Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Have you heard some of the same skewed facts and misinformation described here? Did any of these clarifications come as a surprise to you?
there are some issues that I had.
The first is security. Although there have been security improvements, the SW is more bloated and there are many known issues that need to be worked on. The article states that Vista is more secure than XP, but it has yet to be proven.
Also, the article mentions pricing and states that they are exactly the same as XP versions, except with more features. But what about the features that were ripped out, or changed around.
The first is security. Although there have been security improvements, the SW is more bloated and there are many known issues that need to be worked on. The article states that Vista is more secure than XP, but it has yet to be proven.
Also, the article mentions pricing and states that they are exactly the same as XP versions, except with more features. But what about the features that were ripped out, or changed around.
The arguments w2ktechman makes are weak. On one hand he acknowledges there are security improvements, but then indicates that it hasn't been proven that Vista is more secure than XP. Using his own argument, it hasn't been proven that Vista is *less* secure than XP.
However, we can point to Vista's UAC feature as an example where security has improved and there is no real equivalent in XP. One has to conclude by just this feature alone that Vista *is* more secure than XP. It is difficult to argue, at this point in time, that Vista is less secure due to the number of reported bugs as compared to XP. Only with sufficient time and analysis, will we be able to determine whether the security improvements Microsoft made in Vista actually paid off.
Whether the software is bloated or not is a matter of opinion. Let's not confuse additional features with bloat. You could say *any* software is bloated, if you don't use the majority of it's features. But that doesn't mean that it's bloated for someone else who does use the majority of it's features. What you might desire is the ability to remove features that you don't personally use. Both XP and Vista allow you to do that, but maybe not at the granular level you might like.
Lastly, if you are going to argue "there are many known issues..." then provide references to a few issues that support your argument instead of waving your hands in the air, otherwise they just look like the FUD the article was trying to dispel.
However, we can point to Vista's UAC feature as an example where security has improved and there is no real equivalent in XP. One has to conclude by just this feature alone that Vista *is* more secure than XP. It is difficult to argue, at this point in time, that Vista is less secure due to the number of reported bugs as compared to XP. Only with sufficient time and analysis, will we be able to determine whether the security improvements Microsoft made in Vista actually paid off.
Whether the software is bloated or not is a matter of opinion. Let's not confuse additional features with bloat. You could say *any* software is bloated, if you don't use the majority of it's features. But that doesn't mean that it's bloated for someone else who does use the majority of it's features. What you might desire is the ability to remove features that you don't personally use. Both XP and Vista allow you to do that, but maybe not at the granular level you might like.
Lastly, if you are going to argue "there are many known issues..." then provide references to a few issues that support your argument instead of waving your hands in the air, otherwise they just look like the FUD the article was trying to dispel.
Install it without IE7 because you want to use an other browser.
Additional features aren't bloat, unnecessary/unwanted features are.
So not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
I welcome the foundation behind UAC, but I feel the constant alert / query will really annoy people. Until a lot more apps come out that work with UAC so the user doesn't get queried, I see problems.
Particularly people running as admin and then hammering the return key flat every time the dialog comes up without looking at what it says.
Are you sure?
oops
Additional features aren't bloat, unnecessary/unwanted features are.
So not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
I welcome the foundation behind UAC, but I feel the constant alert / query will really annoy people. Until a lot more apps come out that work with UAC so the user doesn't get queried, I see problems.
Particularly people running as admin and then hammering the return key flat every time the dialog comes up without looking at what it says.
Are you sure?
oops
I did not state that Vista was less secure, only that it has not been proven yet that it is more secure. You are reading between the lines, and not at what I wrote.
Bloated SW has more parts that can be problematic. And yes, most SW from large vendors are bloated as they add new features often to create more capitol by selling the new and improved versions.
Vista is a much larger OS than previous ones, yes it does do more as well, but being larger (many more lines of code) can create more unexpected results (security holes, bugs, etc.).
And finally, it is well documented, even by MS that there are many known issues/bugs with the OS. That didnt stop them from releasing Win2k which had more than 28,000 upon release date, and it did not stop them from releasing Vista either.
So your assessment of my comments was really not correct. If you are going to accuse me of not liking Vista, you are correct, and I have never stated otherwise. All that aside, I was just commenting on the article and a few issues that I saw with it, although I did like the article.
Bloated SW has more parts that can be problematic. And yes, most SW from large vendors are bloated as they add new features often to create more capitol by selling the new and improved versions.
Vista is a much larger OS than previous ones, yes it does do more as well, but being larger (many more lines of code) can create more unexpected results (security holes, bugs, etc.).
And finally, it is well documented, even by MS that there are many known issues/bugs with the OS. That didnt stop them from releasing Win2k which had more than 28,000 upon release date, and it did not stop them from releasing Vista either.
So your assessment of my comments was really not correct. If you are going to accuse me of not liking Vista, you are correct, and I have never stated otherwise. All that aside, I was just commenting on the article and a few issues that I saw with it, although I did like the article.
Features are not bloat. Bloated software is that which is written with more lines of code necessary to get the job done. Any particular feature of a program can be written efficiently or in a non-efficient manner, hence bloat.
Uninstallable "features" are bloat.
Take the Firewall for example. I use a hardware firewall at home; I don't want Windows Firewall, I can disable it, but I cannot remove it.
It is bloat.
And the UAC is quite annoying. It is the first thing I turned off. It should be made so that it is can be made more granular. Accessing the system files; sure. Changing screen resolution, I think not.
Take the Firewall for example. I use a hardware firewall at home; I don't want Windows Firewall, I can disable it, but I cannot remove it.
It is bloat.
And the UAC is quite annoying. It is the first thing I turned off. It should be made so that it is can be made more granular. Accessing the system files; sure. Changing screen resolution, I think not.
If I download and install the latest and greatest version of Mandriva or Debian or whatever and it has all kinds of "cool/new" features that I can't get to work on my laptop that is a PII 166 mhz, then can I say Linux is "bloated"?
Especially since so many Linux zealots on here rant and rave on how Linux will run so fast on just about anything. If they are so right, man, I'm taking up dumpster diving and finding me a sweet ole x386 for my personal pleasure. It should be a speed demon on Linux.
I can't uninstall all those cool new Linux features unless I take the next 2 years, read a library or two of books, watch a few videos, and otherwise piss away a vast swath of my time learning a new OS.
Especially since so many Linux zealots on here rant and rave on how Linux will run so fast on just about anything. If they are so right, man, I'm taking up dumpster diving and finding me a sweet ole x386 for my personal pleasure. It should be a speed demon on Linux.
I can't uninstall all those cool new Linux features unless I take the next 2 years, read a library or two of books, watch a few videos, and otherwise piss away a vast swath of my time learning a new OS.
Linux does not require a library of books. Learning various versions of Windows requires re-learning everything all over again.
For basic use of Linux (install, configure, use) yes, a book is the best way to start. Just like DOS, Windows, Mac. When you first learned to use Windows, did you just turn it on and know everything??? Learning any new OS requires a bit of LEARNING, that includes reading.
What a dumba$$ post you made.
For basic use of Linux (install, configure, use) yes, a book is the best way to start. Just like DOS, Windows, Mac. When you first learned to use Windows, did you just turn it on and know everything??? Learning any new OS requires a bit of LEARNING, that includes reading.
What a dumba$$ post you made.
If you think for a second that anyone can install, use and understand Linux after only using Windows all their life, you're a fool.
I have 7+ years in the tech biz and I have tried Linux numerous times only to be so totally frustrated that I have once again tossed it aside.
You can fool yourself by thinking Linux is easy but the rest of us know better.
I have 7+ years in the tech biz and I have tried Linux numerous times only to be so totally frustrated that I have once again tossed it aside.
You can fool yourself by thinking Linux is easy but the rest of us know better.
I stated that all OS's require a bit of learning, and that 1 book, not the library + videos + others that you stated.
Windows required learning too! You werent born with the knowledge were you?
Learn to read before sputtering off even more dumba$$ remarks tardboy!
Windows required learning too! You werent born with the knowledge were you?
Learn to read before sputtering off even more dumba$$ remarks tardboy!
Now that's mature.
Sure one book can teach you Linux as long as it's 500+ pages with web references.
And good luck asking any friends, family, co-workers, etc for help when you need it because 90% will be using Windows and know nothing about Linux.
Sure one book can teach you Linux as long as it's 500+ pages with web references.
And good luck asking any friends, family, co-workers, etc for help when you need it because 90% will be using Windows and know nothing about Linux.
had a bad day from data recovery failure. Sorry for the bad remark.
However, learning basic usage for Linux does not require a 500 page book even. It is as easy to pick up as Win is. maybe a 50-80 page book could get one started and running. Learning mid to advanced Linux will require a 500 page book. Learning to master Linux would require a small library.
You are correct though that if a problem happens, everyone already knows Windows so verbal support and asking around is much harder in Linux.
However, learning basic usage for Linux does not require a 500 page book even. It is as easy to pick up as Win is. maybe a 50-80 page book could get one started and running. Learning mid to advanced Linux will require a 500 page book. Learning to master Linux would require a small library.
You are correct though that if a problem happens, everyone already knows Windows so verbal support and asking around is much harder in Linux.
I whole-heartedly agree! My biggest, longest lasting dislike about Windows, and most Microsoft software is bloat: anything installed that I did not ask for, do not want, do not need, and is not required for stable function of the OS/Software Package. I have never used, nor will ever use WMC, Windows Firewall, Outlook/Outlook Express, ... et cetera. They are wholly useless to me.
As such, installing such items that I do not use, and are not required by the OS for stable operation (I've forcefully removed them piece-by-piece with no stability issues) constitute bloat for me.
Microsoft needs to do just a few easy things to make an OS worthy of modern users hard-earned cash:
1) allow total control over what is/is not installed. If it is not 100% necessary for the OS to run, it's an option, period!
2) Support, or allow others to support, all available hardware. There is no reason why I have issues in addressing and recognition of my two-cpu mobo out of the box. I have 2 AMD 64X2 5200+ chips installed. They run wonderfully and are recognized and addressed properly in XP Media Center 2005; Why can't Vista see that there are four cores on two separate chips. That's not marketing and licensing, that's poor coding, and poor environmental awareness.
3) Allow support for non-windows media formats. It doesn't have to be in WMP 11, just allow Vista to install other software that includes DRM-Free software code. BSPlayer and WinAmp are both widely distributed, making up more than reportedly 70% of the most used media software across platforms, and almost 50% on Windows systems. Blocking this software from installing by default, and requiring extensive computer knowledge to install them, is also poor coding. Microsoft may like DRM, the vast majority of consumers the world-over don't. There is no law that states that legally purchased music in one platform may not ever be played in another. Microsoft is not God and Judge.
Fix those problems, and we're back on track.
As such, installing such items that I do not use, and are not required by the OS for stable operation (I've forcefully removed them piece-by-piece with no stability issues) constitute bloat for me.
Microsoft needs to do just a few easy things to make an OS worthy of modern users hard-earned cash:
1) allow total control over what is/is not installed. If it is not 100% necessary for the OS to run, it's an option, period!
2) Support, or allow others to support, all available hardware. There is no reason why I have issues in addressing and recognition of my two-cpu mobo out of the box. I have 2 AMD 64X2 5200+ chips installed. They run wonderfully and are recognized and addressed properly in XP Media Center 2005; Why can't Vista see that there are four cores on two separate chips. That's not marketing and licensing, that's poor coding, and poor environmental awareness.
3) Allow support for non-windows media formats. It doesn't have to be in WMP 11, just allow Vista to install other software that includes DRM-Free software code. BSPlayer and WinAmp are both widely distributed, making up more than reportedly 70% of the most used media software across platforms, and almost 50% on Windows systems. Blocking this software from installing by default, and requiring extensive computer knowledge to install them, is also poor coding. Microsoft may like DRM, the vast majority of consumers the world-over don't. There is no law that states that legally purchased music in one platform may not ever be played in another. Microsoft is not God and Judge.
Fix those problems, and we're back on track.
Not only should the UAC be made more granular, but so should the package selection at install time. I'm not a fan of Red Hat, but take the RPM: you select a package - if it has any dependencies on other packages it tells you. You can then decide as to whether you want those packages on your system, or if you'd prefer to give it a miss. This way, you see what packages are a neccessity and which ones are optional extras. Works a charm. Many versions of Linux that I prefer (including Suse 10 +) also have this feature.
"...I have 7+ years in the tech biz and I have tried Linux numerous times only to be so totally frustrated that I have once again tossed it aside..."
This explains why you have such an aversion to Linux and anything else that is not from Microsoft, what you work with every day.
Not all technical people have the trouble with Linux you are having. You should consider this as something you should work on. There is nothing wrong with Linux. Linux is wonderful.
Most programmers I know, and I know a lot, are self-taught masters on multiple platforms from handhelds (Palm, Windows CE), to desktops (Windows, Linux, Mac, DOS, OS/2), to servers (Windows, Linux, Unix), to mainframes (IBM's z/OS).
Personally, I always look forward to the opportunity to work on a new platform, and I have never set one aside yet.
Don't give up. Persevere through the early frustrations. You'll find that you can master multiple platforms. And, each one you master will make the next one easier to master.
And, stop posting negative crap about Linux since the problem is really within you.
This explains why you have such an aversion to Linux and anything else that is not from Microsoft, what you work with every day.
Not all technical people have the trouble with Linux you are having. You should consider this as something you should work on. There is nothing wrong with Linux. Linux is wonderful.
Most programmers I know, and I know a lot, are self-taught masters on multiple platforms from handhelds (Palm, Windows CE), to desktops (Windows, Linux, Mac, DOS, OS/2), to servers (Windows, Linux, Unix), to mainframes (IBM's z/OS).
Personally, I always look forward to the opportunity to work on a new platform, and I have never set one aside yet.
Don't give up. Persevere through the early frustrations. You'll find that you can master multiple platforms. And, each one you master will make the next one easier to master.
And, stop posting negative crap about Linux since the problem is really within you.
Looking at replies to your post, they are going into a tirade about Linux being bloatware. Since when is Linux part of this discussion? We are discussing Vista. Please stay on topic.
Are you guys serious about space? As features are disabled, they are not taking resources (other than disk space), so what is the issue?
IE7 cant be uninstalled, who cares? This is again an issue of disk space. Just because it is there does not mean that it has to be used.
Disk space? Seriously, 750 gig hard drives are less than $200, and we are worried about 50 megs?
IE7 cant be uninstalled, who cares? This is again an issue of disk space. Just because it is there does not mean that it has to be used.
Disk space? Seriously, 750 gig hard drives are less than $200, and we are worried about 50 megs?
Your argument is exactly the reason that, while computers keep growing exponentially in capabilities, we end up not being able to do any more -- but we can do the old stuff with a bunch of new shiny annoyances tacked on.
It seems like Deb was reaching a bit for some of the myths. I don't think I've ever heard about Vista not being able to dual boot.
Also, when she's talking about video cards - I have it good. I have a nice video card that'll handle it just fine. However, I know that out of my entire IT staff, about 80% of them have video cards that have less than 128 Mb of video RAM, and older Pentium 4 PCs. Although a GeForce 5200 may be "inexpensive" for some, it still means that they'd have to buy an upgrade, and not everyone has $80 (that's just a random stab at how much it costs) to buy a replacement video card.
Add to that the ever-increasing senior population who are less up-to-date with technology, and you end up with a lot of people who will not be getting Vista without buying a new PC.
Personally, I don't like having different versions of Windows. It only multiplies the different number of operating systems I have to know about in order to troubleshoot if an issue gets to me. As much as I hate those biased, stupid PC-vs-Mac commercials, the latest one that talks about Mac only having one version DOES have some appeal.
Also, when she's talking about video cards - I have it good. I have a nice video card that'll handle it just fine. However, I know that out of my entire IT staff, about 80% of them have video cards that have less than 128 Mb of video RAM, and older Pentium 4 PCs. Although a GeForce 5200 may be "inexpensive" for some, it still means that they'd have to buy an upgrade, and not everyone has $80 (that's just a random stab at how much it costs) to buy a replacement video card.
Add to that the ever-increasing senior population who are less up-to-date with technology, and you end up with a lot of people who will not be getting Vista without buying a new PC.
Personally, I don't like having different versions of Windows. It only multiplies the different number of operating systems I have to know about in order to troubleshoot if an issue gets to me. As much as I hate those biased, stupid PC-vs-Mac commercials, the latest one that talks about Mac only having one version DOES have some appeal.
If you think that having a couple of versions of Windows is fun to support -- try Linux.
With over 500 'popular distros' to choose from -- multiplied by the number of different tools, utilities and applications tacked on to make them the least bit functional -- you have a nightmare on your hands.
Ever hear of anyone needing to 'recompile portions of the os' to get anything to work in Windows? No they can't, and no, they don't need to.
With over 500 'popular distros' to choose from -- multiplied by the number of different tools, utilities and applications tacked on to make them the least bit functional -- you have a nightmare on your hands.
Ever hear of anyone needing to 'recompile portions of the os' to get anything to work in Windows? No they can't, and no, they don't need to.
If you think that having a couple of versions of Windows is fun to support -- try Linux.
With over 500 'popular distros' to choose from -- multiplied by the number of different tools, utilities and applications tacked on to make them the least bit functional -- you have a nightmare on your hands.
Ever hear of anyone needing to 'recompile portions of the os' to get anything to work in Windows? No they can't, and no, they don't need to.
With over 500 'popular distros' to choose from -- multiplied by the number of different tools, utilities and applications tacked on to make them the least bit functional -- you have a nightmare on your hands.
Ever hear of anyone needing to 'recompile portions of the os' to get anything to work in Windows? No they can't, and no, they don't need to.
I've never recompiled Linux.
I've had things that don't work of course, usually the result of some MS psychophant, Toshiba for instance.
As for the crack about functional, well you definitely need to go back to class.
If the range of Vista options is good, then those in Linux Distro's must be awesome yes?
I've had things that don't work of course, usually the result of some MS psychophant, Toshiba for instance.
As for the crack about functional, well you definitely need to go back to class.
If the range of Vista options is good, then those in Linux Distro's must be awesome yes?
"Ever hear of anyone needing to 'recompile portions of the os' to get anything to work in Windows? No they can't, and no, they don't need to."
That's right -- you don't need to recompile anything in MS Windows itself to get things to work. Instead, you have to use a completely different system -- one that's capable of doing such things, unlike MS Windows.
It's great how you never need to do any work to get things working when you limit yourself to never doing those things.
That's right -- you don't need to recompile anything in MS Windows itself to get things to work. Instead, you have to use a completely different system -- one that's capable of doing such things, unlike MS Windows.
It's great how you never need to do any work to get things working when you limit yourself to never doing those things.
Overrall, I agree with this post, despite a small problem with the phrase "up to date with technology". There are reasonable requirements to keep you tech skills/toolkit up to date so that they are relevant, but the average Joe ( sixpack ) doesn't need the most current version of an OS to meet their needs. For me, XP is fine, and since I still build my computers, there is no reason to upgrade until XP ceases to meet my needs.
I think MS releases multiple versions of the OS strictly for sales. Its a common technique to set up a price model for different segments of the population in order to maximize market penetration.
e.g. Take the same software base, then disable portions and sell that version for a lower price. I mostly see this done with software, but CPU and video card manufacturers have done the same.
Simplicity is nice, and I do think MS overdid the pricing model technique with Vista.
I think MS releases multiple versions of the OS strictly for sales. Its a common technique to set up a price model for different segments of the population in order to maximize market penetration.
e.g. Take the same software base, then disable portions and sell that version for a lower price. I mostly see this done with software, but CPU and video card manufacturers have done the same.
Simplicity is nice, and I do think MS overdid the pricing model technique with Vista.
Whe had 3 machine with Windows 2003 installed. We kept getting this message thay they were illegal when we tried to download installations. Now that we have Winndows Office 2007, my bodd thinks we are legal. But, actuall, it was the operating system that was illegal because it was copied to the 3 diferent machines and would not allow us to download upgrades. Now, we are back networked, but I can't use my floppies with documents used as formats, nor can I email from home where I have Windows xP as my operating system. The computers at the office will not open any of the attachments. I went through a big, big hassle yesterday I was sick and had to retype the divorce decree. It was a mess.So, what I'm seeing is that I can't send emails from my home computer now to my boss of the law clerk because they cannot oppen then. Where there was Outlook, it has been replaced with Outlook Express, and I need all of the information that was in outlook. They say that they made back up copies, but I can't find them if they did, and I can't figure out how to open the backups and set them up for use. What is the solution?
First thing, make sure you have a legal purchased license for each PC.
In other words, you should have 3 copies of Windows XP or Windows Vista with 3 SEPARATE Certificates of Authenticity.
Also, you will need three separate purchased licenses of Office 2003 OR Office 2007. Either one will run on XP OR Vista.
If you do that, everything should work.
In other words, you should have 3 copies of Windows XP or Windows Vista with 3 SEPARATE Certificates of Authenticity.
Also, you will need three separate purchased licenses of Office 2003 OR Office 2007. Either one will run on XP OR Vista.
If you do that, everything should work.
Firstly, (and lets just ignore the fact that you have unlicensed software since that is a huge issue... in a LAW OFFICE???), why would you want to move from a Server OS to a Desktop OS?
There are numerous issues you could be running into here, but it would require digging into your environment and finding out how / what is configured.
There are numerous issues you could be running into here, but it would require digging into your environment and finding out how / what is configured.
I know, hard to understand this post. My interpretation:
Whe had 3 machines with Office 2003 installed. We kept getting this message that they were illegal when we tried to download updates from Windows Update (think Genuine Advantage). Now that we have Office 2007, my boss thinks we are legal.
But, actually, it was the OS that was illegal because it was copied to 3 diferent machines and would not allow us to download updates.
The rest gets a bit confusing...
Whe had 3 machines with Office 2003 installed. We kept getting this message that they were illegal when we tried to download updates from Windows Update (think Genuine Advantage). Now that we have Office 2007, my boss thinks we are legal.
But, actually, it was the OS that was illegal because it was copied to 3 diferent machines and would not allow us to download updates.
The rest gets a bit confusing...
The trick of understanding the message is to do a direct translation into another language such as Spanish. You then translate it back into English.
What he really wants to know is where can he find the ".pst" files that contain all his emails in Outlook 2003.
look here on the computer that has your emails:
C:\Documents and Settings\your user name\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Outlook\Outlook.pst
You can import this file into outlook 2007.
What he really wants to know is where can he find the ".pst" files that contain all his emails in Outlook 2003.
look here on the computer that has your emails:
C:\Documents and Settings\your user name\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Outlook\Outlook.pst
You can import this file into outlook 2007.
I think he's also missed the point that he might need to save his doc's in )ffice 2007 as Office 97-2003 docs for his recipients to open them!
In answer to your Office 2007 with Vista post tag, Ummmm.. Yeah, that's what the two of them were all about!!! For the last 6 months all there has been is the Vista/2007 hype.
Windows 2003? That's a server OS. Are you running server OSs on desktop machines? Or are you referring to Office 2003, which is an APPLICATION? Windows and Office are two different things, Office CAN'T run without Windows, but Windows is very happy NOT having Office installed.
If the OS is copied to three different machines, YOU ARE running pirated copies of the OS. This is what WGA is all about. If you can't email attachments to your office and have them open, you probably DON'T have the application required to open them, it's as simple as that. The compatibilities have nothing to do with the OS, and LITTLE to do with recent versions of Office, as their documents are (of late) interchangeable between the various versions of Office, with the notable exception of Access.
As far as your boSS not being able to open them, can he not OPEN them, or are they being blocked? BIG difference. If he cannot open them, then the application necessary to open them is not installed on the receiving computer. As far as them being blocked, most Excel files will be blocked by Outlook and Outlook Express, due to the possibility of harmful macros being possible payloads. There are many OTHER types of files that can be blocked as well. .EXE, .XLS, .JPG, .COM... All will be blocked by the security settings.
If they formatted without backing up your files, then your emailbox is gone. You will be searching for a file called "Outlook". If you find it, and you DON'T have Outlook installed, you can't put that information into Outlook Express. You need to install Outlook. Once installed, set it up as you usually would, then copy the OLD Outlook file over the NEW Outlook file. (I actually rename the new one, and copy the old one into the same directory.) Easy.
One last brutal, potentially painful thing... I am amazed you made it... With typing skills and grammar like that, how do you keep a job? Learn how to use a spell check! You post like some of the teenagers at one of the audio electronics forums I frequent, yet you claim a "Legal/Medical Professional" status...
Windows 2003? That's a server OS. Are you running server OSs on desktop machines? Or are you referring to Office 2003, which is an APPLICATION? Windows and Office are two different things, Office CAN'T run without Windows, but Windows is very happy NOT having Office installed.
If the OS is copied to three different machines, YOU ARE running pirated copies of the OS. This is what WGA is all about. If you can't email attachments to your office and have them open, you probably DON'T have the application required to open them, it's as simple as that. The compatibilities have nothing to do with the OS, and LITTLE to do with recent versions of Office, as their documents are (of late) interchangeable between the various versions of Office, with the notable exception of Access.
As far as your boSS not being able to open them, can he not OPEN them, or are they being blocked? BIG difference. If he cannot open them, then the application necessary to open them is not installed on the receiving computer. As far as them being blocked, most Excel files will be blocked by Outlook and Outlook Express, due to the possibility of harmful macros being possible payloads. There are many OTHER types of files that can be blocked as well. .EXE, .XLS, .JPG, .COM... All will be blocked by the security settings.
If they formatted without backing up your files, then your emailbox is gone. You will be searching for a file called "Outlook". If you find it, and you DON'T have Outlook installed, you can't put that information into Outlook Express. You need to install Outlook. Once installed, set it up as you usually would, then copy the OLD Outlook file over the NEW Outlook file. (I actually rename the new one, and copy the old one into the same directory.) Easy.
One last brutal, potentially painful thing... I am amazed you made it... With typing skills and grammar like that, how do you keep a job? Learn how to use a spell check! You post like some of the teenagers at one of the audio electronics forums I frequent, yet you claim a "Legal/Medical Professional" status...
Office 2007 will not open older document files. If you create a document in Office 2007, those with earlier versions will not be able to open them, either. Download OPEN OFFICE from openoffice.org It is free and will open just about anything and the file that you make should open when you e-mail them to other people. If not, have others download Open Office. It should solve your problem. MS didn't bother to let anyone know that they want to make sure that "YOU" have to use their products or you are SCREWED! I hope that this helps. Thanks ED
Microsoft has always supported older document formats. For example you can open a Word or Excel docment created in a previous version of these in Office 2007. The exception to this has always been Access. Many features that are used in Access databases have had to be converted over to the new version. Sometimes that worked, some times it didn't.
The statement that you can't open Office 2007 documents in Office 2003 is not 100% correct either. You can open Word documents created in Word 2007 with 2003, but you can't open Excel 2007 (saved in it's native format xlsx) with Excel 2003. You would have to save it as an Excel 97-2003 version.
The statement that you can't open Office 2007 documents in Office 2003 is not 100% correct either. You can open Word documents created in Word 2007 with 2003, but you can't open Excel 2007 (saved in it's native format xlsx) with Excel 2003. You would have to save it as an Excel 97-2003 version.
you can set the default save format to Office ver. 2003. It has to be done program by program, however.
Click on the ridiculous little circle at the top left of the program window. At the lower right of the dialogue/window that opens, configure the preferences.
Click on the ridiculous little circle at the top left of the program window. At the lower right of the dialogue/window that opens, configure the preferences.
For opening files of older versons
Are you say this is not so with Office 2007
Are you say this is not so with Office 2007
will not open older document files? Which? Wordstar 1? If you are sharing files with an older version of Office(any version from 97 up) you should save in the compatible format. If you save in 2007 format, then the user of an earlier version of Office merely needs to download a free filter from MS that workjs invisibly behind the scenes.
eddrone has presumably neither seen nor used Office 2007
eddrone has presumably neither seen nor used Office 2007
How about M$'s flagship development environment (Visual Studio 2005) being INCOMPATIBLE with Vista.
1) The IDE actually recommends you run as Admin everytime you run the darn thing. Yeah, that's good security design for you.
2) Even more importantly, the C compiler offers the worst downward compatibility in windows history. The thing can't doesn't even recognize attributed class from VS 2003.
3) Every new release, the code output gets slower and slower. I compiled the same template objects using VS6 and VS2005. The latter took an average of 4 times as long to execute as the former. Not to mention the productivity hit you have to take with the increased compile time that one can hardly ignore each time you press build. You call that progress? If this is the result of outsourcing, please stop!
In fact, if you look at the official documentation, you have to go back to 1998 (Visual Studio 6) to find an officially compatible compiler.
1) The IDE actually recommends you run as Admin everytime you run the darn thing. Yeah, that's good security design for you.
2) Even more importantly, the C compiler offers the worst downward compatibility in windows history. The thing can't doesn't even recognize attributed class from VS 2003.
3) Every new release, the code output gets slower and slower. I compiled the same template objects using VS6 and VS2005. The latter took an average of 4 times as long to execute as the former. Not to mention the productivity hit you have to take with the increased compile time that one can hardly ignore each time you press build. You call that progress? If this is the result of outsourcing, please stop!
In fact, if you look at the official documentation, you have to go back to 1998 (Visual Studio 6) to find an officially compatible compiler.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I spend alot of time in VS, but I thought VS 2003 was not compatible but VS 2005 was.
Neither VS2003 nor VS2005 are compatible out of the box.
You have to install two service packs to VS2005 to be officially supported. But even after that 1 hour upgrade; VS2005 is still the worst visual studio ever produced by microsoft. I am sticking to VS2003 until they fire Steve Em-Balmer and produce a viable alternative.
You have to install two service packs to VS2005 to be officially supported. But even after that 1 hour upgrade; VS2005 is still the worst visual studio ever produced by microsoft. I am sticking to VS2003 until they fire Steve Em-Balmer and produce a viable alternative.
If you wrote apps for the .Net 1.x framework, be prepared to start having to update your code. The .Net 2.0 framework is ok, but still requires some tweeking to make things hunky dory.
Long story short, MS dropped the ball on Vista for developers.
Long story short, MS dropped the ball on Vista for developers.
The constant validation and making me approve everything is a major PITA. If I launch a task it shouldn't bother to prompt mr. If it comes as an RPC, It should be not run automatic.
Is it more secure not when people get so annoyed they click the do not ask me again hutton? I be1lieve that the Vista is stunted. However Ubuntu 6.10 runs like a scalded Dog on the new Toshiba Laptop. with 2GB of RAM. In fact in WINE some things I use are much faster than VISTA without the constant prompting, and the basis for security is Linux OS.
Is it more secure not when people get so annoyed they click the do not ask me again hutton? I be1lieve that the Vista is stunted. However Ubuntu 6.10 runs like a scalded Dog on the new Toshiba Laptop. with 2GB of RAM. In fact in WINE some things I use are much faster than VISTA without the constant prompting, and the basis for security is Linux OS.
The article stated that most of the XP apps were imported onto Vista. In addition, it's possible to show multiple OS's in the Boot feature when starting/restarting your computer. For instance, I run XP Pro SP2, Vista 32-bit and 64-Bit, Office 2007, Groove, Exchange. Now I do run custom computers, but I spend less than $1,000 getting them running and configured, along with the hardware I want. The OS IS backward compatible with nearly every app on XP, but with dual-boot feature, why do this? Also, Office doesn't need to be on the computer, I just have it and use it.
about Vista include George Ou and now Steve S Warren.
Bit telling that.
Bit telling that.
Since you are using it to install an upgrade, you will not be able to use your own license number even if you ditch Vista.
Take a good look at google and seek for clean install Vista from Upgrade DVD to solve this issue!
Take a good look at google and seek for clean install Vista from Upgrade DVD to solve this issue!
And spreading rumors like that is exactly the ignorant behavior this article was written to counter.
Installing an upgrade copy of Vista makes your previous OS license legally invalid. Why? Because the upgrade license for Vista is contingent on a prior version. This is why the upgrade is cheaper.
It does NOT make the XP key technologically invalid. You can still uninstall Vista and reinstall XP, using your previous key, without any problem.
What you can't do, legally, is upgrade a PC to Vista, and then use your XP key to install XP on a different machine. But the key would still work to do it.
Installing an upgrade copy of Vista makes your previous OS license legally invalid. Why? Because the upgrade license for Vista is contingent on a prior version. This is why the upgrade is cheaper.
It does NOT make the XP key technologically invalid. You can still uninstall Vista and reinstall XP, using your previous key, without any problem.
What you can't do, legally, is upgrade a PC to Vista, and then use your XP key to install XP on a different machine. But the key would still work to do it.
Exactly right, and I know because I did install the vista upgrade over XP Pro and ended up removing it and reinstalling XP Pro with the same key. Worked just fine. Don't you just love people who THINK they know what they are talking about, even though they have never verified it?
Your reply is great. I'm runing XP, Vista 32 and 64-bit versions of Ultimate, Office 2007 and Groove, use Exchange Server as well as SQL. I also own an Apple G5 Power PC and wonder how long the Power PC will be supported. Apple won't say and I don't think they will. Microsoft gives fair warning. I'll keep running XP until it's no longer supported then simply delete it, something that's quite easy.
Activation is designed to stop you installing windows xp on another machine
Installing vista on the another machine is more practical
Installing vista on the another machine is more practical
. . . same as a vehicle or clothing. Best thing to do is try it. You will by default sooner or later. Its a very worthy product and much time and effort was spent in its development. I enjoyed my use of RC-1, but do not need the upgrade right now. If you find fault with it, there are alternatives.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513-6157709.html
"PC unit sales soared 173 percent at U.S. retail stores during the week ended February 3, compared with PC sales in the previous week"
"Current Analysis also noted that during Vista's debut week PC unit sales rose 67 percent compared with the same period a year ago."
"demand was higher for PCs with the more expensive version of the new operating system"
"Notebooks loaded with Vista Home Premium accounted for 76 percent of all notebook PC sales, while Vista Home Basic represented only 16 percent"
"PC unit sales soared 173 percent at U.S. retail stores during the week ended February 3, compared with PC sales in the previous week"
"Current Analysis also noted that during Vista's debut week PC unit sales rose 67 percent compared with the same period a year ago."
"demand was higher for PCs with the more expensive version of the new operating system"
"Notebooks loaded with Vista Home Premium accounted for 76 percent of all notebook PC sales, while Vista Home Basic represented only 16 percent"
Vista's target ended up being the home market by default. When they started struggling to make their deadlines they dropped the changes that the business world wanted to see, and kept the ones that would appeal to the home appliance user.
I wouldn't call that in itself a bad decision, attempting to sell the resultant home based product back to businesses when the advantage to that section of the market is minimal, well I suppose they had to try.
I wouldn't call that in itself a bad decision, attempting to sell the resultant home based product back to businesses when the advantage to that section of the market is minimal, well I suppose they had to try.
that none of the manufacturers or stores are offering XP anymore (that I have seen). There is not the normal 6-months of choice, it is Vista-only.
And of course, people will purchase an upgraded version usually -- more features and less chance for the familiar "you cannot perform that task unless you upgrade" notice.
And of course, people will purchase an upgraded version usually -- more features and less chance for the familiar "you cannot perform that task unless you upgrade" notice.
When you configure a PC on Dell's web site, Windows XP is available. Most retailers will most likely have Vista only.
I just looked and there aer a few models that say XP is a choice. I went back to HP, and nothing except Vista, same with e-machines.
some of the dell models do not offer XP though.
I would still have liked an overlap for choices from all of the vendors.
some of the dell models do not offer XP though.
I would still have liked an overlap for choices from all of the vendors.
You are exactly the dumb azz type of consumer that they are trying to market to.
And you are in IT right?
In the Home and Home Office section, I did a search on simply Windows XP and came up with 38 different models with XP to choose from.
Can't say that's Microsoft's problem, I'd say that's HP's problem. And you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Or, you aren't that stupid and you just look for convenient excuses to make your point.
And you are in IT right?
In the Home and Home Office section, I did a search on simply Windows XP and came up with 38 different models with XP to choose from.
Can't say that's Microsoft's problem, I'd say that's HP's problem. And you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Or, you aren't that stupid and you just look for convenient excuses to make your point.
those are refurbs, and you say you are in IT.
Plus, I was looking at notebooks for a couple of people.
The main site does not allow for configuration with XP, and almost none of the models (refurbs) that do have media center.
In times past, after MS introduced a new OS, the older one(s) were available for a long time still (preloaded and in options). Where are they on the new units? few and hard to find. This is marketing at work, trying to force Vista out.
Also, all of them decided against purchasing because not even the HP support came back to me with an answer yet (HP lost 2 notebook purchases) as to if we can have XP loaded on a new system instead.
No, I am not stupid, thank you very much! and yes, I did look over the site and tried searching for Windows XP and XP in the "home and home office" section.
What exactly did I fall for? Didnt buy anything, started looking around at other vendors because of it. so how did I fall for it and what did I fall for???
Maybe you should pull your head out of your A$$ before commenting on posts. There are quite a few times that you need to get told to READ the posts first that you comment on.
Plus, I was looking at notebooks for a couple of people.
The main site does not allow for configuration with XP, and almost none of the models (refurbs) that do have media center.
In times past, after MS introduced a new OS, the older one(s) were available for a long time still (preloaded and in options). Where are they on the new units? few and hard to find. This is marketing at work, trying to force Vista out.
Also, all of them decided against purchasing because not even the HP support came back to me with an answer yet (HP lost 2 notebook purchases) as to if we can have XP loaded on a new system instead.
No, I am not stupid, thank you very much! and yes, I did look over the site and tried searching for Windows XP and XP in the "home and home office" section.
What exactly did I fall for? Didnt buy anything, started looking around at other vendors because of it. so how did I fall for it and what did I fall for???
Maybe you should pull your head out of your A$$ before commenting on posts. There are quite a few times that you need to get told to READ the posts first that you comment on.
I did just now re-read your two posts right above the sub topic that we are talking about here and I didn't find the word "new" anywhere.
You said, "Didnt I say NEW dumba$$"
Actually, no you didn't. Nice try.
Caught red handed. Apparently, you meant to say "new" but didn't and now you are trying to prove a point that you simply can't unless we are to read your mind instead of your posts.
You said, "Didnt I say NEW dumba$$"
Actually, no you didn't. Nice try.
Caught red handed. Apparently, you meant to say "new" but didn't and now you are trying to prove a point that you simply can't unless we are to read your mind instead of your posts.
and the people looking wanted a home notebook instead of the business class.
Was XP Media center ever offered on a Laptop? I know it's circulation was fairly limited. I'm not sure why one would want it on a laptop actually, but that is proably just my lack of imagination.
At any rate, they can pick up media center Edition seperately if that is really what they want (ZipZoomFly has it for 110)
At any rate, they can pick up media center Edition seperately if that is really what they want (ZipZoomFly has it for 110)
Since October of '06 you had a chance to purchase a pc with XP on it and were offered a free upgrade to Vista through a mail in rebate. During the last week or so of January the sales of XP machines went down only because the retail outlets did not replenish XP stock and that was because the manufacturers were not offering it anymore. The first week of Vista sales would have HAD to be better than the last week of XP sales because of this.
It is still primarily XP. Nearly all the systems CDW sells are XP.
YOu won't get the software bundle you get with the consumer line, and it may cost a bit more, but you generally get better hardware. And you can get XP.
YOu won't get the software bundle you get with the consumer line, and it may cost a bit more, but you generally get better hardware. And you can get XP.
With a business product line laptop, you'll typically get the ability to hook up to a real docking station as opposed to these half baked, generic docking stations that they sell for consumer grade laptops at places like Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.
I can't tell you how many times I have people come to me and tell me how much they regret not having the real docking station abilities. Might push your original purchase up $100 because it's "business grade" but it is so worth it later on down the road.
I can't tell you how many times I have people come to me and tell me how much they regret not having the real docking station abilities. Might push your original purchase up $100 because it's "business grade" but it is so worth it later on down the road.
I just purchased a Notebook PC for my son, guess what, it came installed with Vista.
If Microsoft actually thought they had a winner with Vista, they would give you some choice, however; they know that very few people would actually choose Vista over XP Pro.
I actually experienced one user who went to Mac instead of going to Vista. Guess what?? He's as happy as can be with OS X (Tiger). I doubt he will ever go back to Windows.
I don't care about myths, I care about facts and Windows technology is a "jobs program", and the Windows support and admin people know it. Vista is a new revenue stream for Microsoft. Those are the facts.
If Microsoft actually thought they had a winner with Vista, they would give you some choice, however; they know that very few people would actually choose Vista over XP Pro.
I actually experienced one user who went to Mac instead of going to Vista. Guess what?? He's as happy as can be with OS X (Tiger). I doubt he will ever go back to Windows.
I don't care about myths, I care about facts and Windows technology is a "jobs program", and the Windows support and admin people know it. Vista is a new revenue stream for Microsoft. Those are the facts.
Regarding Myth #3 (Vista versus W-XP security), you wrote that "The Windows Firewall in Vista allows you to block outgoing traffic as well as incoming." In practice, that's not true. Vista firewall does perform some outbound filtering only for core Windows services and certain outgoing messages, but ALL OTHER outgoing traffic is allowed. Any traffic to be blocked must be user-specified in advance, in great detail (malware name, location, port, etcetera). There's no practical way to create every individual, separate rule needed for each of the endless possibilities. Although Vista does "allow" a user to block one single instance of pre-identified outgoing traffic, Vista's firewalll design makes it impossible for users to block all undesired outgoing traffic in advance. The little blocking that Vista does is virtually useless, and the wholesale blocking that users need isn't possible.
Because of all the problems with any MS OS, no matter what the reason, MS has single handedly created tens of thousands of jobs for companies like Symantec, Trend Micro, etc.
Then, they go around talking trash about MS especially Symantec.
Symantec really should just hope and pray that MS never gets their OS as secure as it could be. Their entire future relies on MS's failures.
Then, they go around talking trash about MS especially Symantec.
Symantec really should just hope and pray that MS never gets their OS as secure as it could be. Their entire future relies on MS's failures.
MS gives a lot of IT people a job through it's black list approach to security. Hooray for Microsoft! May their gross incompetence continue ;-))
Aw, I love 'em really.
Aw, I love 'em really.
MS singlehandedly propelled tech support and third party security companies into a billion dollar industry. Said more plainly, Micrisoft's software is so crappy, there's a whole industry making billions by keeping it remotely functional for the user.
That's not really a flatering argument for Microsoft is it?
I for one would love to see Microsft get it right finally (isn't 30 years enough practice?). I'd love to see Computer Service (how to design and install) versus more Computer Support (how to fix after it breaks) Comapanies.
That's not really a flatering argument for Microsoft is it?
I for one would love to see Microsft get it right finally (isn't 30 years enough practice?). I'd love to see Computer Service (how to design and install) versus more Computer Support (how to fix after it breaks) Comapanies.
I know it's a typo, but what a great description of the outfits who put you to sleep playing crappy on hold music for hours before being unable to answer your question! Like about half the morons on this thread who purport to be IT people...
MS Making their OS as secure as it could be
Would be good for their customers
But may be bad for them
If they enter the security market place
Which it looks like they will?
Would be good for their customers
But may be bad for them
If they enter the security market place
Which it looks like they will?
I have a Desktop PC and a new Dual Processor laptop. Is there any reason, because I own and use both computers that I cant load my copy of Vista on both
The Law. You don't 'own' the soft-ware. You have purchased a licence to use someone else's software. (Read the EULA) To do so would be a violation of your aggrrement with Microsoft. To load Vista on more than 1 physical machine, you must either have a 'Volume' licence, or buy another licence. (that comes with some of the soft-ware.) -d
Few, grant it, but there are.
For example, I'm pretty sure with MS Office 2003 and I believe MS Office 2007 you can install it on more than one PC (two total I think) if one is a work PC and one is a home PC.
I know there is fine print involved that honestly I don't recall off of the top of my head like which license type (OEM vs Enterprise vs Home) but none the less, there are exceptions.
For example, I'm pretty sure with MS Office 2003 and I believe MS Office 2007 you can install it on more than one PC (two total I think) if one is a work PC and one is a home PC.
I know there is fine print involved that honestly I don't recall off of the top of my head like which license type (OEM vs Enterprise vs Home) but none the less, there are exceptions.
They have an option under Software assurance to allow home users access to the software, but that is a little bit different.
Most all of the Office Products do have an allowance for the "Primary user" of a workstation to also install the same license on their laptop computer.
Most all of the Office Products do have an allowance for the "Primary user" of a workstation to also install the same license on their laptop computer.
There are several licensing versions in Office, I have a copy that I can use it on 3 systems, but for non-business use only. I was looking at another copy, but it only installed on 1 system, but could be used for business purposes.
So, you need to read the box before purchasing to see what you are getting. Other SW is like this as well, like tax SW. A common thing on tax SW is that 3-5 people can do their taxes on it, only 1 can use the state, and only 1 can use e-file without extra charges.
So, you need to read the box before purchasing to see what you are getting. Other SW is like this as well, like tax SW. A common thing on tax SW is that 3-5 people can do their taxes on it, only 1 can use the state, and only 1 can use e-file without extra charges.
Deb's article is good. And I agree with it. For the most part. As a gamer, I have done a bit of research. For one thing, MS has seen fit to remove OpenGL support in Vista. Going strictly with DirectX. The new graphics model seems good on paper. However benchmarks show that XPsp2 will run most games (Doom3, Prey, Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6 Vegas, UT2k4, etc) at a higher performance rate than Vista (as currently available). For proof of this please go to Tom's Hardware web site. As for it being "bloated", I would agree that the addition of new features cannot really be considered "bloat". The fact that you might not be interested in these new features, and may consider them to be bloat means you should consider your options carefully. There are alternatives after all. Personally, I am going to wait for awhile before installing Vista on my new geek box. But, I will run it on my old geek box once I have migrated all my data and programs over to the new box and am sure they are all working as expected. My new box will be dual core with 2 ATI X1950 GPUs in Crossfire mode. So I know it will be able to make use of all the eye candy in Vista. But, I also know that my 4 year old box (3.2ghz HT, 2gig PC3200 DDR, ATI X1650 AGP (handles 3.0 shader model necessary for new gen games) will be able to run it with all the eye candy as well. My advice is that unless you are buying a new pc with Vista pre-loaded, stay with XP until the new O/S is refined a bit. And that's my 2 cents worth.....g'day.
Did you notice on the answer for Video cards they mentioned PCI but ignored AGP?
They also did not mention why there was no "Classic" version like XP can be made to look like Win2k or 98. I don't like the new interface either in Vista or office. I tried the Office Beta and could not get the hang of it
They also did not mention why there was no "Classic" version like XP can be made to look like Win2k or 98. I don't like the new interface either in Vista or office. I tried the Office Beta and could not get the hang of it
Not Office 2007, but for Vista there are the following:
Aero Glass, Vista Standard, Vista Basic and Windows Classic.
If you don't like the new ribbon for Office 2007, stay with Office XP or 2003.
Aero Glass, Vista Standard, Vista Basic and Windows Classic.
If you don't like the new ribbon for Office 2007, stay with Office XP or 2003.
* it's confusive, but I'll get used with it sometime...
* it hides important information needed for every day administraiton of your system, with a bloat number of extra dialogs (plus the infamous UAC prompts), right clicks, contextual menus, and complex selection of the requested service. This is really lengthy and you can often forget where was that "damned" option you configured a few months ago and that you want to revert. Usability has been completely forgotten.
* this interface is damn slow, and gets too much resources for itself. Any basic windowing operation or simple text display in a dialog immediately consumes a lot of CPU and memory
* there's NO support for the Windows XP interface that worked so well; the "classic" theme looks only like Windows 2000. In my opinion, the XP interface was much better, even after using Vista for months, I still prefer using another PC running XP, or even an Linux worstation running a XP-like theme in Gnome or KDE.
The interactions with the OS in Vista have been severely restricted so much that you are constantly opening specific dialogs or control panels for everything; and the configuration panel is nearly unusable, despite this should be the most important part of the OS!
Vista support for hardware is extremely limited. It just supports the oldest ones that are marketed since many years, but not the newest that were introduced two years ago. it's like if all driver development was stopped 2 years ago at Microsoft. instead Microsoft developed and extended a new specification and expected that vendors would support it immediately. But given the many issues that were found in the Vista development, none of the interfaces that were documented by Microsoft were working as doucumented; so finally Microsoft decided to release Vista, and ignored all other issues, forcing many manufacturers to stop making great products that work perfectly and securely in past versions of Windows. There's a separate line of products that are made for Vista, and that are MUCH more expensive, less secured, more bogous in their new "certified" drivers, and lots of drivers for Vista, that Microsoft refuses to authorize for delivering media contents (if you look into why Media Center or Media Player refuses to play a CD or DVD, you'll find, after lots of investigation, some tricky log where the Vista API rejects the software request, because some internal dll within a driver is not certified, even if the driver was featured and recommanded by Microsoft for your hardware! This includes most drivers for graphics cards from BOTH nVidia and ATI, depsite these are the only two makers that can, today, successfully run Vista Aero!
In other words, there exists today NO serious offer that fully supports Vista as wanted by Microsoft. The "Made for Vista" logo means absolutely nothing. The reality is that Vista has lots of bugs, unimplemented features, non working APIs, and many undocumented requirements. How do you want that PC makers provide Vista without bugs?
Given the current situation, it will take about 2 years to solve all the compatibility problems. During that time, your costly Vista licence will provide LESS service than XP and your PC will run poorly.
So for now, the best buy is definitely not Vista if you want Windows. Try Vista at your own risks, but get ready to get back to XP for at least 2 years.
All these are wellknown problems; they are enough to justify the fact that MANY public or commercial organizations have PROHIBITED Vista, until further analysis.
And many service providers are also STRONGLY saying to their clients to NOT migrate their system to Vista for now, simply because the cost of migration is high, but also the current cost of maintenance, and lack of alternative solutions with Vista.
The only alternative for these problems is to keep XP, and just evaluate Vista for some future, in order to prepare for it. But take your time for this migration, you have at least 3 years do do that, and probably more! There's also nothing in Vista that is absolutely required for any project; the security issues are even simpler to manage with XP than with Vista for which there exists no alternative solution, and not enough resources available on the market to help you at reasonnable price.
Now, with this 3 years future, just consider what you really need on your desktop PCs. Windows is not a solution for all your problems, just consider that server-hosted applications can do the same service, on open platforms (with or without Windows). Those servers don't necessarily need migration of technologies, they need something else: scalability.
And for now, there even does not exist any Windows server that integrates the Vista security features; Windows 2003 is not different from XP in its security model. And there are many safe alternatives to Windows Server that have proven scalability and security under Linux, Unix, BSD... and that even work perfectly for running applications accessed from Windows clients, or MacOSX clients, or Linux clients...
And here, the best tool for deployment of your applications is not IE, but Mozilla browsers that work identically across all client platforms.
Now let's talk about gaming: seriously, nothing works well in Vista, simply because there are no good support for DirectX 10 in Vista itself, and from the two major graphics chipset makers. In addition, the total absence of OpenGL in Vista prohibits any portable developments of the greatest games across platforms: consoles, Mac, PC. So most games won't work in Vista before long, as it requires a new development model to make OpenGL-based programs compatible with DirectX 10 on Vista; notably it will require the implementation of a complete OpenGL emulator over DirectX 10, or rewriting most costly graphics libraries. Do you remember the nightmare in 1995 with so many incompatibilies in games that previously worked with a DOS extender?
Really Vista lags at least 2-3 years behind the current industry developments. All that time corresponds to the huge time that was lost by not involving the industry into the evolution of Windows, and by Microsoft wanting to do everything alone, on the paper only, without recurrent quality tests; this lead to many many bugs, and years to correct them (that's why Vista came so late, 2-3 years after the initial schedule).
Really, if you still want Windows, there are better solutions from third-parties that can complement Windows XP and secure it more tightly, without the many incompatibilities and poor performance that the current customers of Vista are experiencing with Vista only.
Microsoft currently rejects its fault to users, by sending them to the manufacturer of their PCs, despite there are NO hardware problem and NO software problems, only LACKS of support by Vista, or support that was present in XP but Microsoft failed to port to Vista, or even support that Microsoft REMOVED from Vista (e.g. OpenGL...).
* it hides important information needed for every day administraiton of your system, with a bloat number of extra dialogs (plus the infamous UAC prompts), right clicks, contextual menus, and complex selection of the requested service. This is really lengthy and you can often forget where was that "damned" option you configured a few months ago and that you want to revert. Usability has been completely forgotten.
* this interface is damn slow, and gets too much resources for itself. Any basic windowing operation or simple text display in a dialog immediately consumes a lot of CPU and memory
* there's NO support for the Windows XP interface that worked so well; the "classic" theme looks only like Windows 2000. In my opinion, the XP interface was much better, even after using Vista for months, I still prefer using another PC running XP, or even an Linux worstation running a XP-like theme in Gnome or KDE.
The interactions with the OS in Vista have been severely restricted so much that you are constantly opening specific dialogs or control panels for everything; and the configuration panel is nearly unusable, despite this should be the most important part of the OS!
Vista support for hardware is extremely limited. It just supports the oldest ones that are marketed since many years, but not the newest that were introduced two years ago. it's like if all driver development was stopped 2 years ago at Microsoft. instead Microsoft developed and extended a new specification and expected that vendors would support it immediately. But given the many issues that were found in the Vista development, none of the interfaces that were documented by Microsoft were working as doucumented; so finally Microsoft decided to release Vista, and ignored all other issues, forcing many manufacturers to stop making great products that work perfectly and securely in past versions of Windows. There's a separate line of products that are made for Vista, and that are MUCH more expensive, less secured, more bogous in their new "certified" drivers, and lots of drivers for Vista, that Microsoft refuses to authorize for delivering media contents (if you look into why Media Center or Media Player refuses to play a CD or DVD, you'll find, after lots of investigation, some tricky log where the Vista API rejects the software request, because some internal dll within a driver is not certified, even if the driver was featured and recommanded by Microsoft for your hardware! This includes most drivers for graphics cards from BOTH nVidia and ATI, depsite these are the only two makers that can, today, successfully run Vista Aero!
In other words, there exists today NO serious offer that fully supports Vista as wanted by Microsoft. The "Made for Vista" logo means absolutely nothing. The reality is that Vista has lots of bugs, unimplemented features, non working APIs, and many undocumented requirements. How do you want that PC makers provide Vista without bugs?
Given the current situation, it will take about 2 years to solve all the compatibility problems. During that time, your costly Vista licence will provide LESS service than XP and your PC will run poorly.
So for now, the best buy is definitely not Vista if you want Windows. Try Vista at your own risks, but get ready to get back to XP for at least 2 years.
All these are wellknown problems; they are enough to justify the fact that MANY public or commercial organizations have PROHIBITED Vista, until further analysis.
And many service providers are also STRONGLY saying to their clients to NOT migrate their system to Vista for now, simply because the cost of migration is high, but also the current cost of maintenance, and lack of alternative solutions with Vista.
The only alternative for these problems is to keep XP, and just evaluate Vista for some future, in order to prepare for it. But take your time for this migration, you have at least 3 years do do that, and probably more! There's also nothing in Vista that is absolutely required for any project; the security issues are even simpler to manage with XP than with Vista for which there exists no alternative solution, and not enough resources available on the market to help you at reasonnable price.
Now, with this 3 years future, just consider what you really need on your desktop PCs. Windows is not a solution for all your problems, just consider that server-hosted applications can do the same service, on open platforms (with or without Windows). Those servers don't necessarily need migration of technologies, they need something else: scalability.
And for now, there even does not exist any Windows server that integrates the Vista security features; Windows 2003 is not different from XP in its security model. And there are many safe alternatives to Windows Server that have proven scalability and security under Linux, Unix, BSD... and that even work perfectly for running applications accessed from Windows clients, or MacOSX clients, or Linux clients...
And here, the best tool for deployment of your applications is not IE, but Mozilla browsers that work identically across all client platforms.
Now let's talk about gaming: seriously, nothing works well in Vista, simply because there are no good support for DirectX 10 in Vista itself, and from the two major graphics chipset makers. In addition, the total absence of OpenGL in Vista prohibits any portable developments of the greatest games across platforms: consoles, Mac, PC. So most games won't work in Vista before long, as it requires a new development model to make OpenGL-based programs compatible with DirectX 10 on Vista; notably it will require the implementation of a complete OpenGL emulator over DirectX 10, or rewriting most costly graphics libraries. Do you remember the nightmare in 1995 with so many incompatibilies in games that previously worked with a DOS extender?
Really Vista lags at least 2-3 years behind the current industry developments. All that time corresponds to the huge time that was lost by not involving the industry into the evolution of Windows, and by Microsoft wanting to do everything alone, on the paper only, without recurrent quality tests; this lead to many many bugs, and years to correct them (that's why Vista came so late, 2-3 years after the initial schedule).
Really, if you still want Windows, there are better solutions from third-parties that can complement Windows XP and secure it more tightly, without the many incompatibilities and poor performance that the current customers of Vista are experiencing with Vista only.
Microsoft currently rejects its fault to users, by sending them to the manufacturer of their PCs, despite there are NO hardware problem and NO software problems, only LACKS of support by Vista, or support that was present in XP but Microsoft failed to port to Vista, or even support that Microsoft REMOVED from Vista (e.g. OpenGL...).
Oh my goodness...since last posting here I have installed Vista Business and I have had a headache since. Wouldn't be so bad except for the Audigy 2 ZS card....and folders from the upgrade that were encrypted EFS by XP are now a pain to access (haven't figured how to access them). Now granted I haven't spent night and day on these issues (except for the audigy card spent 8 hours trying to get it to work) but nevertheless...right now I don't recommend a Vista upgrade...you are better off getting it installed on a new pc. I haven't even touched into the .wmv problems I've been having...codecs etc. GOODBYE Sygate firewall...man what a huge sacrifice I have made. Once I figure out all these cons that I've run into I might talk about some of the pro's.
Been discontinued for what 1 1/2+ years?
When Symantec bought Sygate, they discontinued the firwall as it was competing against Symantec's existing product line.
Anyways, while I would recommend you not using a discontinued product as the updates and patches are no longer available, I will say that Sygate did make a killer home firewall.
I used it myself for several years and even today, I think it is better than its competitors. But again, without updates and patches, it's almost worthless.
When Symantec bought Sygate, they discontinued the firwall as it was competing against Symantec's existing product line.
Anyways, while I would recommend you not using a discontinued product as the updates and patches are no longer available, I will say that Sygate did make a killer home firewall.
I used it myself for several years and even today, I think it is better than its competitors. But again, without updates and patches, it's almost worthless.
Even without updates and patches, Sygate is probably the best around. I like to hack away at supposedly impregnible systems (white hat, honest) and still find Sygate poses the stiffest challenge. I've switched away from it, looking for alternatives, but so far I've always gone back. When I compare it the firewall offerings in NIS and SCS it wins hands down. I'm holding off with Vista for a while anyway - I haven't found Vista's security features to be any big benefit over a properly secured XP system, and I'd miss those few great progs like Sygate, for one.
Upon reviewing a laptop running Vista Basic it's clear to me that microsoft has continued the trend of a larger memory footprint to run the operating system. My xp pro uses about 300 meg of memory with no optional applications running. The laptop I reviewed used 460 meg under the same condition.
Obviously a laptop with 512 meg of memory will be in limp mode most of the time.
If you must have Vista (which I don't), plan on 1 meg ram minimum.
Obviously a laptop with 512 meg of memory will be in limp mode most of the time.
If you must have Vista (which I don't), plan on 1 meg ram minimum.
Although, XP Pro needs more than 512MB of RAM to perform well, if you want to run big apps on it. I find that 1GB is more than enough. I have only 512MB at work and I'm severly hamstrung. I have to run Eclipse, Tomcat, MySQL, MS Office and Lotus Notes all at the same time. It's a disaster. My colleague seems to get on well enough with 768MB, but 1GB should be the minimum for us heavier users.
Even at home, where I run XP Home on a laptop with 1GB RAM, I'm currently using 400MB just to run Firefox, FlashGet (big download), my AV and my Firewall (not Windows Firewall!).
512MB wouldn't leave me with much left over.
When I was testing RC2 I noticed its heavy footprint. The idea of stating 512MB as a minumum is ludicrous. Even 1GB could easily be swallowed up if you ran say Photoshop in addition to an AV app and firewall and a browser.
MS says 512MB to be "Vista-ready" and 1GB to be "Vista-capable". It should surely be 1GB
and 2GB respectively.
Even at home, where I run XP Home on a laptop with 1GB RAM, I'm currently using 400MB just to run Firefox, FlashGet (big download), my AV and my Firewall (not Windows Firewall!).
512MB wouldn't leave me with much left over.
When I was testing RC2 I noticed its heavy footprint. The idea of stating 512MB as a minumum is ludicrous. Even 1GB could easily be swallowed up if you ran say Photoshop in addition to an AV app and firewall and a browser.
MS says 512MB to be "Vista-ready" and 1GB to be "Vista-capable". It should surely be 1GB
and 2GB respectively.
This is from the XP CD
Before you install Windows XP Professional, make sure your computer
meets the following minimum hardware requirements:
* 233 megahertz (MHz) Pentium or higher microprocessor (or
equivalent)
* 128 megabytes (MB) recommended (64 MB of RAM minimum;
4 gigabytes (GB) of RAM maximum)
* 1.5 GB of free space on your hard disk
* VGA monitor
* Keyboard
* Mouse or compatible pointing device
* CD-ROM or DVD drive
Funny ?
Before you install Windows XP Professional, make sure your computer
meets the following minimum hardware requirements:
* 233 megahertz (MHz) Pentium or higher microprocessor (or
equivalent)
* 128 megabytes (MB) recommended (64 MB of RAM minimum;
4 gigabytes (GB) of RAM maximum)
* 1.5 GB of free space on your hard disk
* VGA monitor
* Keyboard
* Mouse or compatible pointing device
* CD-ROM or DVD drive
Funny ?
That's not a digg, just something that made me smile. Far as I can tell:
win98: 128 meg is pleanty, 512 is a ton
winXP: 512 is confortable for normal work, 1 gig prefered
Vista: 1gig minimum, 2 to 4 gig if you can afford it
I'm pushing for 4 gig on my next rig but I'm also running multiple VM to play with clustering and ldap right now though.
win98: 128 meg is pleanty, 512 is a ton
winXP: 512 is confortable for normal work, 1 gig prefered
Vista: 1gig minimum, 2 to 4 gig if you can afford it
I'm pushing for 4 gig on my next rig but I'm also running multiple VM to play with clustering and ldap right now though.
If you are making plans, plan on steady increases in the amount of real memory you will need. It would be the end of Moore's law if any other path made sense. Get used to it.
To me, with my historical perspective, I think it is trivial to debate the merits of whether or not each new fundamental generation of operating system should use larger memories.
It may be hard to accept but it is actually quite stupid to fail to seize opportunities to apply the fruits of Moore's law.
The "IT guy" betrays the classic flaw in IT Guy logic. He believes his role is to control the advance of technology. Actually his job is to support it. It sounds to me like he has a lot of work to do and probably should be doing it rather than venting about how hard it is for him to do his job. Apparently without much of a plan.
To me, with my historical perspective, I think it is trivial to debate the merits of whether or not each new fundamental generation of operating system should use larger memories.
It may be hard to accept but it is actually quite stupid to fail to seize opportunities to apply the fruits of Moore's law.
The "IT guy" betrays the classic flaw in IT Guy logic. He believes his role is to control the advance of technology. Actually his job is to support it. It sounds to me like he has a lot of work to do and probably should be doing it rather than venting about how hard it is for him to do his job. Apparently without much of a plan.
ask for a recommendation on what they should buy
I don?t like lying
Also The questions about what you use at home
I don?t like lying
Also The questions about what you use at home
Speaking as someone who is not an IT person (although sometimes I support THEM), I recognize that since most users are not terribly knowledgeable about configuring and using PCs, they often need to be limited in some respects. IT has to look at the larger picture, not just an individual user's needs.
I remember when I had a more active role in tech support (a sideline, completely different from my main work), the MIS head gave everyone a third-party screensaver program for Win95 (I forget the name, but it was very popular at the time). He did it because someone had gotten it and other people complained that they hadn't. He was new in the job and I guess he was trying to be diplomatic. He'd already ticked off a few people.
But the program was a resource hog, especially on an OS that had, what, 32 KB user and 32 kB GDI if memory serves? First thing I did working on a machine was to disable it. Granted this is an extreme example. Work PCs are there to do work, not entertain. But the principle is the same.
I agree that IT often forgets that their job is to make it easier for people to get work done and if that means adopting new tech, then that's what they need to do. But there are a myriad of issues to consider. Evaluation time and effort, support resources, available capital, security (this should really go first), network resources, individual system capabilities, cost/benefit ratios and more. Then of course, there's the big non-IT boss who wants it and doesn't care about any arguments to the contrary.
So rather than being mutually exclusive, support and control need to go hand-in-hand, because they're both elements of the technology picture.
I remember when I had a more active role in tech support (a sideline, completely different from my main work), the MIS head gave everyone a third-party screensaver program for Win95 (I forget the name, but it was very popular at the time). He did it because someone had gotten it and other people complained that they hadn't. He was new in the job and I guess he was trying to be diplomatic. He'd already ticked off a few people.
But the program was a resource hog, especially on an OS that had, what, 32 KB user and 32 kB GDI if memory serves? First thing I did working on a machine was to disable it. Granted this is an extreme example. Work PCs are there to do work, not entertain. But the principle is the same.
I agree that IT often forgets that their job is to make it easier for people to get work done and if that means adopting new tech, then that's what they need to do. But there are a myriad of issues to consider. Evaluation time and effort, support resources, available capital, security (this should really go first), network resources, individual system capabilities, cost/benefit ratios and more. Then of course, there's the big non-IT boss who wants it and doesn't care about any arguments to the contrary.
So rather than being mutually exclusive, support and control need to go hand-in-hand, because they're both elements of the technology picture.
Thank you, Deb. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Dell's Vista people suggested I wait for the first patch. And then you told me about the Compatibility tab in Properties.
Glenn F. Rodgers
Glenn F. Rodgers
You would imagine if Vista's wonderful new security is so good, it would at least let you know if it was blocking an application, but VNC installes, the service starts, but can you connect - no!
Remote Support requires too much user intervention, Remote Desktop Connection gives you an interface the user can't see.
Any ideas?
Remote Support requires too much user intervention, Remote Desktop Connection gives you an interface the user can't see.
Any ideas?
nmap the box to see what ports are listening for connections then see if one is the VNC port (I forget what it connects on specifically).
If the port is not visible, see if the firewall is blocking it and ad the rule to allow the port.
You can also run vnc manually and see if it returns an error about blocked networking. I believe the service runs silent but it should allow a manual run from the start menu icons.
If the port is not visible, see if the firewall is blocking it and ad the rule to allow the port.
You can also run vnc manually and see if it returns an error about blocked networking. I believe the service runs silent but it should allow a manual run from the start menu icons.
yes, tried 2 different type of VNC- RealVNC, Ultra VNC and Tigh VNC. All have the same problem can't init a connection but work ok if the server add the remote client. When it doesn't work come back with error like password not set which is not true.
I hope someone can find a solution for it.
I hope someone can find a solution for it.
To provide support for the 40-bit encryption levels and for the 56-bit encryption levels on a client computer that is running Windows Vista, you must configure the AllowPPTPWeakCrypto registry entry.
I think that could be your problem. It also fixes the problems using PPtP VPN in vista.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929857
I think that could be your problem. It also fixes the problems using PPtP VPN in vista.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929857
My problem with Myth #1 is that it assumes a PC with hardware to refute Myth #1. Some people have them; some people don't. So far, in my experience with Vista and home PCs, most people don't. Vista is bringing me lots of work adding RAM and upgrading/replacing graphics cards, sound cards, drive controller cards, port cards, etc.
As to $600 computers, the "devil" - as always - is in the specs and the warranty and the current consumer ratings of the company. After that, I'm seeing the same pattern of customer service and tech support trouble that followed W95, NT, and ME.
Software problems? I could write another post about those, but it'd be a small book.
My problem with Myth #7 overlaps my comments re: #1 - I'm replacing lots of cards because they're hardware-incompatible with Vista and/or there are no Vista drivers available.
So far, based on my experiencs, there's only one safe, practical approach to Vista for my average client (i.e., the average home PC owner), and that's a name brand PC, from the right company, with the right specs, and warranty. Then forget all your old stuff, unless you KNOW FOR A FACT that it's compatible.
Vista problems have been bring me business since a week and a half after its release. I've had over 100 calls from over 30 clients in the past 6 days.
"Nuff' said.
Good luck.
As to $600 computers, the "devil" - as always - is in the specs and the warranty and the current consumer ratings of the company. After that, I'm seeing the same pattern of customer service and tech support trouble that followed W95, NT, and ME.
Software problems? I could write another post about those, but it'd be a small book.
My problem with Myth #7 overlaps my comments re: #1 - I'm replacing lots of cards because they're hardware-incompatible with Vista and/or there are no Vista drivers available.
So far, based on my experiencs, there's only one safe, practical approach to Vista for my average client (i.e., the average home PC owner), and that's a name brand PC, from the right company, with the right specs, and warranty. Then forget all your old stuff, unless you KNOW FOR A FACT that it's compatible.
Vista problems have been bring me business since a week and a half after its release. I've had over 100 calls from over 30 clients in the past 6 days.
"Nuff' said.
Good luck.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
