What Windows Vista Does for Me
|
Yesterday, one Microsoft Watch commenter complained about not seeing enough love here for Microsoft products. |
He used my colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols as example of enthusiasm properly placed. "Go to Linux-Watch and SJVN writes about Linux like it does things for him his girlfriend won't," the commenter wrote.
Linux enthusiasts are like that, aren't they? Mac fans are similar. I'm neither, nor am I a Windows hugger. It's just another tool to me, like the toaster or the television. But that's not to say I hate Windows either, as some Microsoft Watch commenters have suggested. I'm indifferent to computer operating systems, the same as I am to the software running my watch, DVD player or printer.
The most used applications on my computer are the Web browser, e-mail client and instant messenger. These program categories don't require any particular operating system. The next most used application is the media player, which right now is usually iTunes since it's available for Mac OS or Windows. I do use Zune software from time to time, and Windows Media Player, but only for Microsoft broadcast events.
Mmmm, maybe it's coincidence, but those are the four applications categories covered by Microsoft's United States antitrust settlement. Is that an endorsement of the consent decree's benefits?
I also use photo editing software—Adobe Photoshop Lightroom or Nikon Capture NX, which are available for Mac OS or Windows, or Apple's Aperture on the Mac. The next most used application is on the Web: Facebook. I test lots of applications, however, for Microsoft Watch.
I can't say that Windows Vista does that much more for me than Windows XP or Mac OS X 10.4. My major application is the Internet, and the functions that matter most are provided by third-party software. Office isn't one of my major applications right now, because most of the writing is done in a Web browser; I use the blogging system's Web interface.
That said, there are some stand-out improvements on Vista over Windows XP. Nothing on my list is particularly new; Microsoft marketing and a zillion reviews have covered them. These features happen to be what move me most about Windows Vista, having used the operating system for more than 18 months.
1. Search. Vista's integrated search beats the heck out of the hobbled counterpart found in Windows 2000 or XP. Search is transforming, and so good it hurts some other Vista enhancements if really used. Microsoft invested a fair bit of resources into overhauling the file-and-folder system, making the organization of folders easier and more visual. But search is so good, I use it pretty much for everything. Why be a file clerk, when search gets the goods in a few clicks? Microsoft also made the Start Menu much better to use, but, again, search is so good I rarely launch applications from the Start Menu.
2. Windows Media Center. Microsoft's entertainment user interface may not be new, but now it's available pretty much to any consumer with a PC. I don't have much time to watch TV, but I do like the "Online Media" section (as I said, the Internet is my main application). I will sometimes watch MTV Overdrive at night. Oh, by the way, the Britney Spears MTV Video Music Awards performance is worse than what all the music critics claim it to be.
3. Networking. I'm a notebook user. Vista's improved networking detection and security feature, particularly wireless, gives me more confidence to use the Internet on the go. I wouldn't leave home without it.
4. Welcome Center. The concept works. Microsoft has placed important system information and common settings in one place. From Welcome Center, users can easily get to Microsoft or OEM partner offers and to System, the settings of which are smartly organized in Windows Vista.
5. Event Viewer. OK, so maybe most people rarely go here, but I do go fairly often. I like the visual and organizational improvements. Event Viewer is easier to navigate, and information is more easily decipherable by mere human beings.
6. RAW. Windows Photo Gallery supports RAW codecs from camera manufacturers like Canon and Nikon. Unfortunately, RAW codecs were slow coming after Vista's launch and needed several revisions to work right. But now, they smoke, making my personal photography easier. Photo management is perhaps the one area where I do use folders, rather than just search. It's hugely helpful to be able to see and manage RAW files from the operating system.
7. Windows Update. Personally, Windows Update's stealth self-updating doesn't much bother me. I'm a believer in automatic updating. The offering of driver updates and connection to Microsoft Update are among the great enhancements. If I were a network administrator managing a couple hundred custom applications, Windows Update would appeal to me less. All consumers should flip on the switch however.
8. Windows Desktop. I find the new user interface to be more refined than Windows XP, and Aero's overall look makes for a pleasing place for work and play. "Show desktop" works for me, while the cascading windows feature—Flip 3D—is a snore. It was nifty to use once, but redundant for me because of the Windows toolbar. Maybe the feature would matter more if I mucked around more file folders, rather than applications connected to the Internet. What I need to get to fast is usually right there on the Windows toolbar.
9. Windows Sidebar. I don't play as much there as I once expected I would, but the few gadgets I use are important. Live Search is probably the most used. Sidebar is a handy location. I want to use Windows Sidebar more, but there aren't enough compelling gadgets. I really cling to using it out of stubborn belief that some day the selection of gadgets will improve. I would get more mileage out of nixing the Windows Sidebar and placing a few Yahoo Widgets in the same space.
10. Windows Mobility Center. The Vista Control Panel feature feels cobbled together. Still, it's handy to go to one place for wireless, display, audio and synch settings—not that I much use Sync Center. That feature needs to be primed for more devices.
I may never feel as warmly to Windows Vista as Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols does towards Linux. But Windows isn't a religion to me, nor is it a lifestyle choice. It's another tool.
Related Posts:
- Don't Have a WOW, Man, Microsoft Watch, August 28, 2007
- You're Not Genuine Enough, Microsoft Watch, August 25, 2007
- Broken Windows, Microsoft Watch, August 9, 2007
- Were Vista Capable Stickers Incapable?, Microsoft Watch, August 8, 2007
- Why Can't Vista Do This?, Microsoft Watch, August 1, 2007
- Retail Vista's Dim View, Microsoft Watch, July 23, 2007
- It's Not Ultimate Enough, Microsoft Watch, July 2, 2007
- Personal Vista, Microsoft Watch, May 2, 1007
- What Would You Pay for Vista?, Microsoft Watch, April 22, 2007
- The Trouble with Vista Capable, Microsoft Watch, April 4, 2007
- Who's Buying Which Vista, Microsoft Watch, February 3, 2007
- Users Praise, Raze Windows Vista, Microsoft Watch, December 21, 2006
- Vista? Yes Bother, Microsoft Watch, December 16, 2006
Comments (45)
>Windows isn't a religion to me...
Bravo! -grin
Linux and Mac zealots give me the creeps.
My relationship with Windows is strictly secular and platonic, the way things *should* be. :-)
Posted by JohnJ | September 14, 2007 8:08 PM
Don't let the zealots keep you from using those other operating systems.
You sound as if the zealots are keeping you from discovering the measurably good features of Mac OS X.
Many of the things that Joe cites about Vista have been around on the Mac for a number of years, but your non-zealot mind kept you from finding this out. It sounds to me as if you're using the Mac zealots to hide your own prejudices.
Posted by Agnostics minds are open minds | September 14, 2007 8:27 PM
I personally find networking in Vista confusing. XP is a lot more straightforward, but that's just my opinion. Also, although I like the Vista Media Center, I find that it runs a lot slower than XP MCE 2005 on my HP desktop. (Now there's some fodder for the "objective" people out here). I really hope they do something about it because it's an awesome application and I'd like to start using it instead of MCE 2005.
Instant Search in Vista is one thing that I really miss when I have to use XP. Another thing I really like is the new Explorer in Vista.
Posted by reflections | September 14, 2007 9:22 PM
An operating system is as Joe puts it, another tool. What some people tend to forget though, is that both Linux and Mac users, also tend to use Windows to a certain extent too. Although, clearly not all of them use Windows. Why is this? Is it because Mac and Linux users are "religious zealots" who clearly just hate Microsoft? Or is it rather, they were former Windows users who found MS Windows lacking and tried another OS, and found it superior in many ways.
Myself, I find Linux to be superior in most ways to Windows. I still use Windows on occasion, but less and less these days. Started off with Dos3.21 and went through most versions of Dos and Windows up to XP SP2.
The thing I do get "religious" about is the direction that Microsoft is going. Take this recent sleath update example, this is clearly another type of Big Brother issue and control issue, that MS will not deal with. The public should not be subject to this type of behavior from a company that charges from a monopoly position.
I still work with Windows almost every work day, repairing and cleaning out viruses on systems. This I am able to do at home, and sometimes blog while doing the endless scans to clean them up. So in many ways, I am thankful to MS for providing me a job, cleaning and fixing the systems that people use. But perhaps, it would be a better thing, if MS got its act together, fixed up their Windows, and properly secured it, and put me out of work. Can always find another line of work. While I criticize MS, I really want them to improve, or just go away, if they can't, and more likely won't.
Linux users for the most part, use Linux because its an superior internet platform. Its secure where Windows has many many problems. If you don't believe me, well, thats what I spend a lot of my time fixing, those problems on Windows machines. Also, linux is (almost all community versions are) free. The system is extremely stable, where XP is good, but not near as stable.
Now if MS would ever change directions, like it was during the Dos days and very early windows time, and remember the end users, prehaps I would think about buying their OS again. The DRM, WGA, and spyware features or current (Vista) versions would have to go. It would also have to be improved and become actually a secure OS for me to buy into it. And lastly, the price needs to come down to a reasonable level. Sadly, looking into the crystal ball, I do not see all of these things ever happening. Good luck windows users.
Posted by chips | September 14, 2007 9:52 PM
And now for something completely different;
{no its not Monty Python}
http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/09/14/sco.bankruptcy/
The title is: SCO declares bankruptcy after failed patent suits
----------------------------------------------------
SCO was most likely a pawn, or unofficial "partner" of M$. Another case of what happens eventually to "partners."
Posted by chips | September 14, 2007 10:06 PM
"Now if MS would ever change directions, like it was during the Dos days and very early windows time, and remember the end users, prehaps I would think about buying their OS again."
Can't speak for them, but I'm pretty sure here's one customer they'll be glad to lose.
"And now for something completely different;
{no its not Monty Python}"
What do you have there? This one tells jokes too.
Posted by reflections | September 14, 2007 10:30 PM
Skype Moves to Kill the Worm
http://businessvoip.tmcnet.com/topics/applications/articles/10706-skype-moves-kill-worm.htm
Quotes from the link; "
The "w32/Ramex.A" virus is affecting users of Skype for Windows"
"Other IM clients have recently been hit by similar worms including Yahoo Messenger and Microsoft’s (News - Alert) MSN/Live Messenger."
--------------------------------------------------
It only affects "Windows" computers.
'
Posted by chips | September 15, 2007 2:50 AM
"Linux enthusiasts are like that, aren't they? Mac fans are similar. I'm neither, nor am I a Windows hugger. It's just another tool to me, like the toaster or the television."
Oh? Where's the one thousand word bitch concerning your toaster?
Posted by FIerce Guppy | September 15, 2007 5:26 AM
Well said! OSs and applications are tools. Zealotry and religious fervour are out of place when discussing them.
We want software that is secure, intuitive, fast, and cheap. Bearing in mind that software is sold in the millions of copies, there is no reason why it should cost the earth - compare Vista Ultimate with OS X 10.5, for example (and I'm not a Mac zealot) - and remember how many copies Apple sells against how many MS sells. Software is a commodity except where it is specialized.
Since most manufacturers provide Windows drivers and a plethora of goodish software is available for Windows, it is in everybody's interests that MS gets its OS act together. I cannot agree with Joe about the 'stealth' update: this compromises my security. I suppose reviewers have a different perspective from that of serious users.
Posted by T H Tiernan | September 15, 2007 7:01 AM
Chips
Thank you for Mr. Skype Me, if only you hadn't lied the last time hey ??
Posted by Neil | September 15, 2007 8:21 AM
This is the most sane thread I've read on Microsoft Watch in a LONG time. Thank you, Joe, for clearing things up and for posting an undeniably objective piece. Thank you, Reflections and Neil, for getting away from your usual Microsoft/Windows zealotry and anti-Linux bigotry. Thank you, chips, for your unusually sober and balanced viewpoint--it's very informative and thought-provoking.
I've always shared Joe's point of view. I don't despise any operating system. I generally like Vista and XP. I've also believed that Microsoft has crossed the line of ethical behaviour many times in the past and that they continue to try to do so even now.
I find Windows useful in certain scenarios. But I also use Mac OS X and Linux where it makes sense. I certainly don't recommend that everyone in the world use Windows, for it does have its drawbacks, security being the most egregious. When I use the Mac or Linux, I don't worry about viruses or security holes at all.
I love Open Source. I love the fact that it's free and that I have limitless flexibility of use.
I love using my Mac because nobody in the world understands "style" and "ease of use" like Apple does.
I hope that in the next version of Windows, Microsoft stops offering multiple editions at different price points. Stop being so greedy and stop trying to gouge the consumers.
And, please, get rid of WGA and UAC. As for DRM, I understand the reasoning for including it, but in the future I will be drawn to operating systems that do NOT have DRM. This probably means Linux and hopefully Mac OS X, as well.
Posted by Richard | September 15, 2007 11:33 AM
I should also add that I use Vista for the following:
1) Doing web app development with Seaside/Squeak.
2) Doing video post-processing (QuickTime format) for said Seaside app.
3) Office duties using OpenOffice.org (it's free and it does everything that MS Office does, at least for me).
4) Web browsing and email.
I've been a Windows developer for over 15 years. I've been using Mac and Linux for the past several years. All three platforms are roughly equivalent in terms of features and functionality. Choose the one that works best for you and stop listening to the OS zealots.
Posted by Richard | September 15, 2007 11:48 AM
"Thank you, Reflections ... for getting away from your usual Microsoft/Windows zealotry and anti-Linux bigotry."
Point out one post where I've been anti-Linux. I've said this before and I'll repeat it: I use and like Ubuntu Linux. And I don't think Microsoft is perfect. Vista has a lot of problems, but it's definitely not a train wreck and even in its present form, I think it's better than XP. If that makes me a shill or a zealot, all I can say is that I wasn't aware that the definition of these words had changed somewhat during the last few months. Also, when did "objectivity" become synonymous with "Microsoft bashing"?
Posted by reflections | September 15, 2007 12:16 PM
That is pretty much how I feel as well. Search is the one area I really love, but to me it is the reason I can't stand to use XP anymore. Snip tool and the updated audio recorder are the other two built in tools I use quite often as well as IIS which is MUCH better than it was in XP.
As for non built-in software, I mostly use Outlook, Visual Studio, Adobe Creative Suite and Windows Live Writer. Once again Vista Search really makes a huge difference in Outlook in my opinion to the point I don't like it in XP anymore.
Posted by Jesse | September 15, 2007 12:20 PM
I stand corrected, Reflections. You are not anti-Linux.
Vista is not a train wreck but you are absolutely right, it does have a lot of problems. Consumers need to understand this and weigh the pros and cons of migrating to it. Whether Vista is better than XP is subject to a number of factors--it is not necessarily true for every individual.
What you interpret as "Microsoft bashing" I see as pointing out questionable actions and decisions from this company. I have never construed Joe's comments as bashing. Maybe it's because I don't have an emotional investment in any of these OSes. Obviously, you do.
When one is emotionally invested in something, any degree of negative criticism will be interpreted as an unfair attack. This is human nature and I will not hold your feet to the fire for this.
Microsoft Watch is a column that covers all things Microsoft-related, including external events that may affect Microsoft's future (eg, Apple and Linux-related). It should cover both positive and negative events, as well. Having followed the history of Microsoft over the past 25 years, I know that this company has given plenty of reasons to be criticized. So it is not at all surprising that Joe's coverage includes more negative events than positive ones. If you choose to interpret this as unfair bashing, there is nothing I can do about it. But the reality is what it is and those who are enthralled by Microsoft need to get over it.
Posted by Richard | September 15, 2007 12:45 PM
Here we go again, saying how bragging on how much better Vista is than XP...Yeah, well here is one question to through back at you.. Did MS even come out with Vista SP1 Yet? Vista is so much more easy to get into, since it has security problems and etc. Vista SUCKS! You can go on about Vista and etc. I just recently read from MS site that they give you the TOP TEN Reasons to upgrade to XP, but ONLY 7 and a half reasons to upgrade to Vista...
Ethan
Posted by ethanbowenwon | September 15, 2007 1:09 PM
Boot Sector Virus Shipped on German Laptops
http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/09/15/1623230.shtml
This on Vista, the most secure OS that MS has ever released. If OEM's can't get it right with Windows pre-installs, how can we expect Joe Sixpack to secure his Windows system?
Posted by chips | September 15, 2007 4:16 PM
"Linux enthusiasts are like that, aren't they? Mac fans are similar. I'm neither, nor am I a Windows hugger."
Funny thing is Joe, after reading the comments that some have left over the last few weeks, I was under the impression that you had to be of "Windows huggers" type to read and post here.
It seems to me that Windows users can be just as big bunch of a zealots, specially when Microsoft or Windows is being shown in a bad light, except today of course, today it's just Mac and Linux users, Windows is just a tool, a tool that no one has any passion about, funny that, because yesterdays posts were full of Window hugging passion.
Posted by A Mac Zealot | September 15, 2007 4:50 PM
Bribing Bloggers
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2077596,00.asp
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
eWeek
December 27, 2006
Opinion: So, that's why people are saying nice things about Vista.
Want to know why Microsoft has so many people saying good things about it, despite endless security problems, high prices, product lock-in and a big brother attitude toward using their products? Microsoft bribes people.
Microsoft blogger Long Zheng tells us that he, and many other bloggers, from the "A list to Z list" received an early Christmas present: Acer's Ferrari laptops.
Zheng's Ferrari 5000 comes with an AMD Turion 64 x2 dual-core 2GHz CPU, 2GB of DDR2-667 RAM, AMD-ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 on a 15.4-inch widescreen. It also has a 160GB SATA drive, HD-DVD reader and burner as well as a 1.3mp camera. It was, of course, preloaded with Vista. Not bad, eh, for $2,299, or, if you're a blogger that Microsoft wants to influence, free!
As Zheng says, it's not like the Free Software Foundation is handing out goodies like this. Nor, might I add, is Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu or any of the rest of the Linux companies. All they have to offer is a great operating system.
It wasn't just Zheng. While not every blogger has spoken up, at least six others have fessed up to getting their "presents." Of course, the bloggers could send the laptop back ... and pigs could fly.
It's a bribe. Period. You say nice things about us, you get nice things from us. Heck, just say neutral things about us?we'll give you a killer new laptop and we know that you'll be inclined to say better things about us.
There is an illusion out there that bloggers are somehow better, more honest, closer to what's real than traditional journalists. Oh, please.
In my business, if you accept "gifts" like this, you'd shortly be looking for another job, far, far away from journalism.
We're not saints, and I'm sure some of us break the rules. But, at least we have rules!
For the record, I own no stock in any Linux or any other technology company. No one pays my way on press trips except myself or my publisher, and the only tech toy goodies that I've got, I've paid for myself.
PointerClick here to read more about Vista: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2075846,00.asp
You may think that I'm dead wrong about some things, but at least I'm honestly wrong. If I like a business deal or a product, it's because I like it, not because someone's given me a bribe.
When you read any blog saying how wonderful Vista is, or how to make Vista do something really special, just keep in mind that the person might be writing it on a brand-spanking-new Acer Ferrari supplied by their new best friend, Microsoft.
Posted by Mary Jo | September 15, 2007 4:58 PM
"If OEM's can't get it right with Windows pre-installs, how can we expect Joe Sixpack to secure his Windows system?"
when that OEM uses the same "antivirus" that "protected" a system while being included with the spyware-hell that is Kazaa Media Desktop, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.
besides that, it's a boot sector virus. it affects every operating system, sorry to say (or rather, it affects absolutely NO operating system, since it infects systems at boot time). Linux is not immune, although trying to get a cleanup program to remove it, that also runs on Linux is next to impossible.
Posted by Waethorn | September 16, 2007 3:04 AM
"The most used applications on my computer are the Web browser, e-mail client and instant messenger."
This brings up something that has bothered me for a while. For someone who writes a blog about a software company, you seem to have very little interest, or expertise, in software. There is no indication that you have any software development tools on your computer. Have you every actually written any software?
Once each quarter I look forward to reading your analysis of Microsoft's financial statements. That seems to be your area of expertise.
The rest of the time I find your blog amusing, but not insightful. I know you see your job as writing provocative commentary, but sometimes you are way over the top.
Posted by Roger | September 16, 2007 8:14 AM
Waethorn, just wrong again. There is quite afew linux anti-virus programs that will search for "windows" virus. Clamav being open source and included in most distros repo's. AVG also has a free linux version. Many others as well.
But the fact is, this boot sector virus is on a "Vista" pre-installed OEM laptop, and that you don't want to deal with.
Posted by chips | September 16, 2007 11:28 AM
"Clamav being open source and included in most distros repo's. AVG also has a free linux version. Many others as well."
so now you're admitting that Linux has problems with viruses. hmm...that's some double-talk right thar! Linux lobbyists (like you), wouldn't claim that Linux needs an antivirus, and AVG, ClamAV also don't clean bootsector viruses either.
the real fact is, as i mentioned, that Stoned is a boot-sector virus, and is not a "Windows" virus - a fact which you completely ignored. stating that it is on a "Vista" laptop is just FUD mongering, since it could be installed on ANY system. I have seen MANY Linux systems infected with viruses before, and almost all are very old, drive-level infections that all common Windows [and even DOS] antivirus programs detect and remove, and have done so for several years now.
so the problem remains, if a Linux system doesn't have an antivirus program that cleans common bootsector viruses and spreads them to other machines (Windows or otherwise), where does the fault lie? if you think it's Windows, you need your head examined.
in this particular scenario, as I already mentioned, how can the OEM be trusted by using a so-called antivirus that was bundled with the PoS that is Kazaa? - they are to blame.
....of course, but Linux doesn't spread viruses, and runs Skype during a network outage too, right?!...
keep it up with those conspiracy theories though. your YouTube videos are a laugh (and sad at the same time):
http://tinyurl.com/yunhad
Posted by Waethorn | September 16, 2007 3:04 PM
"I'm indifferent to computer operating systems, the same as I am to the software running my watch, DVD player or printer."
Congrats. That about the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
Posted by Paul | September 16, 2007 3:14 PM
To Waethorn :
quote;
"so now you're admitting that Linux has problems with viruses."
------------------------------------------------------
Please don't try to put words into my mouth. I admitted nothing. Its obvious you have very limited knowledge about Linux, if any. Anti-virus programs that are used in Linux, are used for the basic purpose of not passing on Windows viruses, mainly, windows email viruses, and affecting Windows machines in this matter. If you knew anything about Linux, you would know this. But your anti-Linux pro-company-Micro$oft zeal and bias is clear.
Posted by chips | September 16, 2007 4:44 PM
Chips
Waethorn is right !
One of your points for Linux was that you didn't need an "antivirus" because your OS was secure !
Now you are telling people that they "might" !!
Now remember Chips this is your most used word "MIGHT" !!
Now that Waethorn (thank god someone has finally called your bluff) has queried it, let's actually find out why Linux needs an antivirus.
"What does a Linux antivirus look for, and how many virus's can affect Linux ??
Someone please look this up !!
Chips has for a long time now gone off about the fact that Windows was constructed so poorly that it needed an antivirus software to fill the holes.
Well if that's the case why does Linux need one ??
Posted by Neil | September 16, 2007 8:04 PM
Waethorn
I just went to the link and you know who I saw ...yes ... that's right ... the real "Chips B. Malroy"
http://tinyurl.com/yunhad
Posted by Neil | September 16, 2007 8:22 PM
"I admitted nothing."
"Clamav being open source and included in most distros repo's. AVG also has a free linux version. Many others as well."
seems to me that an ecosystem that has "many others" isn't as secure as one might thought. if Linux was as secure as you make it out to be, it wouldn't be spreading viruses on to Windows machines in the first place, whether or not they affect Linux ("Stoned" affects all drives, not any specific operating system though).
"Anti-virus programs that are used in Linux, are used for the basic purpose of not passing on Windows viruses, mainly, windows email viruses"
....and much like other Linux software that is 10 years behind in innovation, it still won't clean basic bootsector viruses. the DOS versions of Norton Antivirus even did that!!
"But your anti-Linux pro-company-Micro$oft zeal and bias is clear."
don't make me laugh. Lobby all you want, but Linux is like Unix's aborted fetus preaching first-hand life-lessons to a Catholic choir.
Neil: ;)
Posted by Waethorn | September 16, 2007 9:25 PM
I run Vista on my Toshiba Laptop. Once the drivers from Toshiba were updated, everthing works great. I love it. I like it considerably more than Windows XP.
I use my Vista laptop harder than most people use their computers:
1. I use Google Sketchup to create 3D designs of the house we're building
2. I create music using Propellerheads Reason and Cakewalk Sonar 6
3. I listen to my FLAC-based music, streaming audio and podcasts using JRiver Media Center which also synchs to my little Creative flash MP3 player
4. I create WPF and .NET applications using Visual Studio 2005 and 2007 Orcas
5. I use the built-in Vista tagging to tag my photos and upload to Flickr (using Vista Flickr Uploader by Matthias Dubbeldamm - which turns the Vista metadata into Flickr tags and description)
6. I create software specifications using Office 2007 and read email using Outlook 2007 for both Exchange- and GMail-based mail.
I'd love to own a Mac someday and compare first-hand, but I'm pretty happy with the shell and overall user experience in Vista once I got the drivers sorted out. But that's true of any new operating system.
Note that I came from the unix universe... I appreciate the power and philosophy behind *nix but I like the tools and apps better on Windows.
Posted by Michael Murray | September 16, 2007 10:20 PM
I think everyone here is missing the bigger picture. To my knowledge, Linux users have never suffered a real-world viral infection, despite any security holes that may have been uncovered. The Windows community cannot make this claim. Simply stated, it is much safer to use Linux than to use Windows. This situation *may* change in the future, as Linux becomes more popular. But until then, the above assertion stands.
All of this ping-ponging back and forth about anti-virus software for Linux is silly and unproductive. Please stop it.
Posted by Richard | September 16, 2007 10:29 PM
"Linux users have never suffered a real-world viral infection, despite any security holes that may have been uncovered."
Sorry, but that's a half-truth at best. As I stated above, there are viruses that affect Linux quite easily. Many bootsector viruses will still affect (and infect) other drives while Linux runs. These types of viruses are old, and although they don't float around on the internet and spread like wildfire, they are still a severe threat to Linux-based systems. Not having any proper tools to cleanup such issues is also a serious problem that antivirus vendors have solved many years ago on DOS and Windows.
"Simply stated, it is much safer to use Linux than to use Windows."
....and yet I've seen open-source software code get picked apart in a matter of minutes by some security professionals that I'ved worked with before. There is a huge amount of proof that shows that Linux is left insecure for a longer amount of time than Windows. Linux is like OJ Simpson in his trial of yesteryear - there's a huge amount of evidence against any "facts" that it brings up, and yet somehow, it manages to get off scott-free, and slinks it's way into obscurity. By claiming that there is no security problem [yet] on Linux doesn't reduce the target that's still present on your forehead. Likewise, the "head" of Windows is much, MUCH larger, but it actually wears a helmet.
Posted by Waethorn | September 17, 2007 1:20 AM
The fact remains that Linux like everyone else needs to have anti virus software, whether you use windows, Linux or what ever !
The zealous dribble that chips came out with earlier that Linux didn't need anti virus software because it was a "secure" OS is as I said ... dribble !
Posted by Neil | September 17, 2007 1:48 AM
Neil wrote: One of your points for Linux was that you didn't need an "antivirus" because your OS was secure! Now you are telling people that they "might" !!
Neil, your ignorance about Linux is made abundantly clear by your brain-dead statement.
Linux users run antivirus pograms to catch Windows viruses so that they will not be passed on (usually as e-mail attachments) to Windows systems (which have awful security and are generally vulnerable to viruses). The Linux systems themselves are not affect by these viruses.
Next time, do your homework You'll look less silly that way. And try not to dribble too much. Your nursemaids will have to clean up after you.
Posted by Maddog | September 17, 2007 8:06 AM
Waethorn, in your unbridled zeal to defend Windows, you've failed to read my post carefully. "...Linux users have never suffered a real-world viral infection, despite any security holes that may have been uncovered." Yes, security holes have been found, but the Linux community has yet to be afflicted with a real virus in the wild. Some security firms may have shown a "proof of concept" virus. Some security firms may have uncovered vulnerabilities in Open Source software. But there is no documented case of an actual virus attack against Linux. If you can find one, please post it here.
A simple Google search, on the other hand, will reveal more than a few virus attacks against Windows. Sorry, Waethorn, but my assertion stands.
Posted by Richard | September 17, 2007 8:20 AM
Linux does not face any virus threat or hacking, becuase no body uses linux, given enough time and you can break into any system.
Micrsoft has been investing lots of money in OS development and it will be foolish to say that their stuff dont work. But inorder to make a GOOD os you have to play a balancing act, too much of security and you will loose user friendlyness.
Posted by Raj Kiran Singh | September 17, 2007 9:14 AM
"Linux users run antivirus pograms to catch Windows viruses so that they will not be passed on (usually as e-mail attachments)"
Actually that's completely wrong. It doesn't take much to inject a bit of code into an email that's scripted to launch upon opening. Why, even getmail is horrendously insecure. Even a night-time script kiddie can write malicious code in C that Linux will launch without requiring privilege escalation.
"The Linux systems themselves are not affect by these viruses."
Try infecting "Stoned" or any other bootsector virus on a system with Linux and then we'll talk.
"Yes, security holes have been found, but the Linux community has yet to be afflicted with a real virus in the wild."
It depends on what your definition of "in the wild" is. I've seen systems infected with some nasty machine-language code that infects the system right before Linux boots, and it causes havoc with Linux's memory manager. The stuff you don't hear about is what IT managers face on a daily basis.
"Sorry, Waethorn, but my assertion stands."
It's more of an assumption that an assertion. And when you assume, you know that that means....
Posted by Waethorn | September 17, 2007 1:40 PM
I use Windows because it comes preinstalled with every other desktop I see. No, I don't really see much.
I use Windows because most of my schoolmates use Windows, and the only one who uses Mac, we look at him like he's a geek. Well he is one, except in the positive sense of 'really good at hardware programming'.
I use Windows because all of the games I played supports only Windows. I don't play a lot, just the really popular ones.
I use Windows XP because it's been working perfectly thus far.
I don't use Linux because there isn't a need to, and no one I know knows what the heck it is.
I don't use Vista because it's expensive to purchase, not much new stuff from XP, and seeking help on the Internet would be tough - most people don't bother helping Vista users because well, isn't Vista so buggy/unstable, why still use it?
Just thought you guys who be interested in a non-computer person perspective.
Posted by Cardin | September 17, 2007 11:21 PM
I bought windows vista (unfortunately) and i have to say. The direction Microsoft is going with their software kind of worries me. You need a hell of a computer to run visita.. which means... you have to need the super powered hardware.
Now i dont own a mac and have never used a mac. I do have a linux machine ( on an old 800 mhz Pentium3 box with 256 megs of ram). And i have to tell you. Applications run much faster on my linux machine than my windows. There is a learning curve with linux but it's not that bad. ( I am not the smartest guy in the world). The for anybody interested. the distro i use is Arch linux.
Anyway, the point i am trying to make is. Well even though microsoft tends to make things easier for the computer illiterate... they also tend to make things not as efficient. You have these computers that suck so much power. Its such a waste. Plus with all the bugs vista has.
If all you do is browse the internet, chat on a messenger client, read the news, try out something different.
Posted by BJ | September 18, 2007 10:31 AM
Interesting article that outlines the best parts of the interface improvements to Vista. It's been added to this list of overall improvements in an article that might as well be titled "Wait for them to debug Vista, then go in with both feet":
http://www.chrisblanc.com/blog/web/2007/09/04/windows-vista/
Posted by Chris Borokowski | September 18, 2007 10:37 AM
"You need a hell of a computer to run visita.."
that's what the Linux lobbyists would have you believe. you should read this article:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=290
hardly what I would call "a hell of a computer".
considering that Core 2 Quad CPU's are selling for less than $300US, new systems are coming WAAAAY down in price too, so the argument is hardly justified.
lets face it, a Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading system (or any single core really) is worth less than $150 nowadays. even a Pentium D system is hardly worth anything. Core 2 Duo's are dirt cheap now.
Windows XP just isn't the ideal operating system to support newer components coming down the pipe - only Windows Vista is. The new NVIDIA and ATI drivers for Windows Vista are surpassing the performance of XP, especially with SLI and Crossfire (then there's also DirectX10 and better 64-bit support), and XP's thread manager is ill-equipped to handle more than 2 cores as efficiently as Vista's. If you haven't upgraded and your system isn't capable of 64-bit and/or is a single core (meaning it's probably 3 years old or more), use it till it dies, and get a new system with Vista preinstalled. You'll pay less for Vista and it'll be "tuned" to the computer that it's installed on, meaning the OEM installer will set it up PROPERLY (assuming they don't put all kinds of bung-ware on it). Upgrades from previous OS's don't work that well (they do make improvements on each generation though), so clean installs are usually a better way to go, but you're looking at a lot of money to buy it in retail. Best to get it bundled with a new system because it costs less than the price of a retail upgrade.
Posted by Waethorn | September 18, 2007 3:32 PM
The performance of video drivers under Windows doesn't matter to most users. It only matters if you're heavily into PC video gaming. As for the efficiency of XP on dual-core processors, again for most people it just doesn't matter. All but the most CPU-intensive apps will run just fine under XP. There is really no need to upgrade to Vista, no need to spend your hard-earned dollars on Vista.
Posted by Richard | September 20, 2007 11:17 AM
Richard: Since the vast majority of new systems ship with Windows Vista, that's where you'll see the most performance gains - on new hardware. That said, buying a computer now with Windows XP is just throwing money out the window. Getting customers to upgrade on existing systems can sometimes be a hard sell, but from my own experience, when customers actually get to play with some of the new features or see how the new security options work, it doesn't take much to close the sale. My rule of thumb is: PRODUCT DEMO'S SELL! Come SP3 next year, Windows XP development will cease, so you'd be looking at paying full pop for a copy of Windows Vista - best to get it with a new PC, whether it be now or later.
Posted by Waethorn | September 20, 2007 1:35 PM
I do like the search capabilities found in Vista. It is quite efficient, and a breeze to use as well. I'm sure to discover other advantages myself as I dig more into this operating system.
Posted by Jim McCormick | September 21, 2007 2:11 PM
I purchased a new Dell with 8 processors and 4 GIG of ram and a very nice video card that supported 3 displays. Then I went to work doing my usual 3d Animation except one problem. During a job that required redering of a jet engine system with 6.8 million polygon my XP pro system choked. so I had to render the project in segments and patch them together in editing.
This year I purchased another Dell system with 8 processors faster video card and loaded 16 Gig of ram using Vista Ulitimate 64 and with my 3d software being native 64 bit that same project came up so I added more stuff and push the limit of memory use and to my joy the rendering was a breeze, this is how I end on a vista system and I just can not understand why Vista got a bad wrap like this. I am an X mac user and it is non sense to say Mac is for Designers here is some links to what I do using PC's since 1999 when I switched to PC from mac due to lack of support for high end video displays.
Posted by Nadre Davani | November 10, 2008 2:44 AM
and the link
http://67.199.75.154/parker
Posted by Nadre Davani | November 10, 2008 2:47 AM