A little while later with Vista
So, those who've read my previous posts may be wondering how Vista is working out for me after loading all those applications and daily use of my laptop. Well let me tell you, it's great.
While Vista is a bit more resource intensive than previous versions and other OSes (Linux, Mac OS, *BSD) it utilizes those resources that it's keeping to itself rather well. I rarely, if ever, have any kind of inconvenient slow downs or bogging of the system unless there is actually something using up the system like virus scans, WoW, AIM (6.1 has this weird flaw that it'll lock up and hog some serioues resources), or anything else disk and CPU intensive just like any other OS.
Lately I've been hearing a lot of complaints from other people who've had a bit less luck with Vista than I have. However, they can rarely provide anything substantial to argue against Vista other than pointing out slow hardware/software manufacturer support and that M$/Microsuck produces a product full of security holes and a bloated OS. I'm going to take a second to refute those points, because that's all it takes.
1) Hardware and software manufacturers have been slow on the uptake because well, Vista hit retail only a few months ago and I'm willing to bet there's some neat, new and better ways in which Vista interacts with your hardware.
2) If Vista is horrible, how come it's sold 40+ million licenses since it was officially launched (source)? I'd assume this includes OEMs that offered the Express Upgrade, business licenses, and people who bought the retail versions.
3) Sure, Vista takes a bit better of a machine to run and Linux can run on a PII 200MHz. But honestly, are you going to be as productive or have as much fun on that old P2 200 or on that blazing fast computer running Vista?
4) Vista is a NEW operating system. Of course there's going to be bugs and security holes. They don't design it that way. When you're the largest operating system manufacturer in the world, there's going to be people with chips on their shoulders or people willing to exploit your products. That's why holes are found in such large numbers for Windows. Linux and Mac don't have the same problem (albeit there are similar ones) because no one cares since they won't have the same large scale reaction as they would with Windows. Seriously, when was the last time you heard a virus, malware, adware, spyware outbreak problem on Linux? It isn't because it's a secure operating system, it's because the dagnasties behind those operations don't give a damn about Linux users because they have to work 100x harder to exploit it (no documentation for exploits and such). People have a vendetta against Windows therefore they find ways to exploit it and give that info to others. That's what eventaully (hopefully) creates a security fix. I'm sure if Linux or Mac were as popular as Windows, you'd see the same problems being found.
5) Windows is genuinely a good product. It dominated the market because it was good. It's become a household tool because it's good and people are familiar with it. An edge Linux cannot say it has.
6) Like Vista, Linux also requires specific hardware to run best on or you're going to be running into compatibility issues and driver issues (usually none available). Don't get your panties in a bind over this. Linux has been getting better about this but it still lacks solid 3D drivers for ATI and Nvidia cards. Same with wireless, been getting better but they just don't have it all there yet.
7) Upgrading your PC every couple years isn't bad practice to keep it running in good shape if you're on a desktop. Laptop users can generally upgrade their RAM and hard drive pretty easily, but you're screwed for video. And Vista still runs without Aero, so you can still get the goodness of Vista with a subpar video card, just not ALL the goodness.
8) I'd thought to mention backwards compatibility but with most applications written in the last five years for XP working on Vista, I don't think it really needs to be mentioned except that the compatibility layer works like 1000x better than XP's did.
9) It Just Works, and smoothly. By default your computer is scheduled to undergo various maintenance operations. This is amplified when you install and use the Windows Live OneCare (which I plan to buy a year's subscription soon) which also tunes up everything for better performance.
10) Manufacturer support has been speeding up significantly and you should see drivers coming for Vista fairly quickly now except for maybe that 10 year old Parallel port scanner you're using. There's backwards and legacy compatibility then there's asking for the ridiculous.
Seriously, those who slam and bash Vista actually need to use it longer than 5 minutes to see the UAC pop up asking them to delete a shortcut on the desktop. If you don't like that disable it. It's not hard to navigate around the user interface.
Quit your whining. If your current computer can't run Vista, either upgrade or keeping using the very solid XP you're using. If you're not using Windows, keep using what you want to use. Microsoft isn't making decisions for you. They're providing a service to consumers and it's been proven time and again that consumers like Windows despite some of the problems it may have. Microsoft caters to the masses, not the individual. Asking them to cater to your whims and needs is unreasonable and ridiculous.
While Vista is a bit more resource intensive than previous versions and other OSes (Linux, Mac OS, *BSD) it utilizes those resources that it's keeping to itself rather well. I rarely, if ever, have any kind of inconvenient slow downs or bogging of the system unless there is actually something using up the system like virus scans, WoW, AIM (6.1 has this weird flaw that it'll lock up and hog some serioues resources), or anything else disk and CPU intensive just like any other OS.
Lately I've been hearing a lot of complaints from other people who've had a bit less luck with Vista than I have. However, they can rarely provide anything substantial to argue against Vista other than pointing out slow hardware/software manufacturer support and that M$/Microsuck produces a product full of security holes and a bloated OS. I'm going to take a second to refute those points, because that's all it takes.
1) Hardware and software manufacturers have been slow on the uptake because well, Vista hit retail only a few months ago and I'm willing to bet there's some neat, new and better ways in which Vista interacts with your hardware.
2) If Vista is horrible, how come it's sold 40+ million licenses since it was officially launched (source)? I'd assume this includes OEMs that offered the Express Upgrade, business licenses, and people who bought the retail versions.
3) Sure, Vista takes a bit better of a machine to run and Linux can run on a PII 200MHz. But honestly, are you going to be as productive or have as much fun on that old P2 200 or on that blazing fast computer running Vista?
4) Vista is a NEW operating system. Of course there's going to be bugs and security holes. They don't design it that way. When you're the largest operating system manufacturer in the world, there's going to be people with chips on their shoulders or people willing to exploit your products. That's why holes are found in such large numbers for Windows. Linux and Mac don't have the same problem (albeit there are similar ones) because no one cares since they won't have the same large scale reaction as they would with Windows. Seriously, when was the last time you heard a virus, malware, adware, spyware outbreak problem on Linux? It isn't because it's a secure operating system, it's because the dagnasties behind those operations don't give a damn about Linux users because they have to work 100x harder to exploit it (no documentation for exploits and such). People have a vendetta against Windows therefore they find ways to exploit it and give that info to others. That's what eventaully (hopefully) creates a security fix. I'm sure if Linux or Mac were as popular as Windows, you'd see the same problems being found.
5) Windows is genuinely a good product. It dominated the market because it was good. It's become a household tool because it's good and people are familiar with it. An edge Linux cannot say it has.
6) Like Vista, Linux also requires specific hardware to run best on or you're going to be running into compatibility issues and driver issues (usually none available). Don't get your panties in a bind over this. Linux has been getting better about this but it still lacks solid 3D drivers for ATI and Nvidia cards. Same with wireless, been getting better but they just don't have it all there yet.
7) Upgrading your PC every couple years isn't bad practice to keep it running in good shape if you're on a desktop. Laptop users can generally upgrade their RAM and hard drive pretty easily, but you're screwed for video. And Vista still runs without Aero, so you can still get the goodness of Vista with a subpar video card, just not ALL the goodness.
8) I'd thought to mention backwards compatibility but with most applications written in the last five years for XP working on Vista, I don't think it really needs to be mentioned except that the compatibility layer works like 1000x better than XP's did.
9) It Just Works, and smoothly. By default your computer is scheduled to undergo various maintenance operations. This is amplified when you install and use the Windows Live OneCare (which I plan to buy a year's subscription soon) which also tunes up everything for better performance.
10) Manufacturer support has been speeding up significantly and you should see drivers coming for Vista fairly quickly now except for maybe that 10 year old Parallel port scanner you're using. There's backwards and legacy compatibility then there's asking for the ridiculous.
Seriously, those who slam and bash Vista actually need to use it longer than 5 minutes to see the UAC pop up asking them to delete a shortcut on the desktop. If you don't like that disable it. It's not hard to navigate around the user interface.
Quit your whining. If your current computer can't run Vista, either upgrade or keeping using the very solid XP you're using. If you're not using Windows, keep using what you want to use. Microsoft isn't making decisions for you. They're providing a service to consumers and it's been proven time and again that consumers like Windows despite some of the problems it may have. Microsoft caters to the masses, not the individual. Asking them to cater to your whims and needs is unreasonable and ridiculous.
