lot of holes, but Vista takes security to the next level.
That's not an argument for Vista, that's an argument for a secure OS (such as every other OS except Windows!).
2. Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover, complete with tabbed pages and better privacy management
If it's "Firefox inspired," why not just use Firefox in the first place?
3. Righteous eye candy: For the first time, Microsoft is building high-end graphics effects into Windows
Wow, what an innovation! Wait a second, that reminds me of something. Oh yeah: Mac OS.
4. Desktop search: Microsoft has been getting its lunch handed to it by Google and Yahoo on the desktop, but Vista could change all that.
See above statement.
5. Better updates: Vista does away with using Internet Explorer to access Windows Update, instead utilizing a new application to handle the chore of keeping your system patched and up-to-date.
And Linux, BSD, and even Mac OS have had package management systems since when, forever?
6. More media: Over the years, one of the key reasons to upgrade versions of Windows has been the free stuff Gates and Company toss into the new OS, and Vista is no exception.
This must be some kind of joke. Windows bundles the fewest apps of any operating system. Have you seen what comes by default with Mac OS or -- better yet -- a typical Linux distribution?!
7. Parental controls: Families, schools, and libraries will appreciate the tuned-up parental controls, which let you limit access in a variety of ways.
Oh boy! New and improved restrictions!
8. Better backups
Thank god! Now I no longer have to back up my system on 376 thousand floppy disks!
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration
Quick, somebody sic the RIAA on them!
10. Quick setup: Beta code alert: There are some Vista features I hope dearly for even though they haven't been built yet. This is one of them.
And reason number ten? There is no reason number ten!

Re:Such wonderful reasons! (3, Interesting)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750124)

Have you seen what comes by default with Mac OS...?

Yes I have and it's not as great as Windows. iLife is not bundled with Mac OS although it is bundled with the machine. It's not the end-all of bundled software either.

Re:Such wonderful reasons! (4, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750195)

I wasn't talking about iLife. Mac OS comes with a bunch of other stuff, like Automator, that Windows doesn't have.

Reasons not get Vista (1)

jhines (82154) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750062)

Improvements to IE and Windows media player? I don't use them now, why would I be interested in an improved version to sit idle?

The 10 reasons: (4, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750066)

1. What's good for Microsoft is good for the US economy.
2. Because they have a million tricks up their sleeve to obselete your old software.
3. You're too stupid to use linux.
4. Your new hardware has been sabotaged for any "pirated" software like linux.
5. Because we get kickbacks from Ballmer if you do.
6. As an american, you are culturally programmed to want new toys and to believe what marketing firms tell you.
7. Because it will be secure. *snicker*cough**snort*LOL... damn, I can't keep a straight face.
8. Because we at Microsoft have been busy trying to convince you that cool tricks are only possible on Vista, and considering our other OSs are steaming shitpiles, you just might believe it.
9. Because WE SAY SO.
10. If you haven't bought Vista yet, then the terrorists have already won...

100 reasons not to buy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750071)

Gee, where do we start?

Let's See (4, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750072)

  1. Security - OS X already has great security.
  2. Internet Explorer 7 - I've got something better. It's called Safari. It's been out for years.
  3. Righteous eye candy - OS X's eye candy is great, plus it is often functional (see Expose)
  4. Desktop search - I've had it for about a year on OS X. It works great.
  5. Better updates - No longer using Windows Update, instead a seperate application. Hmmm... that sounds like how OS X does it.
  6. More media - OS X has great media handling abilities. And he talks about the improved Windows Movie Maker? I hope so, that program was sorry the last time I used it. From what I've heard it can't hold a candle to iMovie/iDVD. Both of which come free with every Mac. And what do they have to compete with Garage Band and iWeb (also free with every Mac)?
  7. Parental controls - I honestly don't know if OS X has anything like this
  8. Better backups - No registry on OS X. You just copy everything to a external hard drive and you're set. No special software needed.
  9. Peer-to-peer collaboration - Hadn't heard about this. May be interesting.
  10. Quick setup - OS X installs pretty fast, but you don't have to re-install it every year to keep your computer speedy (have they fixed that?)

Seems like I've had 8/10 of those for over a year with my Mac. Way to "innovate". As long as you have to buy a whole new computer to run this OS, why not buy a whole new computer and try a better OS than the one you have now. One that has been out for almost a year (10.4). One that isn't a "1.0" like Vista will be.

If you really like MS though, why not wait for Windows Vista "98" when they iron out the kinks. (OS X had 'em too early on).

What about treacherous computing, DRM, etc? (1)

ghostunit (868434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750082)

I don't think M$ would think twice about imposing this to their users if asked by the government, industry consortiums, etc. I think this is the number 1 reason not to use Windows, at least for people who think their privacy and constitutional rights are important. An example is the request from UK's gov to have their own backdoor to the system: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/15/13 1222 [slashdot.org]

Innovation? (2, Informative)

Karpe (1147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750089)

  1. Security, security, security: How about no know viruses and worms, except for some proof of concepts which have never really proliferated?
  2. Internet Explorer: Safari is a decent browser, with tabbed browsing, from day 1.
  3. Righteous eye candy: Apple introduced gratuitious eye candy with Acqua, and made it usefull with Dashboard and Exposé.
  4. Desktop search: Spotlight is a joy to use.
  5. Better updates: Software Updates, since MacOS X 10.0
  6. More media: Music and Photos? Add video, podcasts, simple web development, and call it iLife.
  7. Parental controls: Done right in Tiger
  8. Better backups: Ok, granted. Unless you count .mac, a paid service.
  9. Peer-to-peer collaboration: First Rendezvous, then Bonjour.
  10. Quick setup: Not only quick, but simple, in MacOS X.

In case of /.ing, the 10 reasons are (4, Insightful)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750091)

1. new firewall almost as good as ZoneAlarm
2. new IE almost as good as Firefox
3. new eye-candy almost as good as OS X
4. new desktop search almost as good as Google Desktop
5. new update program almost as good as Mac Software Update
6. new media programs almost as good as iLife
7. new parental controls almost as good as proper parenting
8. new backups almost as good as things not breaking in the first place
9. new P2P almost as good as turning off your firewall
10. new quick install almost as good as all the other planned features that don't actually exist yet

"Taking Security to the Next Level" (4, Funny)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750098)

1. Security, security, security: Windows XP Service Pack 2 patched a lot of holes, but Vista takes security to the next level.

So, instead of a wide open door with a 'PLEASE ROB ME!!!" sign taped to it, they've half closed the door and put up a sign that says "ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, I WOULD PREFER THAT YOU NOT STEAL ALL MY BELONGINGS, IF THAT'S OK WITH YOU."

When your starting from the gutter, the "next level" is only the curb.

8. Better Backups (1)

zanderredux (564003) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750101)

The registry thing definitely needs a backup solution (or something that can be rolled back). For everything else, given the current sizes of disks, I predict a revival of tape backup technologies. Travan tapes can get to 400GB a pop, so they seem a reasonable solution.

How about linux on new computers? (2, Insightful)

Beuno (740018) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750105)

Since Vista will likely ship on every new computer anyone buys, I don't see that being a major roadblock.


Well, considering there are more and more new computers being shipped with Linux, and how far away Vista's release is, maybe this isn't 100% accurate.

Re:How about linux on new computers? (1)

pl1ght (836951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750139)

Are you serious? Its a pipe dream to think linux shipping on computers is making any dent/scratch/smudget at all on windows workstation install rate.

More like... (0, Troll)

falcon203e (589344) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750107)

...top 10 reasons you should have switched to the Mac two years ago.

For those saying that this article could also be.. (0, Troll)

DJ Kirk (955162) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750108)

"10 reasons to buy OS X," remember, you'd also have to buy a new Mac as well.

Eye candy is a waste - even in OS X (0)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750109)

And it seems to me that this is the primary benefit of Vista. I already turn it off in MacOS X. It appears Microsoft markets their OS as if it is an experience, like going to a movie or a theme park. What happened to running an OS for application support? To do stuff. I could care less about animated icons and 3D window warping.

I've posted a couple of jokes recently about old-time PDP-11 and CP/M software in relation to the modern stuff. But the joke has a bit of truth as well. Go grab a copy of WordPerfect 5.1 - the old DOS wordprocessor. Just what does the latest incarnation of Word do that WP5.1 couldn't? Sure - Word is wysisyg, WP5.1 is not. But if one needs document preparation and mailmerge that 20yo program still works just fine. It was moderately fast on a PC/AT - imagine how fast it would run on an Opteron!

There's something seriously wrong with just about every desktop OS - including Linux with KDE/Gnome. They do little more than a 20yo PC functionally and yet consume orders of magnitude more CPU/RAM/Disk. The only recent advances in need of the modern multi-megapixel displays and accelerated graphics are games, nonlinear video editing, and scientific / business imaging. Why aren't OSs -- even the free ones -- tuned to support these functions?

security (1)

c0dedude (587568) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750127)

they could start by disabling by default LM hashes... I'm not sure who in MS thought it was a good idea to leave a old security hole open because it was being used for reverse compatibility, usually you close security holes.

outnumbered (4, Informative)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750132)

No matter how many new PCs ship with Vista, there is going to be 3 to 5 years before it dominates the market because that's the approximate time it will take for the existing installed base of PCs to be renewed. Can MS wait that long? Can apps writers? Can the media companies?

Already upgraded from XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750149)

...to Ubuntu. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.

Mike

Vista's main target is businesses! (1)

ErichTheRed (39327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750153)

I've been playing with some of the new features in Vista, and the entire product is dquarely aimed at businesses. We currently run a mix of XP SP1 and SP2 at work with a few stray 2000 and NT 4 machines. XP was a huge improvement over 2000 from an IT management standpoint, but it still needs fixing.

The biggest shift will be the whole "least privilege" thing that's been standard on Mac OS X and Linux for quite a while. For our users that do require some rights on their machines, spyware cleanup and slowdowns and virus infections are the worst things to fix. If they can't get on there in the first place, then life is better.

One of my favorites is the new provisioning model. Setup is done by deploying a custom disk image that is actually easy to make and maintain, unlike previous versions' Sysprep and such.

That said, it's not a compelling upgrade just for on-the-surface features. I still prefer Mac OS to the Windows user interface any day. Plus, the huge system requirements pretty much kill any of the eye candy for most of our users. We'll be buying it strictly for the improved manageability.

Cool (4, Interesting)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750155)

I remember when Microsoft's competitors got a lot of flack for just trailing MS. The times have changed. Most of the listed new features in Vista are MS playing catch-up with the competition:

1. Packet filtering capabilities, per-use administrator rights -- from Linux.

2. Tabs in IE -- from Firefox

3. Eye candy/transparency -- Mac OS X

4. Non-awful search system -- everyone was ahead of MS here

5. Better update system -- still no systemwide yum or apt, but the most abysmal thing about maintaining a Windows box was keeping it up to day, and IE was a piss-poor tool to do so with. See Linux.

6. Looks like MS is bundling the equivalent of rhythmbox/iTunes and gqview into Windows.

7. Parental filtering options -- Okay, I'm not aware of anyone else that bundles this in, so this may be new.

8. Better backups -- Linux's amanda.

9. Peer-to-peer collaboration -- I don't yet know enough about what this actually translates to to be able to comment on it.

10. (apparently a wishlist item, not a real feature?)

oops! (2, Funny)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750171)

9. Peer-to-peer collaboration: The Windows Collaboration module uses peer-to-peer technology to let Vista users work together in a shared workspace. You can form ad hoc workgroups and then jointly work on documents, present applications, and pass messages. You can even post "handouts" for others to review.

Oh great, there goes the RIAA and MPAA into meltdown.

Number one: Do we have any choice? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750173)

First of all new computers will come with it. And then it is quite likely that some applications will require Vista. Hasn't Halo 2 been anounced to be Vista only (even though I can't think of any feature Vista might have that would make it a better target than XP)? That will pull some of the gamers over. And the next version of Office?

vista Tablet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750182)

I'm wondering, does anyone know if they're going to come out with Windows Vista Tablet edition?? Beings so hardware intensive, it may not be the right move, or it could push tablet makers to make cheaper tablets that are faster as well.

Really Worthwhile? (2, Insightful)

slashbob22 (918040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750185)

1. Security, security, security: Good! Something we can all agree on. This is a great reason to upgrade!

2. Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover .. This isn't a great reason. I can run IE7 on XP, or I can run Firefox - which is what IE is to be modeled after. Not a reason to upgrade.

3. Righteous eye candy: This could be a good improvement for those who want a showpiece. Your eye candy is hidden when running applications, and I don't see this as a sole reason in and of itself to upgrade.

4. Desktop search: Yeah, this is a very handy feature. See Google Desktop, Beagle etc. This is not a reason to upgrade.

5. Better updates: WinXP home's update service will be provided for 2 years after Vista has been released. WinXP Pro has approximately 5 years. This is a good reason to upgrade when your existing OS isn't supported.

6. More media: .. gets a welcome update that turns the once-bloated player into an effective MP3 library I think it's spelled 'WMA DRM' not MP3. None the less, media is readily available for XP, OSX, and Linux. This is not a valid reason to upgrade.

7. Parental controls: From a technical standpoint, allowing you to block games by their rating could be good. The caveat to this is that parental controls should be done at a parental level NOT through technology. Good reason for certain parents to upgrade. Not a parent? Move along, nothing to see here.

8. Better backups: Working as a tech I found system restore to be only somewhat useful and really hidden. Average Joe user will still not know how to use it or be afraid to use it. Savvy users may employ other technologies to backup information such as Ghost. Products exist so you can store your backups in another location, if your HDD dies, this feature won't help. Not a reason to upgrade

9. Peer-to-peer collaboration: Sounds like P2P, I have it and don't use it. Either way, this technology already exists on WinXP. No upgrade required.

10. Quick setup: Beta code alert: Quick setup vaporware. Not a reason unless it is actually released.

In conclusion, Vista will be a great security update. Most other features are already available for XP and are just now being integrated into the OS - could this lead to more anti-trust lawsuits? (IE and MediaPlayer are historical examples)

Reasons not to upgrade from Windows 2000 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14750190)

  • It kinda-sorta-works well enough so that our users will actually be able to accomplish their work in a kinda-sorta-effecient and kinda-sorta-timely manner.
  • Because the transition would cost big, mega bux.
  • XP was a fucking nightmare. We waited two years before rolling out a few nodes. Then we stopped rolling out XP nodes.
  • The users don't give a fuck, why should I?
  • Nothing suggesting that upgrading would result in prettier (as in values) financial statements for the company.
  • Because I would really rather be doing something else (like eating glass).

Typo? (1)

LouisZepher (643097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14750197)

FTFA: "...Today, desktops routinely ship with 300GB or 400GB hard drives..."

I know HD's are getting bigger and what not, but most computer systems I see advertised are shipped with 40gb drives, but I don't recall any on the market with that much capacity, so is this a typo?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...