So...WHY DO YOU HATE MICROSOFT !?

[anandk]

strange but true, it appears that the cyber world is mostly divided into 2 parts :
1) people who JUST LOVE TO HATE microsoft ! :twisted:
2) people who appreciate microsoft ! :)
very few neutral to this sentiment !

almost 95% use its windows os; just around 3% mac and 2% linux.
but so what, that still gives them the right to hate ms, dznt it ? or does ;-) it ?!

this made me think a litle. if u hate something just dont use its products. period ! there are wonderful open-source options like linux, openoffice, etc avlbl ! go for that, then !

"ms is big. ms is ruthless. ms steals talent ! ms uses dirty tricks !"
these r some of the justification put forth !
ha ! which corporate does not do that ! :rolleyes:
its the same in the us , India, or the world over !

some say "ms makes a bad os" !
but when ms tries 2 add features to its os, it gets attacked by companies who provide these functions as 3rdparty vendors, like d av n d fw companies ! microsoft's history, combined with its incredibly deep pockets, makes it a wide-open target for harassment and the popularity of its windows makes it more prone to mal-attacks !

people persist in hating:mad: microsoft but just L-O-V-E :p google !
the logic perhaps lies in 'i hate ms' so "i love" its closest rival : google !

is google not a profit driven corporation, as is microsoft ?
wud google not steal talent from a competitor, as does microsoft ?

lets face it, all is fair in love, war and BUSINESS !!! :twisted:
creation of profit/wealth is the first motive of any business !
a 30 yr old microsoft has a mkt cap of $287 billion, but a relatively recent google has over $144 billion, and most of it derived from selling advertising to other companies ! the world hands over its info to google for free, but google charges for it !

so why the double standards !
lets be honest : which of us wouldnt want to be a :cool: BillGates !

time to question ourself : why :confused: do u hate ms ?
if the answer is a rational one, by all means go ahead and hate it; lets not just hate it bcoz its fashionable:oops: to do so !

perhaps u guys can pen ur views here and help me find an answer to this paradox !

my thoughts but inspired by : http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=646

and yes, btw, and dont be surprised if 2moro, ms and google form a cartel !!! :D

[gxsaurav]

1) High price of Software, they should understand that there is difference between the rate of doller & rupess

2) Let other companies share there technologies, atleast decoders, like NTFS read write or WMA/WMV

[~Phenom~]

I hate MS because the prices of their code are just insane ( I know Apple is the biggest insane , still genuine MS products are out of reach of common people atleast in india ).
But I also love MS for making the most user friendly softwares and for its owner being a philanthropist.

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Very true and what a topic to discuss!
First of all let me make it clear. It's all about user's personal opinion and in no way it should affect their sentiments.

I think that Microsoft is just put into limelight of hate without proper justification.
1. We wanted a User-friendly interface, which a school student should be able to manipulate just by dragging and dropping- Microsoft gave us in the form of Windows.

2. We wanted all kind of third party application support. Microsoft did it by providing enough kennels for the third party application developers. Hackers misuse this feature and we start blaming Microsoft for that!

3. We wanted all kind of Plug-ins to be added to Windows starting from USB, Bluetooth, Wi-fi bla.bla..bla....and still provide a very easy to use interface. Microsoft did it and again hackers misused this to inject their evil skills to steal users data.

4. We wanted to access different systems like a parallel connected circuit to be accessible to each other - again Microsoft did it in the form of Remote desktop, Hackers didn't even spare this one!

5. We wanted all kind of entertainment be made available. Microsoft did it by giving access to all kind of third party applications to run on it like a skater skating on ice.

the list just goes on and on...

It is evident that by providing such a user-friendly interface, mistakes do happen-after all Microsoft professionals are also human. They corrected those errors by giving us updates in the form of patches. And we started blaming Microsoft saying that it's whole body has full of patches! How does one justify it?

Double standards to its max?
Truth will prevail -people are using microsoft products, will be using in future and still manage to say 'I hate Microsoft'!

[MysticHalo]

No...its not that i hate M$...but its the general settlement that u have to face if u become the best. ppl always envy the best...maybe not the best but the most popular. BillGates is a genius of his age, no doubt about that, and i often tend to agree with him when he says You DONT GET the BEST for NOTHING. There's something in M$ that we all tend to like that which is still not accomplished (to some extent) by both Linux and Mac. But when u r running on the system of billions, obviously a dissent of even 1% accounts to a big number. Everyday so many ppl have so many problems with windows(and other m$ software), coz the no. is very large.
SO , IMO, there's one BIG REASON to LOVE (TO HATE) M$ -: M$ SOFTWARE TROUBLE ME A LOT AT TIMES !!! ( and i dont use anything else much :p)

[mediator]

I agree with gx that some things shud be shared to maintain standards.
I don't hate microsoft! But only a few of its products like windows. Yea I know, u may think it as unreasonable. But thats the fact that whenva Microsoft releases a new OS, it can't be used freely. I'm not saying about Viruses, Spywares etc. But yea times is wasted in maintaining windows when u have a lotta users on ur PC specially noobies and gamers who install cheat softwares and themes full of infections. What I'm talkin about is the new windows OS can't be used without experiencing crashes and BSOD's untill they provide u with a couple of service packs. If they can provide an OS with no crashes or BSOD's, then that wud be much better and an end-user only sees this. He is not interested in company policies or any other excuse.

Then there is price factor. But that doesn't mean I hate MS. Neways in India price doesn't count. ;)

I do like most of its products like MS-Office, VMware and many more. SO its not about hating a company specifically. U just hate some of its policies, deadline unfulfillment and some its products. Overall I praise MS for leading the Desktop revolution.

The concept is actually very simple. If u have a stable operating system u like to work on it then and install whateva u want on it carelessly well not too carelessly either. But if u spend more time in installing/reinstalling the OS itself instead of softwares, then whats the point? Ur documents get lost, settings need to be reconfigured, 3rd party apps need to be installed again.
U might be disagreeing here. But most of the people aren't as professional as us and then they r the victims! Many people in mah college and many friends I know still install 2 antiviruses on their systems :oops: . I hope u got mah point!

So its only a few things like some policies and products they need to think on and improve . I don't hate anything without a reason. I don't hate windows becoz its fashionable, but because of years of experience of unreliabiltity and frustration.

My primary OS is Fedora 5 and I haven't been to windows for like 1 month for my purposes specifically. I think its more than a month that I did my work on windows. I just switch to windows to maintain it, do some scanning and remove infections so that mah family doesn't have any complaints. Future Windows Versions if improved dramatically may make me use Windows more.

But again I'm not a MS hater!! :)

[ketanbodas]

HeHe, wat a topic to discuss :-) Maybe we get angry becos we cant afford to buy MS products, which r expensive in Indian Rupees. They shud reduce prices for 3rd world countries. NOW VISTA at 21 K, WTH.

[SE><IE]

I <3 MS :D :D

Reason is pretty simple- they are handing the blows single handedly. The so called :) Open source community is constantly attacking MS. Almost all the OSes are against MS. All flavours of Linux, Solaris, Mac etc. Its like a handicap match and guess who is still facing the blows happily. Its MS. I'm not going against the open-source but then take a look from the wider perspective. :)

[common argument] There are too many viruses on windows[/common argument]
Get up from your chair and move to the other corner. Take a look again. Windows' condition is like a bike in an open ground where many people at constanly throwing pebbles at it and the users don't want even a single dent on the bike.
Accept it, open source OSes aren't more secure; its just that very few people write viruses or search for loop-holes for them. Shouldn't it be that since the source code is freely available then there should be more "attacks" on open-source OSes? Its just some kinda religion that sits in the minds of 'hackers' (Hackers: virus writers, spyware developers etc). If you write one virus for windows then you are praised, if you write one for Linux then 'teri ma ki' , 'teri behan ki'

I praise MS. They have developed an OS which is damn simple to use. If you are one of the many people who hate MS then ask yourself "Why isn't Linux (, etc)'s installation more easier than windows?"
Where does you so called "very large community" go when it comes to ease of use? Why do many people still complain installing Linux made me sweat? Don't forget they are no n00bs in windows and it isn't either that they don't know anything about the logical structuring of partitions etc.

[subratabera]

I <3 MS :D :D

Reason is pretty simple- they are handing the blows single handedly. The so called :) Open source community is constantly attacking MS. Almost all the OSes are against MS. All flavours of Linux, Solaris, Mac etc. Its like a handicap match and guess who is still facing the blows happily. Its MS. I'm not going against the open-source but then take a look from the wider perspective. :)

[common argument] There are too many viruses on windows[/common argument]
Get up from your chair and move to the other corner. Take a look again. Windows' condition is like a bike in an open ground where many people at constanly throwing pebbles at it and the users don't want even a single dent on the bike.
Accept it, open source OSes aren't more secure; its just that very few people write viruses or search for loop-holes for them. Shouldn't it be that since the source code is freely available then there should be more "attacks" on open-source OSes? Its just some kinda religion that sits in the minds of 'hackers' (Hackers: virus writers, spyware developers etc). If you write one virus for windows then you are praised, if you write one for Linux then 'teri ma ki' , 'teri behan ki'

I praise MS. They have developed an OS which is damn simple to use. If you are one of the many people who hate MS then ask yourself "Why isn't Linux (, etc)'s installation more easier than windows?"
Where does you so called "very large community" go when it comes to ease of use? Why do many people still complain installing Linux made me sweat? Don't forget they are no n00bs in windows and it isn't either that they don't know anything about the logical structuring of partitions etc.


OK. Let me say something...

I personally don't hate M$. In fact I love them for developing something which is so successful. As far as OSS goes, don't you think that Linux community is working very hard to deliver something which can be as great as Windows or MAC. They just need our support to work for us. Please don't hate them. How do you feel if you have helped someone and (s)he says you bad word for it. Linux is becoming more popular and powerful with every new release and I hope one day it will eventually come very close to Windows.

Can I ask you one thing....Are you using legal versions of each and every Windows software???

If not then, suppose if M$ softwares cannot be pirated then what do you think you do? Buy each and every software you need? I don't think so. We don't have enough money for that. And I think one day most M$ softwares can't be pirated. That day OSS can save you. So, friend, don't hate OSS and try to help them by using there software...:-)

[AshishSharma]

I wouldn't say I love MS because of the obvious reasons already highlighted by you all.

But I can't hate it as well for first thats what earns me my bread & butter and second I love their Softwares. My company pays for my softwares so yes I am 100% MS and 100% Legal but I do agree if I had to buy them I'll most probably be running Linux right now.

MS has been at the forefront of all new Computer Technologies which were then incorporated by others it's not the most stable / safe for the obvious reason that everyone wants to crack it.

I do support Open Source as well bcz thats where future rests but for now I am with MS for what they have given us so far.

[SE><IE]

So, friend, don't hate OSS and try to help them by using there software...

I never said I hate OSS. What I meaant was that its not good to hate MS beacuse their products are easy to use. I just meant that OSS are harder to use (basically the OS only) as compared to windows whereas it should have been more easier keeping in mind that many people are devoting their time.

Here, let me quote myself
I praise MS. They have developed an OS which is damn simple to use. If you are one of the many people who hate MS then ask yourself...
I was talking of those who shout without thinking anything.
No harm meant :)

[Yamaraj]

Argument #1: Hatred is the new fashion, and Microsoft is a popular brand. 'nuff said!
Argument #2: Microsoft is like a village bicycle; everyone gets a free ride.

[kumarmohit]

I dont hate MS and I still love Open source software. I am against hating anyone just because everyone is doing so In a truly free mkt its everyone who has to make his choice free or paid.

While I categorize Micrsoft's attempts like the getthefacts campaign as sheer Tomfoolery I am equally against FOSS fanatics who keep on criticizing Microsoft as not doing so will make them stop breathing.

[shashank_re]

I love microsoft.No matter how costly their OS is!

[praka123]

I hate microsoft for its monopoly and sueing competitors and Free Software Community especially GNU/Linux for infringing patents(wat da F!k?),sponsoring SCO in the SCO vs Linux Kernel case indirectly by funding SCO Unix via another company.
I Hate Microwsoft for its founder Bill Gates for Bad Business Practises.

I Hate M$ for its supporting piracy(now this seems to change,i've seen in Coimbatore,TamilNadu,every bus bay and other main centres they docks Hoarding in Tamil/English asking for buying original Microsoft Products+their recent raids in CBE.)by not taking necessary steps like reducing the OS cost and raids.

I Hate M$ for its FUD(fear,uncertainity and doubt) Program Sponsored allover the World against GNU,FLOSS and Linux.A Malyali was one of the Inventor and in-charge of its FUD program.that proves Microwsoft goes well beyond making buggy softwares.

I Hate Microsoft and their allies(means most 3rd party s/w) for making innocent teens their fanboys!It is the case with Mac computer users also.(but cant blame them 2 much as they are having in their inner mind "me bought it for 1 Lakhs Plus Rs,so mine is the best" policy-pls dont bring mac mini here,thats another story)

I Hate Micorsoft for threatening Windows OS dependent Governments like South Korea they withdrew their crap from those markets!

and more.

Linux is the past,Present and Future AND No MCSE certification will make you feel top of the world.

[jack// ani]

I love microsoft.No matter how costly their OS is!

oh...so will you buy vista of 20000 buck....and tell me who is gonna buy, alteast i'll never!!

microsoft products are way too costly.....and yes i'll never buy that crippled starter version, which they dump in india at low cost.

[anandk]

woah - quite an intellectually stimulating discussion going on here ! ;)

point accepted : for developing countries, their products do appear expensive ! but for some reasons, ms just dznt want to consider a differential pricing policy for developing countries. maybe they have their reasons !

a great idea :idea: for MS would be to make WINDOWS 98 as FREEWARE !

its an old os, but with a little bit of sprucing-up work done, and by re-branding it as say 'Windows Basix', they should distribute it as a freeware (not open-source, as that could open up other sorts of proprietoral problems for ms) in the developing countries.

Let the students, schools, colleges have this version. it becomes win-win situation. those who cant afford, have an easy-to-use os; and for ms, it will hook up the people to its windows platform. such a step would also curtail the tendency to go in for pirated software, which lets face it, IS VERY common. those who want to upgrade can always pay for xp or vista !

ms experiment of introducing the starter edition here, seems to have failed, as people started considering it as crippleware ! but something like making W98 a freeware might just be the revolutionary goodwill-winning idea for ms, whose time has come !

[drsethi]

windows and linux are friends now
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.html
Bill Gates now loves Linux!

[mediator]

@anandk : Making WIndow 98 a freeware won't help. Students, schools, colleges want a Stable operating system to work on and not an OS that crashes more time than no. of lines of code that a student can write ! Students want their data and educational information to be stored for long times. And 98 hang-ups quite frequently on startups itself. Even if the school,college is poorly maintained with no UPS they will be more frustrated by crashes,BSODs and hangups than the power failure!

[anandk]

^ maybe true. but a lot of guys STILL use win98. i am saying is that instead of such guys still using the pirated win98, 'spruce' it up and then release the re-branded and improvised version as a freeware (!). hey, its just an idea ... if they want a stable one well they then have to go in for an xp/linux/mac...

[mediator]

Yea that can be done and I respect ur idea! It can be used to play old windows 98 games like King of Fighters. well i play it today also :D !

[jack// ani]

well win98 is totally outdated....so it won't work anymore!! linux is future...

[ravi_9793]

I simply luv microsoft for its gr8 works.
They are master in providing stable software....and dont forget the history of microsoft who changed the computer world.They gave first user graphics interface operating system to the world(window 3.1)...and first dos operating system(MSDOS)

[subratabera]

And what we have given them, nothing:-).

[praka123]

I simply luv microsoft for its gr8 works.
They are master in providing stable software....and dont forget the history of microsoft who changed the computer world.They gave first user graphics interface operating system to the world(window 3.1)...and first dos operating system(MSDOS)
Are U sure of ur statements microsoft and stable softwares?"unstable" s/w i'd say.they are not the first to launch GUI OS.and MS-dos is a fork of pcdos?they got this fortune due to ibm made them partner for developing os/2 OS.

[EagerBeaver]

Lots of peoples in India still use Windows 98. I know some who even uses Windows 95. Making Windows 98 free may or may not be a good idea, who cares, but he must reduce his prices for Indians. Billy gates is stinking rich and peoples think he got so by overcharging for his pooor products. His IE sucks ! He is really unpopular. But I thinks we peoples hates him less then the foreigners, just checks the net for sites like http://toastytech.com/evil/billsucks.html Atlesat we peoples dont show like this disrespect openly.

[jack// ani]

well...the only reason i find people still using win98/95 is old hardware config....which can't support newer OS. Otherwise they themselves have to particular reason for using lousy Win98....after all everyone loves to move technology!!

yes...IE sucks, firefox is far better in all aspect!! so i'll never turn back to ie7.

[aryayush]

I simply luv microsoft for its gr8 works.
They are master in providing stable software....I won't say anything about this. If you find Microsoft sotware stable, good for you but...

and dont forget the history of microsoft who changed the computer world.They gave first user graphics interface operating system to the world(window 3.1)...and first dos operating system(MSDOS)... I simply won't agree with you here as this statement is wrong. The first mouse based operating system (GUI) was released by Apple Computers in 1984 and even they were not the inventors. Read this:
When the Macintosh was introduced in 1984, it represented something altogether new to the public – an affordable Graphical User Interface (GUI) on a computer with a mouse. Suddenly, while others were typing commands like “del index.com,” Mac users were dragging and dropping the image of a file into the image of a trash can. Users had a computer with an interface that made sense (intuitive). But although Apple was the first to successfully mass-produce a GUI, they were not its inventors, nor were they the first to market it.

The honor for producing the first working GUI goes to Doug Englebart – at the time an employee of Stanford Research Institute. Englebart and colleagues created a program called the oNLine System in 1965-‘68. This program used the first mouse, a windowing system, and hypertext, and was based on a description of a system called “memex” proposed by Vannevar Bush in 1945. The name “mouse” comes from this period. The mouse used in oNLine had three buttons on one end and the line coming out the other end. Apparently, the buttons for eyes and nose, plus a cord for a tail, reminded the users of a mouse and the name stuck. (More) (http://imrl.usu.edu/OSLO/technology_writing/004_003.htm)Source (http://imrl.usu.edu/OSLO/technology_writing/000_000_TOC.htm)

The only thing that Microsoft is good at, IMHO, is marketing - and when you are in a business, that is what counts the most.

[nikhilrao]

Exactly, jack/ani, in a poor country like India, very few can even afford to upgrade hardware so when will the spend money to upgrade software ? So then they still keep using 98. Forget the cities, go in towns --- u will see a lot of 98 still. If anyone want to use a better one like XP, whos is stopping people from BUYING it or using a PIRATED one as many here do !

And of course, EgerBeaver, he is stinky rich, but hey, he earned it. Whether by hook or by crook or luck or genius or not, it doesn't matter -- And he does give a lot of money in CHARITY, dont forget, dude. Heres a decent site http://www.zpub.com/un/bill/ about him, check out his house man no wonder guys envy :D him ! But bottomline I like and admire MS producst. :)

[anandk]

ya, the 'bill & melinda gates foundation' does a lot of charity. but some consider his philanthropic activities as just a PR exercise. but the fact DOES remain that he has given over $26 billion of his personal wealth to the Foundation and has pledged to give billions of dollars more to several dozen specific programs.

wonder what made warren buffet give 85% of his $44b fortune to the same 'bill & melinda gates foundation' !? their good work ??

[mihirvashist]

Their Ridiculously High Priced Software And Cheap Marketing/business Strategies Is The Only Thing I Don't Like Abt Them

[mehulved]

I don't hate MS as a company but yeah I hate quite a lot of their policies and practices.
Firstly, they introduce some very old technologies from other OS'es and call them something brand new.
Then they carry out some monopolistic practices.
So many times they leave their promises unfulfilled, just look at what Vista was promised to be and what is being released now is just a shadow of it. Agreed there are setbacks but so much cutting off is a bit insane to me. But, still I appreciate the fact that now, they have started focussing on security in the online world with a lot more seriousness.
Then, I am not at all in favour of their restrictive policies. You can't do any messing around with their softwares whereas they can do with the softwares of others cos the license of those software permits.

And I won't fall in any of those above 3 categories.

[vasulic]

I Love MIcroSoft

I AGREE with ravi_pintu2001@yahoo.com. Without Microsoft I cant imagine software development in India.

" People who shout at Microsoft'S high priced software have never used original ms software"

[Yamaraj]

1. Their (Microsoft's) policies are no more restrictive than any other Enterprise of that calibre. I wonder why Adobe, Oracle etc manage to slip by the nitpicking-radar of most. I fail to understand why the (even commercial) Linux distributions are allowed to ship various software on the same media, but Microsoft is sued for integrating IE for users' convenience.

2. SONY also practises monopolistic business, and their products are always overpriced. I don't see people criticizing and boycotting their products.

3. Vista, IMHO, is a failed project. It took much longer than anticipated, and they had to cut down on crucial features to release within a somewhat acceptable time frame. They learned their lesson this time.

Those who complain that Vista is expensive, have failed to realize that they're basically paying for "failed expectations". They have to feed the employees that were working on Vista for the last five years. Either pay the premium, or don't buy it. They'll eventually come to their senses and lower the price.

4. The whole Windows architecture is so twisted, tangled and complex, it needs to be designed again from the scratch. They can learn something from the simpler and more effective UNIX architecture, and I do hope they do that. Simplify, simplify!

5. Windows EULA bashing is not correct. Reverse engineering, disassembling and decompiling is not illegal is all cases. This is how various different office suites can read/write MS-Word (doc) files, even though Microsoft has not published the specifications. RE'ing for "interoperability" is supported by the court of law, both in and out of USA.

Just thought it was time to clear some fog.

[mediator]

" People who shout at Microsoft'S high priced software have never used original ms software"

I have original XP and Office 2000 CDs!! So its not about using original stuff! I hate MS-Windows and luv MS-Office. On contrary, I think some people who buy expensive and original MS stuff like such shout more with sarcastic statements.

[aryayush]

I Love MIcroSoft

I AGREE with ravi_pintu2001@yahoo.com. Without Microsoft I cant imagine software development in India.But what ravi_pintu2001@yahoo.com said was totally wrong. Microsoft did not invent the GUI nor did it come out with the first commercial OS that had a GUI. In fact, in it's entire existence, there have been very few examples of innovations done by Microsoft. However, Bill Gates, being one of the greatest businessmen of the century, has almost single-handedly taken Microsoft to such heights. It is all the result of an exceptionally shrewd business model.
And what role does Microsoft play in facilitating software development in India?

[planetcall]

You know what.... You talk of linux today only because Microsoft has revolutionized the meaning of computer and has made it possible for normal computer illetrates to use computer and be proud of their knowledge. It doesnt matter whether their softwares are secured or not but what I am talking of is the feet they have achieved in the field of computing in terms of popularity. Certainly we all should salute Billy for being the commander of such a revolution. No one knows the future. We dont know how long MS gonna stay at top but we all will remember how Microsoft became a household name.

http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/209190.gif

[abhishekkulkarni]

Because it's an extremely short-sighted and stubborn company which takes it's so-called customers ( atleast in India , there are very few Microsoft 'customers' ) for granted .

They develop an operating system which requires people to upgrade their Ram and Graphics hardware to Microsoft's specifications !!

A minimum of 512 MB of Ram and a DirectX 9 compatible Graphics adapter ? Mandriva 2006 runs in 128 MB of Ram on a standard onboard Graphics driver , for god's sake ..

Who ever heard of major a H/W upgrade to install an OS ??
I didn't .. :x :x

[jack// ani]

On contrary, I think some people who buy expensive and original MS stuff like such shout more with sarcastic statements.

ya....just to show off, how much they hate piracy....though they haven't bothered to use pirated stuff when nobody is around!!

thats the fact.......a more sarcastic one.
__________

They develop an operating system which requires people to upgrade their Ram and Graphics hardware to Microsoft's specifications !!


yes....this might be the major reason of vista failure, apart from its superfluous cost!! another good reason to call microsoft *myopic*.

vista is going to be huge a feast for piracy market, as never before.....already rtm version and crack of vista is flooded on the net!!

is vista as fiasco....?? time to tell....

[gxsaurav]

jack// ani

if u know about the crack, u also know that it will expire on may 31 2007, in other words, it is already proved to be a non working crack, & still vista needs to be activated for even this crack to work

[iMav]

all those wining abt hardware upgrades well ppl did upgrade their machines for dos to windows transition .... ppl hav to upgrade their machines to run softwares games thats y upgrades take place .... this is by far the most ridiculous comment tht softwares are developed which require ppl to upgrade and tht it is downfall for the software u cant be running xp on 486 monochrome monitor with edo ram (it can b done but onlyfor experimental purposes and the world knows doing tht wud b foolish for work purposes)

another part of ur comment tht it is a short sighted company .... well andy knows more abt MS than u do

[gxsaurav]

mav3, right said

OS hardly needs upgrading the hardware, lte me give u an example...Vista is relesing now..but it runs fine on a Pentium 4 /Athlon XP 2 GHz computer with 512 MB RAM, 7 onboard graphics...although u will miss features such as aero UI & better RAM management, but still for people running that old hardware from 2002/2003, atleast vista runs even at Windows Basic uI

[aryayush]

Yeah, what is this crap about upgrading hardware? Obviously, as and when technology progresses, the hardware will have to keep pace with the software and vice-versa.

Mandriva 2006 runs in 128 MB of Ram on a standard onboard Graphics driver , for god's sake ..Yes, but it does not even look remotely as cool as Vista does and BTW, even XP can run on that configuration. And Mandriva is SLOW on 128MB of RAM. No operating system released after 2000 can run well on 128MB of RAM and that's a fact.
And Microsoft is not forcing anyone to upgrade to Vista. In fact, they released the Vista upgrade advisor much before the launch of the OS so that people who don't have the requisite hardware do not waste money on the operating system only to find that it won't work on their PC. Moreover, MS is going to continue providing support for XP for another five years, at least. So, if you do not want to upgrade your hardware, their is no real need to upgrade the software either.

[s18000rpm]

i'm with you guys. :)

new HardWare means new Technology + Better Power Management(less consumption)....

& Microsoft hasn't said anything about COMPULSORY major Hardware upgrade.
If you want, then upgrade, its our choice. :)

even my Intel 915g + GMA900 can run Vista, but it'll be worthless to spend on Vista if i run it in this setup, coz i'll miss all the major goodies of Vista.

Vista is just taking the Advantage of the Technology the world has to offer. :D.

[aryayush]

You know what.... You talk of linux today only because Microsoft has revolutionized the meaning of computer and has made it possible for normal computer illetrates to use computer and be proud of their knowledge.No, it is not so. Microsoft came in the business to earn money and they did an exceptional job of it, no more and no less. How has Microsoft 'revolutionised the meaning of computer and made it popular for normal computer illiterates to use computer and be proud of their knowledge"? It is said that an industry without competition is a dying one and Micrsoft did nothing more than bringing serious competition into the technology market. Yes, they won the competition and are the most successful conglomerates in the world, but does it make Microsoft a good company worth patronising? I don't think so. They are just doing their business and it is no hidden fact that Microsoft's operating systems aren't the best there is. So, accept it. And BTW, no computer illiterate can use a computer with Windows on it, nor can he use one with any other OS on it. I know many people who are literate and can sit in front of a PC for two days and cannot get anything done. Yes, Windows is a tad easier to operate than Linux is, but that is just due to the widespread popularity it enjoys, not because it is inherently easy to use.

It doesnt matter whether their softwares are secured or notOh, it does. It IS what matters. In fact, whether the company is popular or not plays a very small and insignificant role when it comes to buying an operating system. What matters is things like whether it is secured or not.

Certainly we all should salute Billy for being the commander of such a revolution.Well, I patronise Bill Gates. He is a genius, but it does not mean his company shares the same trait.

but we all will remember how Microsoft became a household name.Two words: 'Bill Gates'!

[sarandigit]

I think these are the two reasons why MS is hated, to b right apperas 2 b hated?
1. It is very user friendly that anyone can use it So, people who don't know much about computers also use them. If they are not able 2 acheive what they intend to do they put the blame on MS, not accepting the fact that it was their ignorance that caused the fault.
2. There is a notion that experts use unix while novice people use MS. To just show case that they are experts people tend 2 say that they hate MS.

[aryayush]

Oh those are the two most ridiculous reasons I have ever seen and they are certainly not true, specially the second one. People do not use UNIX based operating systems because they want to show that they are experts. In fact, a Macintosh is a UNIX based operating system and it is much easier to use than Windows is. And Linux is also not too difficult, though it is more difficult than Windows (specially for people who are accustomed to the Windows way of getting things done). People who don't know how to use it tend to use it because it is the only option, not because it is easy to use. If someone does not know how to use a computer, he is obviously not going to buy a comparatively expensive Macintosh and he is definitely not going to try Linux becuase (1) it is not easily available for a person who is unfamiliar to the internet; (2) the general consensus is that it is VERY difficult to use (which it is not). So that leaves such people with the only option of Windows, which is very widely and freely available and is recommended by almost everyone. In fact, I can name fifty people I know right now who do not know what Linux or Macintosh is and they've been using Windows for years.
So please don't give such unacceptable reasons for people hating Microsoft. People do not like them because they make crap software, which is a truth and is not changing anytime soon.

[busyanuj]

woah ! of a total of 45 ppl who voted till now, only 10 are anti-M$ ?

and it was taken for granted that digit forums were full of M$-haters !

equally interesting is to note that 20 ppl appreciate M$ while 15 are neutral.

[mediator]

^^^Thats becoz people often confuse windows haters with MS-haters! ;)

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Because it's an extremely short-sighted and stubborn company which takes it's so-called customers ( atleast in India , there are very few Microsoft 'customers' ) for granted .

They develop an operating system which requires people to upgrade their Ram and Graphics hardware to Microsoft's specifications !!

A minimum of 512 MB of Ram and a DirectX 9 compatible Graphics adapter ? Mandriva 2006 runs in 128 MB of Ram on a standard onboard Graphics driver , for god's sake ..

Who ever heard of major a H/W upgrade to install an OS ??
I didn't .. :x :x

Huh! Who said you to upgrade???? Stay with your configuration if you don't want to keep pace with latest technology trends. With time customer expectations from OS has become more and more demanding. You could very well stick to NFS I. Why are people opting for NFS Carbon, Crash, etc? Because gaming has taken a BIG leap forward. Gamers demand more realistic games, which implies more stable operating system needs and more compatibility.

[busyanuj]

^^^Thats becoz people often confuse windows haters with MS-haters! ;)
true.

[max_demon]

try pirating if u hate MS
:D
lol
this will suck microsoft

[tarey_g]

Well I like MS products and have been using them from a long time, currently the only thing that looks like crap out of the box is Zune, wtf were they thinking, no way its gonna affect ipod in any way :p . But i don't hate MS for this reason, coz i nither have ipod/zune and not going to get one soon.

BUT the reason I hate MS is that they delay the PC release of Halo games too much, grrrrrr . curse u . grrrr

[subratabera]

OK. Let's assume two situations...

Suppose...
1) Linux does not exist.
2) MS softwares must be purchased to be used (can't be cracked).

Then what do you think the majority of people will do???

1) Leave the computer world!!!
2) Buy the software they can't afford by selling their assets!!!
3) (Tell me if you have any other option...)
(Now think what Linux can offer in such situations)

MS doesn't try to understand this situation in countries like India where majority of people are so poor that they can't afford buying their software. You already know when something becomes so popular, the price of that thing comes down to affordable range for common people (we can see this in the case of hardwares, services like telephony and various others) but that's not the case with MS products. Operating System is an unavoidable part of any computer system. So don't you think that MS should reduce the price of their OS to affordable range, so that everyone can use it? This can benefit common man as well as MS also. That, I think is the real cause for hatred.

Also don't forget to answer my questions...

[planetcall]

There are many who like to criticize for the sake of it. Microsoft has been accepted to be more user friendly than mac or linux or any other OS and that is not me saying it. Yes, recently there have been many improvements in other Operating Systems which has made them more acceptable to the computer noobs and professionals equally. No matter what the popularity of windows is the ultimate proof to falsify any comment. Security does matter to you and me but there is a big number of noobs which outnumbers others, who dont know much about security and keep getting infected. They dont think of switching to linux because they are addicted to Microsoft and its availability of softwares. Indeed the architecture of Microsoft is inferior to Linux but it has to be accepted that it is numero uno because people have selected to use it.....be it pirated or legal. Linux is free yet they choose for windows for its wide popularity only. Even today a noob wont find help easily for linux but the same on windows is easily available. There are reasons to hate MS but certainly I am speaking of Windows. It indeed has revolutionized computing with its ultra popular Operating System. Ask those million users if they want to switch.
http://www.smiley-channel.de/grafiken/smiley/technik/smiley-channel.de_technik014.gif

[abhishekkulkarni]

all those wining abt hardware upgrades well ppl did upgrade their machines for dos to windows transition .... ppl hav to upgrade their machines to run softwares games thats y upgrades take place .... this is by far the most ridiculous comment tht softwares are developed which require ppl to upgrade and tht it is downfall for the software u cant be running xp on 486 monochrome monitor with edo ram (it can b done but onlyfor experimental purposes and the world knows doing tht wud b foolish for work purposes)


Dos to Windows ??
Do you even understand what you're saying ? Dos was a command line based OS . Windows is a GUI !
There has to be a hardware upgrade to use a GUI !!
Your example is way out of context with the point I attempted to raise .

The same goes for your example of a game and the obvious hardware upgrade required !
I'll buy all that hardware for playing a particular game ONLY if I am a gamer .
I'll buy an OS because I want to USE the computer , not because I want to indulge in something extraordinary !!

I have 256 Mb of 333 Mhz Ram . The only thing I lack in terms of Vista's out-of-the world requirements is a DirectX 9 based graphics adapter/card and around 512 Mb more Ram ( to run Vista satisfactorily ) . Any current OS , be it Solaris 10 or Windows XP , or SimplyMepis 6 ; runs fine on my config .
Is there any special reason I'll buy a Graphics card and Ram for Vista ( and on top of it purchase the OS ? ) ?
None . I'll stick to my Windows XP/FC which suits me just fine .

I don't need to use Vista ; it's Microsoft which needs customers who'll buy the OS and use it . Unless they've developed Vista as a charitable endeavour , which I think of as highly un-likely . :)



another part of ur comment tht it is a short sighted company ....

Selling your OS is business . And you should make a product which should be universally usable , with minimum possible pain for the user in the transition from an older version of the product to the newer version ( in this case Windows XP to Vista ) .

In Vista , I think Microsoft has lost it's USP - an OS for the world .

I don't think it possible that in India ( where only 10% of the total population is barely computer literate ) , people will spend thousands on buying hardware to use a OS .. :) Do you ?



well andy knows more abt MS than u do


One doesn't rate people's opinions based on other's knowledge !
It's a certain factor called common sense , which has lead me to think what I do .
And , for the record , I don't hate Microsoft . I love Windows XP .
It's a certain OS called Windows Vista that evokes the hate and subsequently , the dislike for Microsoft as a company .. :)


Huh! Who said you to upgrade???? Stay with your configuration if you don't want to keep pace with latest technology trends.
We aren't talking about my hardware upgrade fetishes ( if any exist ! ) , here .
We're talking about the reasons for which we dislike/like Microsoft .

[aryayush]

Microsoft has been accepted to be more user friendly than mac or linux or any other OS and that is not me saying it.OK mate, you show me TWO knowledgeable people who have used both Mac and Windows and did not find Mac easier and more intutive to use than Windows. I am not asking for many people (or even a few), I am just asking for two people. I would have asked for one, but it is easy to find one nutter somewhere.
It is a universally accepted truth that the Mac OS is easier to use than Windows (be it 98, XP or Vista) and given that you have not used a Macintosh, you can't honestly say that Windows is the easier one. Windows is easy to use, no doubt, but a Macintosh can give it a run for its money anyday. I can give you a few examples right here:
1) You install applications by dragging them into any folder on your hard drive on a Macintosh. You can even move them around after installing them and you can even move them around or rename them while they are in use. Uninstalling is as simple as deleting the application. Just try doing that in Windows. And BTW, one application means one file, just one. Not a whole folder full of DLLs and NFOs and what not.
2) Shortcuts (or 'aliases', as they are known on a Mac) are dynamic and intelligent. You make a shortcut to any file, folder, application, whatever and then move the original file to some other folder on Windows. Your shortcut will break, while it won't on a Macintosh. You click on the alias and it will still take you to whatever you had linked it to.
3) Can you see the desktop on Windows without clicking anything or pressing any key? No, you can't. Well, you can on a Macintosh. Just drag your mouse to a pre-assigned corner of the screen and all the windows are cleared away to show you the desktop - no clicks, no key presses. In windows, if you have ten windows open and you click on 'Show Desktop' and double-click on any icon on the desktop or perform any action in general and then click on 'Show Desktop' again, it won't restore your Windows. You have to manually restore all ten of them. On a Mac, you hit the corner again and all the windows slide gracefully back onto the screen in the background even after you have lauched ten applications and fifteen folders since invoking the 'Show Desktop' option.

... I could go on for at least fifty points but this post is already very off-topic. But I hope you get the general idea. Windows is not even close to a Macintosh in terms of user-friendliness. :)

[iMav]

OS is not supposed to make users upgrade their systems ... man this is by far the dumbest statement i heard in my 21 years of existence and u hav just set the threshold .....

a little advice though opinions are not based on knowledge or facts wen debating follow rule no.1 make sure of ur facts dont giv opinions they hamper ur stand on the issue

common sense has led u think tht MS who is headed by the world's richest person is a short sightd company ..... i hv heard tht for sustaining a business u cant be short sighted and MS has been numero uno in terms of wealth for soooooo long how can it be short sighted theres something wrong i think in most our senses

bhai mere dx 10 cards aa rahe hain aur tu idhar dx 9 cards ke baare mein ro raha hai .... OS's need to set benchmarks for other apps that are gonna be used on it .... y go for xp also

to run a game u will upgrade ur hardware but for an OS u wont y the hell did u buy the config u hv .... dos runs on 486 perfectly well windows 98 is a beauty on p2 ....

[Kiran_tech_mania]

We aren't talking about my hardware upgrade fetishes ( if any exist ! ) , here . We're talking about the reasons for which we dislike/like Microsoft .

Things get more tougher when one don't remember what they said earlier and due to which we should show off our 1337 skills.

Anyways...Here it goes....Copy of what u said...

They develop an operating system which requires people to upgrade their Ram and Graphics hardware to Microsoft's specifications !!

A minimum of 512 MB of Ram and a DirectX 9 compatible Graphics adapter ? Mandriva 2006 runs in 128 MB of Ram on a standard onboard Graphics driver , for god's sake ..

My reply...

Huh! Who said you to upgrade???? Stay with your configuration if you don't want to keep pace with latest technology trends. With time customer expectations from OS has become more and more demanding. You could very well stick to NFS I. Why are people opting for NFS Carbon, Crash, etc? Because gaming has taken a BIG leap forward. Gamers demand more realistic games, which implies more stable operating system needs and more compatibility.

What made you to think that my reply was not related to your above earlier post? It is pretty clear cut that OS should ask for such compatibility upgrades because of people's demand for high-end games.
HIGH END GAMES===>HIGH END OS That's why you see upgrades to Direct X.
If you are pointing towards Vista compatibility issues, let me tell you...
Vista is made more Secure, more stable and includes Aero interface. Vista can run on a GMA950 Graphics Card (Basic Graphics Card), 512MB RAM which has become almost common these days and around 2.6GHz CPU. Where is the problem here? Hardware prices are dropping rapidly and one could get a Vista compatible system at normal rates. If you can recall, the same thing happened at the time of release of Windows XP. But today you will see it in almost all Windows based OS.

[iMav]

saurav bhai yeh fight club hai

[gxsaurav]

woops, sorry, deleting it;-)

[aryayush]

Umm... what had you posted?

[tarey_g]

The only thing I lack in terms of Vista's out-of-the world requirements is a DirectX 9 based graphics adapter/card.


The dx9 card is not compulsary , u can use vista without dx9 support too . The next gen gui is not forced , u can use vista very well with older cards. Vista gui doesn't just do simple tranparency , it uses the effects like the frosted glass look which uses the 2.0 shaders, and many things which i have no idea of , maybe some 3d artist in the forum will be able to tell. This opens a whole new playground for the skin and theme makers ,and i am sure how awesome results are the wincustomize ppl and community gonna produce with vista.

[allwyndlima]

Isn't Vista supposed to be backward compatible via DX9.0L update for older machines? :rolleyes:

Personally I have no qualms with this company or it's products as such.In fact it's the only OS which I have tried out in my entire Computing life cycle.Never gave a hand at Linux but since people have begun to tag Ubuntu as a more friendly version will see if it is worth the reviews it has got.Until then XP is a standard.

[gxsaurav]

DirectX9L

DirectX 10 will run DirectX 9 apps in software mode, as it is not compatible directly with DirectX 9, however those running a DirectX 9 graphics card with vista will be running DirectX 9L which is basically a layer between DX10 & DX9 on DX9 Hardware

U will loose at max (according to MS) 5% performance in thos mode, it won't affect that hard, so it is hardly anything to worry about

With Vista, the Whole UI is a 3d layer, anything is possible. This same is done with MacOS X Quartz & Linux XGL

[aryayush]

Given the speed at which Microsoft's operating systems run, it does sound like something to worry about if it will be further reduced by 5%.
However, if you do not have a decent machine with at least a mid-range graphics card and 1GB of RAM, do not upgrade to Vista. It offers little beyond the obvious eye candy. The live search is cool, but Google Desktop Search does a better job and is faster. It is not as well integrated with the system though.
If you do not have the hardware muscle for Vista, just install Google Desktop and Windows Media Player 11 and you have almost all the new functionality in Vista.

[abhishekkulkarni]

This same is done with MacOS X Quartz & Linux XGL

Hmm , interesting ..

Am going off the topic here , but is Linux XGL the base for Mandriva 2007 ?

Just read a few moments ago that Mandriva 2007 has a 3D desktop environment called 3D Cube , analogous to Vista's 3D flip ..

[Yamaraj]

If you do not have the hardware muscle for Vista, just install Google Desktop and Windows Media Player 11 and you have almost all the new functionality in Vista.
Yeah, right! Just like installing an Aqua theme on XP to have all new features of OSX.

I hope you weren't serious. Vista has a completely rewritten networking and audio stack, improved I/O, scheduling and memory management. It also has improved threading, Windows Installer 4.0, system restore, speech recognition, scripting and font support. Not to mention the new shell, search facility, IIS7, DX10, new firewall with IPv6 support, user-mode (ring3) drivers, virtualization, NX support, SMB 2.0, stack and head overflow detection and prevention, new apps and games.

Good luck having these new/improved features on WinXP with a couple addons installed.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

[rollcage]

for --- BSOD

[escape7]

I am neutral towards them.
P.S. : To people who crib, if u don't like it don't use it ~simple~

[aryayush]

I hope you weren't serious. Vista has a completely rewritten networking and audio stack, improved I/O, scheduling and memory management. It also has improved threading, Windows Installer 4.0, system restore, speech recognition, scripting and font support. Not to mention the new shell, search facility, IIS7, DX10, new firewall with IPv6 support, user-mode (ring3) drivers, virtualization, NX support, SMB 2.0, stack and head overflow detection and prevention, new apps and games.

Good luck having these new/improved features on WinXP with a couple addons installed.I am sure you must have used the first release candidate of Vista Ultimate? I have so I do know what features are new and what aren't.
After you install Vista, the first thing you will notice is of course the improved GUI and Live Search. Then you will notice Windows Media Player 11 (if you haven't already used it on Windows XP), Photo Gallery, Internet Explorer 7, Mail, CD/DVD burner and the new games (and new look of the older ones). In this whole list, only the Photo Gallery seems worth updating. You can get WMP and IE for XP also, though why someone would want to use IE is beyond me. Windows Mail is just a rechristened and stripped down version of Outlook Express and I would prefer Outlook Express any day. What was the need to remove the calendar and task scheduling features? Just so that you get customers to pay for Micrsoft Office? And I bet you won't be using the included CD/DVD burner quite that often, there are much better options out there. And don't get me started on the new games. Have you seen them? Okay, the face-lifted versions of the older games look quite good but the new games are just so crap. Make a cake? Even my little sister got bored of it.
These were the new apps. And the new features include a re-designed Control Panel. I don't know who is coming up with the ideas for the design of the Control Panel, but that guy seiously needs to take a lesson or two about interface design. Thank God there is the feature of being able to search the Control Panel, otherwise you could end up wasting a few minutes everytime you want to find some control.
Other than that, there is the Live Icon feature which is not applicable for your documents, pictures, videos or music - the folders it would have been most useful for. And even for folders that it does apply to, it only shows two previews. I found it serves no other purpose than merely being eye candy.
And do you like the extremely obtrusive UAC restrictions? I am sure that if they haven't improved it in the final version, many users are going to permanently turn them off, resulting in an even more insecure system than Windows XP - because they will tend to have a false sense of security.
And why doesn't 'Connect to' directly show you your connections in the start menu like they used to in XP? Why do have to go to the additional trouble of staring at a windows, selecting the desired connection and then hitting 'Connect'? And if there is only one connection, why isn't it selected by default so that you can just hit return as soon as the window opens?
Why can't we select a default view for all our folders? The default view is 'List view' in most folder and if you want to take advantage of Vista's high resolution scalable icons, you have to open every folder and manually do so. Why can't Microsoft simply add an option to do some setting for all folders at once? Why can't MS be intutive in at least some of the things it does!

As for the features you mentioned, such as 'a completely rewritten networking and audio stack, improved I/O, scheduling and memory management. It also has improved threading, Windows Installer 4.0, system restore, speech recognition, scripting and font support. Not to mention the new shell, search facility, IIS7, DX10, new firewall with IPv6 support, user-mode (ring3) drivers, virtualization, NX support, SMB 2.0, stack and head overflow detection and prevention' - all of these are changes to the back-end that MS has done and we have to take their word for it. It's great that they have done all these things to improve their software and that it has made Vista quite stable (yes, it is much more stable than previous versions of Windows), but you do not notice them in general usage.
And anyway, I am nor implying that Vista is not worth upgrading to or any such thing. I am always in favour of having the latest and greatest, which is why I tried the RC1 release the day after it was made publicly available for downloaded - even though I am not a Windows user. I was just saying that if you do not have the moolah to upgrade youtr hardware to include a semi-decent graphics card and 1GB of RAM, using XP will be a much better option than struggling with Vista. I used the word struggling because I installed Vista on my PC which has 2.66GHz Intel (single core) processor, 512 MB of DDR 400 RAM and an XFX GeForce 6600GT 256MB graphics card, and it was dreadfully slow.

[gxsaurav]

I am sure you must have used the first release candidate of Vista Ultimate? I have so I do know what features are new and what aren't.

If U know what features are new in vista other then just the applications, u wouldn't be saying this


Windows Mail is just a rechristened and stripped down version of Outlook Express and I would prefer Outlook Express any day. What was the need to remove the calendar and task scheduling features?

Have u ever used Outlook 2003? The features u are telling about were never in Outlook Express, calender & task scheduling were never in outlook express, they were only in Outlook. Windows Mail is a modified version of Outlook not stripped down, better not use a vista....when u don't know how to find "Whats new"

And I bet you won't be using the included CD/DVD burner quite that often, there are much better options out there.

Customar is always free to install whatever application they want. People whine when a feature is not included, they again whine when a feature is included

And the new features include a re-designed Control Panel. I don't know who is coming up with the ideas for the design of the Control Panel, but that guy seiously needs to take a lesson or two about interface design. Thank God there is the feature of being able to search the Control Panel, otherwise you could end up wasting a few minutes everytime you want to find some control.

Look again, the options are given in catogaries, that is how it is made


Other than that, there is the Live Icon feature which is not applicable for your documents, pictures, videos or music - the folders it would have been most useful for.

Live Folders, update themselves on the fly, don't understand what u r talking about?

And do you like the extremely obtrusive UAC restrictions? I am sure that if they haven't improved it in the final version, many users are going to permanently turn them off, resulting in an even more insecure system than Windows XP - because they will tend to have a false sense of security.

It's upto the user to decide, emabling UAC is better anyway for noobs, for power users who knows how to use the OS, they won't need UAC

And why doesn't 'Connect to' directly show you your connections in the start menu like they used to in XP? Why do have to go to the additional trouble of staring at a windows, selecting the desired connection and then hitting 'Connect'? And if there is only one connection, why isn't it selected by default so that you can just hit return as soon as the window opens?

Something i filed as a bug, i agree with u

Why can't we select a default view for all our folders? The default view is 'List view' in most folder and if you want to take advantage of Vista's high resolution scalable icons, you have to open every folder and manually do so. Why can't Microsoft simply add an option to do some setting for all folders at once? Why can't MS be intutive in at least some of the things it does!

Just set a folder, the way u want it to look like, now go to tools->folder option ->View tab-> Apply to all folders

Now all the folders everywhere look just the same

As for the features you mentioned, such as 'a completely rewritten networking and audio stack, improved I/O, scheduling and memory management. It also has improved threading, Windows Installer 4.0, system restore, speech recognition, scripting and font support. Not to mention the new shell, search facility, IIS7, DX10, new firewall with IPv6 support, user-mode (ring3) drivers, virtualization, NX support, SMB 2.0, stack and head overflow detection and prevention' - all of these are changes to the back-end that MS has done and we have to take their word for it. It's great that they have done all these things to improve their software and that it has made Vista quite stable (yes, it is much more stable than previous versions of Windows), but you do not notice them in general usage.

Does it matters, there are many things running in all the OS , behind the curtains, it does matters but is transparent to the user

[tarey_g]

^^ agreed with gx.

[Kiran_tech_mania]

@aryayush..

I think you have NOT studied Vista properly. Most of the quotes you made doesn't make sense because it is not true. gxsaurav pointed out all the flaws in your review.

But still I see many advantages which you just never discussed! Why didn't u review advantages? Finding flaws is easier, but except few, all were not at all justified. Rather than simple GUI features which you pointed out, there are several other aspects in Vista.

Here it is.....!

1. There are many security based features that are implemented in Vista. One among those being security change w.r.t users. User Account Control and users now run in a 'protected' mode. Any system change like that of malware intrusion prompts you with a warning from Windows Security that needs user approval.

2. One more important security update being that of firewall. Unlike Windows XP, which is a One-way inbound firewall, Vista's firewall is a two-way firewall means protection from both inbound and outbound traffic.

3. Third security enhancement includes BitLocker drive encryption. One can apply group policy settings using User Account Control that prevent data transfers to removable devices like flash drives and CD's.

[ray|raven]

It is said that Vista doesnt start installation unless it has 15gigs of free hard disk space.
If someone could tell me the sudden increase of space requirements over its predecessor which took atmost 2gigs means that vista has somany new features?

all i can say is that an OS that installs 15gigs of files is either badly coded or rarely uses any of those files.

[mediator]

^^ Vista uses DX9 and high end graphics. So 15 gigs may mean large number of high quality image and video files. I dunno much about VISTA but it may have some large number of applications too just like Linuxes have. Bad coding is also a reason though as u said, I've also heard from some sources that MS C++ compilers generate some unnecessary code leading to large output files. Dunno how true it is.

Neways VISTA delay is good for me. Most of mah friends upgraded their PC's to latest duo cores. Huh now quad cores will be the trend n I'll be showing them off. Just have to wait for prices to fall and VISTA isn't out yet !! :D

[ray|raven]

@mediator
Vista comes with the highly awaited DX10 also known as Windows Graphics Foundation.
the release candidates and beta versions contain a modified version of DX9 to produce the 'Aero' effect.

[aryayush]

Have u ever used Outlook 2003? The features u are telling about were never in Outlook Express, calender & task scheduling were never in outlook express, they were only in Outlook. Windows Mail is a modified version of Outlook not stripped down, better not use a vista....when u don't know how to find "Whats new"Oh, my bad! You are right and I made a mistake here. And rest assured, I won't be using Vista.

Customar is always free to install whatever application they want. People whine when a feature is not included, they again whine when a feature is includedNo one is whining about including a software for burning CDs and DVDs. I am merely saying that you are likely to use Nero or Roxio anyway, so XP will suffice for the job too.

Look again, the options are given in catogaries, that is how it is madeI find this amazing that you did not find the new Control Panel messy and wrongly designed. There are two-three options that open up the same dialog box. Instead of one 'Mouse' button, there are three links which open up the same dialog box. And the grouping is also wrong is many cases. If I want to change the settings for 'Windows Slideshow', the last place I would look for is 'Hardware and Sound'. And a search for slideshow does not yield any results either. User Account Control is clearly supposed to be a security feature, right? Then why doesn't the security tab in the control panel have the option of turning it on or off? You have to go to user accounts, select a user and then turn it off. I had to use Windows help to find it and I don't think anyone would think of looking for it there. They have just taken the control panel from Windows 98 and made almost everything a two-or-three click affair from the one-click job it previously was - and that is never a sign of good interface design. Maybe you like it but I haven't met many people who do.

Live Folders, update themselves on the fly, don't understand what u r talking about?I was talking about Live Icons. These icons show a live preview of what is inside the folder.

It's upto the user to decide, emabling UAC is better anyway for noobs, for power users who knows how to use the OS, they won't need UACOh, is it? Then why does the OS keep sending me periodic reminders that my computer is not safe because the UAC controls are turned off? Why is it so deeply hidden into the settings? Even in standard procedure (when you know where the control is), it takes six clicks and a restart to turn it off. Why do we need to restart the whole system!

Just set a folder, the way u want it to look like, now go to tools->folder option ->View tab-> Apply to all folders

Now all the folders everywhere look just the sameOK. Thanks for the info! I had asked it on Vista's official chat room and no one seemed to know how to do it. But I still find this implementation a bit funny. I mean you first set the view for one folder and then go to folder view options, which in itself takes three clicks, and then select apply to all folders. It is not the most obvious thing one would do. The options for setting the view of one folder and then applying it to all must be in the same dialog. Something like this:

http://www.tachypic.com/thumb/2733.jpeg (http://www.tachypic.com/view/2733)

[gxsaurav]

I find this amazing that you did not find the new Control Panel messy and wrongly designed. There are two-three options that open up the same dialog box. Instead of one ...............

Ok this would be a personal choice, so better leave this

I was talking about Live Icons. These icons show a live preview of what is inside the folder.
Wait a sec, live folders do show it, what happened to your Vista installation? In my case, Vista RC1 does shows thumbnails of what’s inside a folder, although I disabled this feature as I don't like it

Oh, is it? Then why does the OS keep sending me periodic reminders that my computer is not safe because the UAC controls are turned off? Why is it so deeply hidden into the settings? Even in standard procedure (when you know where the control is), it takes six clicks and a restart to turn it off. Why do we need to restart the whole system!
Well, yeah....this is how u do it I guess. Even in other OS security features are hard to shut down, just cos they are supposed to be turned on. Security centre informs u that UAC is disabled, cos this is its job, it's supposed to tell u, if your system lacks something in security...in this case disabling UAC does means reducing the security. Like is said, Power users will disable both UAC & security centre, but vista is supposed to be for all of the users out there even those with less knowledge of computer OS or new users

I mean you first set the view for one folder and then go to folder view options, which in itself takes three clicks, and then select apply to all folders. It is not the most obvious thing one would do. The options for setting the view of one folder and then applying it to all must be in the same dialog. Something like this:
This depends from OS to OS, in Windows u have the option to customize the folder individually or all at one go, it's in Folder options. The image u posted below is the same implementation but in Mac, I don't find anything funny here with any of these OS, don't know about U. All windows users know where this option is...it's even in the control panel of Vista

[aryayush]

Well, yeah....this is how u do it I guess. Security centre informs u that UAC is disabled, cos this is its job, it's supposed to tell u, if your system lacks something in security...in this case disabling UAC does means reducing the security. Like is said, Power users will disable both UAC & security centre, but vista is supposed to be for all of the users out there even those with less knowledge of computer OS or new usersOK, so basically, if UAC is turned on, it will bug me everytime I want to install some software, download a file, run any executable, change the time, or whenever it feels like popping up and saying hello. And if it is turned off, it will still bug me every half an hour or so, begging me to turn it on. The whole world knows that UAC is the biggest mis-iplemented security feature in Vista and I can give you links to various reviews if you want me to. I am not saying that it cannot be improved in the final version, it most probably will. But at present, i.e. in the release candidate 2, it is very intrusive.

Even in other OS security features are hard to shut down, just cos they are supposed to be turned on.I do not wish to start an OS vs. OS debate here but I am just showing you this screenshot because you mentioned 'other OS':

http://www.tachypic.com/thumb/2742.jpeg (http://www.tachypic.com/view/2742)

You need to check/uncheck 'Require password to unlock each secure system preference' to enable/disable security akin to UAC on Vista - and it needs just three clicks and no restart from the desktop to do so.

[gxsaurav]

lolz.....u whining about how many cliks to do a job is the funniest thing i have ever heard..like i hardly care if it's 2 or 3

The "Require password...." feature in MacOS X is same as UAC I would say, just that UAC doesn't need u to enter a password, like i said above, & saying it again, Power users who knows how to use their computers & OS will disable it & security centre anyway, those who don't...well, it is meant for their protection, if they don't like it, still they can google it & disable it, no one is stopping them


OK, so basically, if UAC is turned on, it will bug me everytime I want to install some software, download a file, run any executable, change the time, or whenever it feels like popping up and saying hello. And if it is turned off, it will still bug me every half an hour or so, begging me to turn it on

Yup, bugging a new user or noob is better then letting him screw his OS, don't forget the old saying

Intel Inside, Idiot outside :D

[aryayush]

lolz.....u whining about how many cliks to do a job is the funniest thing i have ever heard..like i hardly care if it's 2 or 3The number of clicks you need to get things done is the most basic determinant for analysing how intutive an user interface is. And if one operating system gets the job done in three simple clicks and another one requires six clicks and a restart, I don't need to stress which one has a better UI. By saying that I am whining about it and that it is a negligible topic, you are just excusing yourself out of a pervasive flaw in the Windows operating system, lack of intutiveness.

Yup, bugging a new user or noob is better then letting him screw his OS, don't forget the old sayingWhy are you dragging this 'new user' into the discussion? Are you a new user? Am I a new user? No. Then is it OK to bug us? I don't think so.
And BTW, how does having to click 'OK' before installing any new software help prevent a person's computer? Since Vista always pops that dialog whenever you want to install ANY application, including those developed by Microsoft itself, the user will never pay attention to it whenever he clicks on an executable. He will simply hit return - and if that software has a virus bundled with it, the user is going to get infected by it, whether there are UAC controls or not and irrespective of whether the guy is a newbie or a seasoned veteran. UAC is total crap and irritating as hell!
And BTW, 'new user' and 'noob' essentially have the same meaning. :D