Windows Vista--Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-20-2007, 09:48 PM
Mojo

Ok, being the computer dork that I am, I have to throw my hat in here.

First off, I don't own a copy of Vista, aka Mac OS X vB (if you don't think Mickeysoft stole ideas from Apple on this one, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT6YO30GhmQ

It's pretty funny, and illustrates my point as well!) I've tinkered with it a bit in stores, and it does look a lot nicer than XP. Of course, all that slickness will put the hurt on your system's resources, as has been mentioned. This is why Vista, unlike previous versions of Windoze, requires that you have a dedicated video card. Otherwise, all the power it takes to run all those purdy graphics would slow your PC from crawl to stop. I've heard though that Vista runs better than XP on the same box. Again, I haven't tried this myself.

On my PC, which I haven't booted up in almost a year, I run XP Pro and Linux. Yes, I am a Mac guy. I keep the PC around just in case I need to run something like AutoCAD, or for the odd bit of gaming I might want to do. I was in the habit of about twice a year doing a 'nuke and pave' (delete Windoze partition, recreate, and reinstall the OS) because the computer invariably slowed down too much for me, and running defrags didn't help enough. It's worth mentioning that I had no tolerance for system performance degradation, thus the blasting of the PC. I also ran XP with most of the slickness turned off - I made it look like Win 2K, and it helped speed things up.

As far as Linux goes, it is something I like to tinker with from time to time, but lets face it - OSX is Unix-based, like Linux. It is VERY stable, and I can run most of the same commands from a command line if I wanted to. I can also run X-apps under X-windows if I want to. I even hear that a lot of the big-time Linux geeks are going over to Macs for these very reasons. So why mess with an OS that, quite frankly, you need to be at least a little bit of a C programmer to fully appreciate (Unix, which Linux is based on, was originally written by C programmers, and the commands and syntax reflect this heavily)? I don't know jack about programming, and I doubt I ever will.

Which leads me to the reason I finally had it with XP, and started using my Power Mac G5 full-time. Securty. My XP box is probably the most stable MS box I've ever used. That's not saying all that much, but I'll give credit where it's due - XP Pro runs better than 98 ever did. What it still fails in is the ability to surf the net with near impunity. I know better than to click at will on emails and attachments while in the MS OS environment, but it seems like if your computer is even connected to the net, you'll pick up some form of spyware. Not a problem with Macs. Yes, there are firewalls and anti-spyware apps you can run, but there is ALWAYS something that WILL get through eventually. Hackers/crackers are smart - they will find the loopholes.

I know it sounds like I'm totally bashing Microshaft, but I'm not. I think they're moving in the right direction by getting rid of some 'legacy' support. Those old, buggy, and largely unused drivers cause nothing but problems, and bloat your OS to boot. People complain about having to upgrade, but you know what? Deal with it! When I was doing tech support back in '99, I got calls from people who were still using WINDOWS 3.1 (Windows 95's predecessor, which came out in the mid-'80s) ON A 386!!!!! That is completely ridiculous, especially considering how cheap new computers are! And lets face it, most people don't need the top-of-the-line PC. They just surf the net and type emails, so these $500 PCs are just fine for them. Oh, and on the Mac side, you can get a Mac Mini for a bit more than that, and it's fine for the same purposes, if not better due to the security of Mac OS. Plus, it's smaller than the average textbook! Don't look for workstation-class performance and upgradability though - it's a bit limited in that respect.

One of the reasons that Macs are so stable is that Apple controls both the hardware AND the OS, so they can write better drivers for their stuff! They even write the drivers for some 3rd party hardware (nVidia's Mac graphics cards come to mind). They also wrote the drivers to use when you install Windows on your Intel-based Mac, which is why I keep hearing how much better Windows runs on Apple computers! If MS stopped supporting so much old hardware and software, I bet a lot of the stability problems would disappear, probably some of the security ones too. The other thing, and I don't know exactly how this works, is that Macs seem to be able to use just about any hardware you plug into it in some capacity, no driver install needed. Like I said, I don't know exactly how that works, but if MS is going to copy Mac OS, shouldn't they try to get the really helpful stuff in there, not just the slick look? I have to say, that pen drive thing is a pretty cool idea. My only concern with that one is that the USB port can't transfer data as fast as modern memory busses, so it'd help, just not nearly as much as throwing the equvalent amount of dedicated memory into your system!

One last axe to grind - MS needs to give it up in the copy-protection department. I'd wager that most people get a new OS by getting a new computer that comes with it pre-installed, which kind of precludes piracy in most cases, unless they want to put an older OS in there, which probably isn't even sold anymore! The 'product activation' is nothing but a pain. Like Gate$ needs any more money. That's like saying the oil companies are near-bankruptcy.

Ok, this has become a novel, so I'll cut out here! Sorry if it was a bit of a thread hijack! :HJ

Joe
06-21-2007, 06:25 AM
Bruno

Hi Mojo,
I realize that by now I am starting to look like a MS shill, but I have experience with both windows and unices and there are 2 sides to every story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

It's pretty funny, and illustrates my point as well!) I've tinkered with it a bit in stores, and it does look a lot nicer than XP. Of course, all that slickness will put the hurt on your system's resources, as has been mentioned. This is why Vista, unlike previous versions of Windoze, requires that you have a dedicated video card. Otherwise, all the power it takes to run all those purdy graphics would slow your PC from crawl to stop. I've heard though that Vista runs better than XP on the same box. Again, I haven't tried this myself.

Vista will not use the eye candy on slower computers. I have heard that it runs just fine on machines that run XP.
It was the same with XP. XP runs fine on boxes that could run W2K.

Remember when Quake3 was developed? there was an uproar that ID from then on only supported hardware rendering, forcing you to have a 3D card for playing games. there was a lot of noise, but what most users failed to consider is that by then pretty much all graphics cards had integrated 3D.

Likewise, any videoboard that was made in the last x years will have no problem with Vista.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

As far as Linux goes, it is something I like to tinker with from time to time, but lets face it - OSX is Unix-based, like Linux. It is VERY stable, and I can run most of the same commands from a command line if I wanted to. I can also run X-apps under X-windows if I want to. I even hear that a lot of the big-time Linux geeks are going over to Macs for these very reasons. So why mess with an OS that, quite frankly, you need to be at least a little bit of a C programmer to fully appreciate (Unix, which Linux is based on, was originally written by C programmers, and the commands and syntax reflect this heavily)? I don't know jack about programming, and I doubt I ever will.

ANY operating system out there is written in C. Linux, the BSDs, windows, AIX, Sun, IRIX, ...
C and a sprinkle of assembly language is what makes an OS.
Linux might be stable, but XP is just as stable. I have not used Vista long enough to have a solid proof, but it hasn't crashed since I installed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

What it still fails in is the ability to surf the net with near impunity. I know better than to click at will on emails and attachments while in the MS OS environment, but it seems like if your computer is even connected to the net, you'll pick up some form of spyware. Not a problem with Macs. Yes, there are firewalls and anti-spyware apps you can run, but there is ALWAYS something that WILL get through eventually. Hackers/crackers are smart - they will find the loopholes.

I have had my computer connected to the internet since 8 years, and I have not had a single virus or worm hit my computer.
I don't bother with having a virus scanner. every year or so I go through the troubles of finding an up to date scanner, do a scan and find nothing.

If you are connected to the internet through a router (which is a NAT box really), all ports are closed by default, meaning that NOTHING can make a connection from outside.
Windows XP has a personal firewall (enabled by default in SP2) which has the same default: nothing gets in by default.

With those 2 things you can surf to your hearts content and not be afraid of a virus.
The major infection vector is still the user at the keyboard, clicking on everything he gets from anywhere without bothering to read dialog boxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

And lets face it, most people don't need the top-of-the-line PC. They just surf the net and type emails, so these $500 PCs are just fine for them. Oh, and on the Mac side, you can get a Mac Mini for a bit more than that, and it's fine for the same purposes, if not better due to the security of Mac OS. Plus, it's smaller than the average textbook! Don't look for workstation-class performance and upgradability though - it's a bit limited in that respect.

The security issue is non-exsistant imo.
It is small, but it also tends to overheat and make an unholy noise because of the heat controlled fan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

One of the reasons that Macs are so stable is that Apple controls both the hardware AND the OS, so they can write better drivers for their stuff! They even write the drivers for some 3rd party hardware (nVidia's Mac graphics cards come to mind).

They may have apple engineers working at nvidia to help them with the OS integration, but they do not write the driver core.
Nvidia does not share that, plus there are hundreds of manyears of work in that core. apple is not going to rewrite that.
Nvidia's drivers are already top quality btw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

They also wrote the drivers to use when you install Windows on your Intel-based Mac, which is why I keep hearing how much better Windows runs on Apple computers!

no they didn't. they may supply you with approved drivers, but if you install windows, you get the normal windows drivers.
Not surprisingly, the major reason windows runs so well on an apple workstation is that it contains A grade materials that is not found in most beige boxes.
so-> no flaky drivers, and no flaky hardware.
My own private workstation (built myself) also has only A grade high end components. It cost 2500$ for just the case and the components.
Performance is awsome and the system is rock solid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

If MS stopped supporting so much old hardware and software, I bet a lot of the stability problems would disappear, probably some of the security ones too.

the majority of the problems is proven to be caused by crappy third party drivers and cheap hardware that causes system problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

The other thing, and I don't know exactly how this works, is that Macs seem to be able to use just about any hardware you plug into it in some capacity, no driver install needed. Like I said, I don't know exactly how that works, but if MS is going to copy Mac OS, shouldn't they try to get the really helpful stuff in there, not just the slick look?

that already works. the problem is that is your hardware is newer than your windows version it won't have the drivers so you have to install them.
The reason it works even better on macs is that apple makes sure that apple hardware works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

I have to say, that pen drive thing is a pretty cool idea. My only concern with that one is that the USB port can't transfer data as fast as modern memory busses, so it'd help, just not nearly as much as throwing the equvalent amount of dedicated memory into your system!

It is not meant to be used as RAM. think of it as a faster swap drive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

One last axe to grind - MS needs to give it up in the copy-protection department. I'd wager that most people get a new OS by getting a new computer that comes with it pre-installed, which kind of precludes piracy in most cases, unless they want to put an older OS in there, which probably isn't even sold anymore! The 'product activation' is nothing but a pain.

buisnesses exist to make money, not to be charitable. the stock holders would ditch their shares if microsoft didn't try to make as much money as possible.
all companies do this. It's just that Microsoft is one of the few large companies that has a direct impact on your day to day life.
our process control software is developed by a large US company. it is a widely used system in the pharma industry and other systems with high availability requirments. their licensing policies are extortionate. they make microsoft look like a charity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

Like Gate$ needs any more money. That's like saying the oil companies are near-bankruptcy.

he doesn't need more money. that is why he is giving it away at a high rate.
read up on the bill and melissa gates foundation.
06-21-2007, 03:47 PM
azjoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

I think they're moving in the right direction by getting rid of some 'legacy' support. Those old, buggy, and largely unused drivers cause nothing but problems, and bloat your OS to boot. People complain about having to upgrade, but you know what? Deal with it!

Well, I for one completely disagree with the notion of forced upgrades. Why should people who, as you say,

Quote:

... don't need the top-of-the-line PC. They just surf the net and type emails, so these $500 PCs are just fine for them.

be forced to spend $200+ for an OS upgrade? I don't think you'll find that legacy drivers are the major cause of bloat... rather I believe it's new software feature bloat that is requiring us to buy new PCs with faster CPUs and more memory and disk... and the majority of the bloat is in the OS. Think what all this is costing businesses and consumers who must constantly upgrade to new hardware and software, spend time and money on training, etc. just to support the overhead of new software features most don't use. For example, .NET has probably cost the civilized world far more than it can ever be expected to save.

There was a time (in the dark ages of computer history) when operating systems were fairly sleek. Software required to support specific hardware devices and/or run specific applications was purchased with the hardware/application. Somehow almost all that "stuff" has migrated into the OS... and created the bloated things we have now. The reasons are complex and rooted mostly in business trying to maintain proprietary rights to the interfaces to their operating systems, hardware manufacturers trying to reduce programming costs, etc., etc. But if you step back and look at it objectively today, one has to ask if the pendulum hasn't swung to far... and perhaps now the tail is wagging the dog!

As a software vendor I greatly resent operating system vendors (such as Microsoft, Apple, and even the open systems guys) that drop support for internal features that then require me to buy new development tools and rewrite my software products... just so they'll run on a newly purchased PC or operating system. This increases my costs which, in turn, increases the costs to my customers... all with no value added.

I guess constantly rewriting software keeps a lot of us employed, but in the bigger picture that might actually be considered a form of lost productivity. IMHO, consumer acceptance of planned product obsolescence, coupled with its throw-away mentality, will turn out to be key factors in economic woes which will become problematic for highly industrialized nations in the future.
06-21-2007, 04:26 PM
JoshEarl

So it all comes back to King Gillette and his throw-away razor... :D

I'm greatly enjoying this thread, even if it's about six miles over my head...

I will agree with Bruno about viruses, though. I've been using a PC daily for more than a decade, and I've never gotten a virus. I have used virus software off and on over the last few years, but I didn't feel it was necessary. (I have gotten some spyware and adware, but they're more of a nusance than a threat.)

I ordered my new laptop last night, and it should arrive in a week or so. I did opt to upgrade to the full Vista Home version, and I bumped up my RAM and processor speeds to help make up for the extra demands of Vista...

Thanks for all your help, everyone! I'll let you know how I like Vista.

Josh
06-21-2007, 04:52 PM
scarface

Thanks, Josh -

Be sure and let us know how much it sucks!

(...just my $.000000000000000002....)

-whatever

-Lou
06-21-2007, 04:58 PM
JoshEarl

I will! :D

Josh
06-21-2007, 08:59 PM
Mojo

Hmm, I guess I probably should clarify a few of my points! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

Hi Mojo,
I realize that by now I am starting to look like a MS shill, but I have experience with both windows and unices and there are 2 sides to every story.

I don't think you sound like a MS shill, just someone who knows what they're talking about!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

Vista will not use the eye candy on slower computers. I have heard that it runs just fine on machines that run XP.
It was the same with XP. XP runs fine on boxes that could run W2K.

From what I understand, the basic version doesn't even include the candy. As said in my post, I think Vista looks nice. I also said that I'd heard that it runs better than XP on the same box, but I can't verify that myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

Remember when Quake3 was developed? there was an uproar that ID from then on only supported hardware rendering, forcing you to have a 3D card for playing games. there was a lot of noise, but what most users failed to consider is that by then pretty much all graphics cards had integrated 3D.

Oh yes, I remember that! I also remember that if you weren't using a 3D card for gaming by then, you probably were hating life! :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

Likewise, any videoboard that was made in the last x years will have no problem with Vista.

Yup, from what I understand, my ATI 9800 XT will work just fine with Vista, and I got that 3 or 4 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

ANY operating system out there is written in C. Linux, the BSDs, windows, AIX, Sun, IRIX, ...
C and a sprinkle of assembly language is what makes an OS.

My point on this one was that the commands you'd input at a command prompt have C language syntax, and thus are bit archaic to us non-programmers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

I have had my computer connected to the internet since 8 years, and I have not had a single virus or worm hit my computer.
I don't bother with having a virus scanner. every year or so I go through the troubles of finding an up to date scanner, do a scan and find nothing.

This is also the case with my Windows boxes. I've never had a virus either. My security concerns lie with spyware, which you can pick up just by going to a website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

Windows XP has a personal firewall (enabled by default in SP2) which has the same default: nothing gets in by default.

I remember reading on more than one occasion that the firewall had been breached. I'm sure MS has since fixed that (it was some time ago), but as I said, hackers are always working on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

The major infection vector is still the user at the keyboard, clicking on everything he gets from anywhere without bothering to read dialog boxes.

Agreed!!!! I also think that, aside from drivers, the majority of computer problems in general stem from

1. People seem absloutely terrified of their computers
2. Chair to keyboard interface issues ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

They may have apple engineers working at nvidia to help them with the OS integration, but they do not write the driver core.
Nvidia does not share that, plus there are hundreds of manyears of work in that core. apple is not going to rewrite that.
Nvidia's drivers are already top quality btw.

I agree about nVidia's drivers being top notch. I wasn't trying to imply that Apple re-wrote them from scratch, just that they have a hand in writing the Mac version. Indeed, nVidia drivers are distributed straight through Apple's software update function. To my knowledge, ATI does it themselves, and you have to update directly with ATI. There's gotta be a little weirdness between Apple and ATI, now that ATI is owned by AMD, and Apple gets their CPUs exclusively from their archrival!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

no they didn't. they may supply you with approved drivers, but if you install windows, you get the normal windows drivers.
Not surprisingly, the major reason windows runs so well on an apple workstation is that it contains A grade materials that is not found in most beige boxes.
so-> no flaky drivers, and no flaky hardware.
My own private workstation (built myself) also has only A grade high end components. It cost 2500$ for just the case and the components.
Performance is awsome and the system is rock solid.

I understand that when you install Windows, you get its set of drivers. The ones I'm talking about are the drivers that Apple's Boot Camp app installs for Windows to run on Apple's hardware. My PC was also built be me, and for about the same price as yours, but mine's about 3 or 4 years old, I can't remember exactly. I bet yours is newer. I'm a big advocate of building your own - they do seem to be a lot more stable and powerful!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

the majority of the problems is proven to be caused by crappy third party drivers and cheap hardware that causes system problems.

I'm with you on that one, but I do think that MS generic drivers at times are as bad, if not worse, than some 3rd party drivers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

that already works. the problem is that is your hardware is newer than your windows version it won't have the drivers so you have to install them.
The reason it works even better on macs is that apple makes sure that apple hardware works.

It's more than just Apple hardware - so long as I have the proper port, I can plug pretty much ANYTHING into my Mac and it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

It is not meant to be used as RAM. think of it as a faster swap drive.

What I was trying to imply about the pen drives was that if you regularly need the extra memory, install RAM. The pen drive makes for a good band-aid in a jam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

buisnesses exist to make money, not to be charitable. the stock holders would ditch their shares if microsoft didn't try to make as much money as possible.
all companies do this. It's just that Microsoft is one of the few large companies that has a direct impact on your day to day life.

Trust me, I know this first hand. It's why I'm currently looking for a new job. Gotta love corporate downsizing! I'll stop right there on that one, because I could go into quite a tirade on how stupid THAT move is....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

our process control software is developed by a large US company. it is a widely used system in the pharma industry and other systems with high availability requirments. their licensing policies are extortionate. they make microsoft look like a charity.

Again, I know all about that! cough AUTODESK cough And yikes did Adobe jack the price up on Photoshop/Illustrator/etc!!!! My whole point on the copyright stuff is that I believe that most new copies of an OS are sold with a new computer, not aftermarket, thus piracy isn't really going to be as much of factor as they'd have you believe, nor is every pirated copy of software a lost sale as they (software companies in general, not just MS) love to state in their statisctics to try to justify more and more invasive anti-piracy measures. What's more, I'd have a pretty hard time trusting a pirated OS. I mean, if these guys are good enough to crack it, who knows what they've added? Backdoors, for instance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

he doesn't need more money. that is why he is giving it away at a high rate.
read up on the bill and melissa gates foundation.

I know he doesn't need any more money. From what my fiancee, an accountant, learned in school, Bill Gates' taxes are so complicated, and the dollar values so high, that the IRS needed to create a system just to handle it! And let's not give Gates too much credit here. Yes, it's a good thing to be charitable. But it's not like he gets nothing in return. He needs to give away tons of money, because if he didn't, he'd get RAPED in taxes. Not only is it a nice tax break, it's good PR as well. And Bill put a shelf life on the foundation. IIRC, it dies when he does - just in time to no longer need the tax breaks, or the PR. Bill's a business man, and business men DO NOT just give away money without some expectation of a ROI (return on investment), be it tax breaks, PR, or attracting new business. I know there are exceptions, but he isn't one of them.

Just so you guys don't think I worship the ground that Steve Jobs walks on, and I don't, by the way, he's a business man too, Apple's iTunes file encryption pisses me off as well - and it's pretty pointless. All you have to do is burn the song to a CD, and re-import it into iTunes, and the newly imported file will have ZERO encryption on it. Not only that, but I've seen software that'll strip the encryption off without burning it. I know they were kowtowing to the record companies to get them to allow Apple to sell the music on the net, but this is ridiculous. I'm sure not being able to use hardware other than an iPod with iTunes would piss me off as well - if I didn't have an iPod.

</soapbox>

Joe
06-21-2007, 09:39 PM
Mojo

Quote:

Originally Posted by azjoe

Well, I for one completely disagree with the notion of forced upgrades. Why should people who, as you say, be forced to spend $200+ for an OS upgrade?

Maybe I should clarify my point. I definitely disagree with forced regular upgrades. My point isn't that people should be forced upgrade their OS every time a new one comes out. It's that the new OS shouldn't be forced to support hardware/software that only a handful of people are still using. That's not to say that they shouldn't support more recent stuff though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by azjoe

I don't think you'll find that legacy drivers are the major cause of bloat... rather I believe it's new software feature bloat that is requiring us to buy new PCs with faster CPUs and more memory and disk... and the majority of the bloat is in the OS. Think what all this is costing businesses and consumers who must constantly upgrade to new hardware and software, spend time and money on training, etc. just to support the overhead of new software features most don't use. For example, .NET has probably cost the civilized world far more than it can ever be expected to save.

I agree with you, for the most part. The drivers are not the major source of bloat, but I can't help but feel that support for hardware/software that's around a decade old not only bloats the OS in terms of extra libraries and code needed for the support, it invites LOTS of room for error (read: bugs), and probably stifles innovation to some degree, if for no other reason than it would cost too much to throw the new features in, then try to make it not interfere with the older stuff, then debug the whole thing, and expect it to be a cohesive, user-friendly and stable package.

Quote:

Originally Posted by azjoe

There was a time (in the dark ages of computer history) when operating systems were fairly sleek. Software required to support specific hardware devices and/or run specific applications was purchased with the hardware/application. Somehow almost all that "stuff" has migrated into the OS... and created the bloated things we have now. The reasons are complex and rooted mostly in business trying to maintain proprietary rights to the interfaces to their operating systems, hardware manufacturers trying to reduce programming costs, etc., etc. But if you step back and look at it objectively today, one has to ask if the pendulum hasn't swung to far... and perhaps now the tail is wagging the dog!

I think I know what you're saying here. If I'm getting you correctly, Microsoft's DirectX would be an example of this. I remember when graphics cards supported a specific graphics language, usually proprietary to the vendor, or pretty close to it. Now, it seems that they pretty much just support DirectX and OpenGL. It has its ups and downs. If all the hardware vendors are on the same page, it makes it easier for game programmers and the like to create their goodies, and not have to try to work in support for several different grahpics languages. I'm sure you can give a better example than me. I didn't really get into the computer world until late 1996, and I'd wager a guess to say that things had already changed for the most part by then, or were at least well on their way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by azjoe

As a software vendor I greatly resent operating system vendors (such as Microsoft, Apple, and even the open systems guys) that drop support for internal features that then require me to buy new development tools and rewrite my software products... just so they'll run on a newly purchased PC or operating system. This increases my costs which, in turn, increases the costs to my customers... all with no value added.

I guess constantly rewriting software keeps a lot of us employed, but in the bigger picture that might actually be considered a form of lost productivity. IMHO, consumer acceptance of planned product obsolescence, coupled with its throw-away mentality, will turn out to be key factors in economic woes which will become problematic for highly industrialized nations in the future.

This is why I said that they should support features for a reasonable amount of time. If they're dropping all of these features with every new release and forcing everyone who needs those features to completely uproot themselves, their business, and employees by deploying and learning new software, yeah, that's not right. But I'm assuming that you're not creating your latest, greatest software to specifically NOT take advantage of any of the improvements that the computers coming out within the past 5 years or so have to offer.

Joe (also from AZ)
06-21-2007, 11:47 PM
azjoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

This is why I said that they should support features for a reasonable amount of time. If they're dropping all of these features with every new release and forcing everyone who needs those features to completely uproot themselves, their business, and employees by deploying and learning new software, yeah, that's not right. But I'm assuming that you're not creating your latest, greatest software to specifically NOT take advantage of any of the improvements that the computers coming out within the past 5 years or so have to offer.

There are plenty of people who use their computer for specific applications (be it grandma reading email from her grandkids or one of the thousands of applications in retail, security, process control, etc.) that haven't needed to be changed one iota in the past 10-years EXCEPT for changes necessary to run under later versions of Microsoft's (or who-ever's) environmental software (ie, OS, database engines, etc.). To be simple-minded about it, if the software application is to open a door when someone pushes a button there's little need for any of the recent wiz-bangs that tend to make the geeks salivate.

It's one thing to drop support for a disk drive or graphics card that hasn't been manufactured for over 10-years. It's quite another thing to discontinue support for embedded software processes and methodologies used by other software. As a real life example, MS dropped support for some things in Access (which is delivered primarily as part of the MS Office package) in the latter part of the 1990s or early part of this decade. That required a change in Visual Basic to redo all the controls to use a different methodology. And that resulted in lots of application programs being re-written to use the new VB structures and database access methods. Its analogous to what would happen if Exxon-Mobil deciding to change the nature of gasoline and make it incompatible with all existing cars.

And so, when Microsoft does these types of things, every application vendor has a choice to make... create a new version of their application compatible with the latest Microsoft stuff OR go out of business. Oh... and also they also get to tell existing customers they will need to spend $200 to buy a new version of the operating system or $300 for MS Office, etc., etc. ... all so they can continue running the $50 application you sold them which has no new features. When MS announced .NET... virtually nothing remained constant thru that migration. Personally, I said screw MS and re-wrote my applications to use an embedded database engine and said to hell with Access and .NET both. And you're wrong... I specifically decided to NOT use any .NET features so I could abandon Microsoft completely if need be.

And so, that nearly 10-year old application has kept running. I have customers using it on every version of Windoze from Win95 thru XP. My customers don't see a need to upgrade anything... it does what they want just fine as-is. But if they want to replace a failed PC or add a new workstation they're screwed now... because it doesn't run on Vista. And new PCs come with Vista, like it or not. When they ask, I tell them to call Microsoft and complain... and of course Microsoft tells them it's my fault. Yeah... right... it's my fault for not spending thousands of dollars for Microsoft products so I could remain compatible with Microsoft products. Duh?

BTW mojo, I started working in the computer business about 30-years before you... long before there was a PC and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were still in grade school. I've seen how the system works. IBM set the standard and everyone else has just re-invented it... over and over. In the end it's a business and marketing problem. Marketing (driven by the company's investors) just can't seem to accept that not everything needs to change and/or be replaced on a periodic basis just so they can sell more product. So they create (sometimes by devious and indirect methods) upgrades and new features and planned obsolescence schemes as a way to stimulate the replacement sales they need to meet their growth and sales goals. And who pays for this? Why the end-users and small businesses of course... we're all expected to spend a fortune to keep feeding the big guy's need for greed. That's just the way it is in this industrialized pro-business world we live in ;).
06-22-2007, 12:27 AM
Mojo

Quote:

Originally Posted by azjoe

It's one thing to drop support for a disk drive or graphics card that hasn't been manufactured for over 10-years.

This is more along the lines of what I was referring to. When I was talking about taking advantage of improvements, I was thinking more along the lines of hardware performance. I don't know what can be done on the software side. Like I said in my original post, I don't know jack about programming! :D

Joe

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page