Thoughts on Vista

Mike T. writes:

It's called linux.

Linux won't run Windows applications. There isn't even a stable
version of it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mike T. writes:

Well, if you look at it that way, Vista could be a huge boon . . . to linux.
Nothing wrong with that. -Dave

Linux isn't a suitable desktop for Joe Blow, and unless things change
dramatically, it never will be.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike T. writes:

It's called linux.

Linux won't run Windows applications. There isn't even a stable
version of it.

Odd. I've used dozens of linux distros. Haven't found un UNstable one yet.
Oh, and while linux won't run windows apps., there are various free office
suites that run on linux, with MS Office compatibility. If you really want
to, you can ditch windows and run just linux. If Microsoft keeps going the
way they are going, it will happen. -Dave

Well, if you look at it that way, Vista could be a huge boon . . . to
linux.
Nothing wrong with that. -Dave

Linux isn't a suitable desktop for Joe Blow, and unless things change
dramatically, it never will be.


Oh, you mean like windows not being a suitable desktop for Joe Blow? Is
that the dramatic change you are talking about? It seems to be headed that
way.

Don't get me wrong, I like Vista. But I'm hardly the average computer
ser. -Dave

Mike T. writes:

Again, you'd have to see it to understand. I can tell you, without a doubt,
Aero (on Vista) will surprise you. I know that, as I've read your
expectations of it.

I suppose it might surprise me. But I also know that I'd still switch
immediately to a classic Windows GUI. I use my PC for productive
work, and pretty cartoon shows get in the way of that.

Aero makes huge demands on hardware, which is bad. I believe it does offer
real value in return, though. For starters (pun intended) the Start menu
doesn't fill the whole fricking screen, like it does in XP.

The Start menu has never filled my screen. Then again, I have the XP
GUI set to classic Windows.

But with Aero it is LESS busy and LESS space-consuming.

The screen shots I've seen of it are a mess, even worse than XP.

XP can look good on an LCD monitor. The default settings on the XP GUI
don't look good, though. If you have a large monitor running 1280 X 1024
(for example), you need binoculars to read anything, unless you are sitting
3" from the monitor.

I have a 20" monitor set to 1600x1200 and I'm sitting 20" away from
it, and everything is clear and sharp.

You can set fonts to "large", but this makes little
difference. You can crank up the dpi above large to a custom setting to
make fonts readable.

The fonts on my screen are highly readable, even at sizes that are
only a few pixels high.

But, the drawback is that not all applications will
display menus correctly at custom dpi settings.

I'm just using the default settings, with ClearType turned on.

Before someone gets smart, I have 15/20 vision.

I have normal vision, but the screen still looks fine to me.

With Vista, Microsoft renamed Outlook Express. It is now
something like "Microsoft Mail".

Ick. I remember the _old_ Microsoft Mail (a/k/a Network Courier,
before Microsoft bought it).

But I use The Bat now, because I couldn't force Outlook Express to
display HTML mail as plain text.

I'm talking about the new gadgets area (not sure of the proper name
for it). But it has an RSS reader, a ANALOG (looking) clock and a picture
viewer on it, by default.

Wow. I guess that's why it needs dual-core processors.

It's a trip to see both the taskbar AND the
wallpaper behind it.

I prefer to see one or the other. And transparency is extremely
expensive in terms of resources.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mike T. writes:

Odd. I've used dozens of linux distros.

Exactly. Dozens of different versions. Stability means _one_
version.

Oh, and while linux won't run windows apps., there are various free office
suites that run on linux, with MS Office compatibility.

I do far, far more with my PC than just run office apps. In fact, I
_don't_ run office apps--those are one type of application for which I
don't really have any use.

If you really want to, you can ditch windows and run just linux.

Why would I want to?

If Microsoft keeps going the way they are going, it will happen.

None of the current trends in the industry point in this direction.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mike T. writes:

Oh, you mean like windows not being a suitable desktop for Joe Blow?

Windows is the best desktop choice for the average user.

Is that the dramatic change you are talking about?

No. I'm talking about changes that would create real competition for
Windows.

It seems to be headed that way.

I see no such trend.

Don't get me wrong, I like Vista. But I'm hardly the average computer
ser.

I'm an average user in many ways, and I don't like Vista or Linux.
What I have right now is just fine. I'd like to keep it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:26:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

johns writes:

My BFG GF7900GTO is just about the top video card
on the market, and Vista crippled its performance by
nearly 30%. This box is a top game box, and yet
Vista struggled on it. I think Vista has a severe
problem with memory management, and that is why
the hard drive was hard on all the time.

You should not assume that high disk activity is a sign of poor memory
management. It probably indicates design flaws, but they aren't
necessarily flaws in memory management.

I put in a nice video card more or less incidentally, and it runs the
handful of games I have quite nicely. Of course, for all other
purposes, it runs like greased lightning. I see no reason to
sacrifice this just to give Microsoft more money.

You know what kind of upgrade I'd _really_ like to see? One that
preserves the _same identical_ functionality, but with 50% better
performance.

That is why I run Win2k instead of XP.

It's pretty interesting to read the back-and-forth between you guys.
You are debating various points, but collectively your comments
provide a clear portrait of Windows Vista: a wall-to-wall, unmitigated
disaster for users and the company.

I agree with your slant on the marketing behind this. MS is being run
by its ex-CFO. He is trying to extend a revenue model that made MS
rich in an era when frequent upgrades paid off for users as well as
Microsoft. Nowadays, from the standpoint of the average user, it may
make sense to keep using the 5-year-old box because a new machine
offers no practical improvements.

But people are gullible and lazy. I just can't believe the quality of
the hardware I get free. As far as I can tell, people get their hdd
so gummed up with crap the system doesn't run, so they toss it out and
get a new OEM rather than reinstall. Fans get clogged with dust and
chips overheat, so people turf the machine and get a new one rather
than remove the cover and go at it with a soft brush and a can of air.

On that basis, I think Vista is great. I can hardly wait to see next
year's crop of junk PCs.

Charlie

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:21:36 -0400, Mike T. wrote:


Are you sure you weren't hacked? I installed XP once while connected to the
lan. In the 30 seconds or so it took to install a good firewall, the system
was hacked. The problem is, there are no good firewalls for vista, or at
least none that I've found. -Dave

That's why I always install XP while unplugged from the internet.

Again, you'd have to see it to understand. I can tell you, without a
doubt,
Aero (on Vista) will surprise you. I know that, as I've read your
expectations of it.

Aero makes huge demands on hardware, which is bad. I believe it does
offer
real value in return, though. For starters (pun intended) the Start menu
doesn't fill the whole fricking screen, like it does in XP. It's much
more
intuitive and easier to operate than the XP Start Menu. The eye-candy is
there, for sure. But with Aero it is LESS busy and LESS space-consuming.

I'm curious whether the improvement is also
visible with aero turned off. I thought that aero
was just the transparency part of it and there
were other graphic rendering improvements
that didn't need aero. Is that wrong?