Microsoft Vista Hidden Agenda Exposed-

I don't think preaching about Linux does anyone any good. I for one have resumed using XP on my desktop machine as Linux does not yet have the hardware support I want for my Home Theater PC devices. And I'm not terribly inclined to code my own drivers.

Every user has different needs. Many could migrate to Linux after a few months of reading books about it or something, but most prefer their point and click universe.

It's also kind of funny... you can always tell the users that switched to Linux in the past 5-10 years because it was the "cool thing to do" by how they refer to Linux.

XP will probably be the last M$ OS I use. Vista is just bloatware imo (DX10 is cool though, too bad no XP update for DX10... thx M$ ).

I'm getting my feet wet with Linux via UBUNTU, and will probably migrate (for everything except games) after I feel more comfy with it.

XP will serve me just fine for the foreseeable future.

I have bought my last Microsoft product... When I have to upgrade OS's it will be linux...

I no longer use office, open office is just as capable and free, firefox blows IE away, and the list goes on and on and on...

Just my 2 bits worth...

Originally posted by esecallum
I use windows Me and may upgrade to windows 2003 configured for desktops.

I wanted to take this post, and you seriously, but seeing as you are sitll using windows ME, I just can't do that anymore. Windows ME has to be the worst OS ever created.

edit: yes, Vista is bloatware.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by brigand]

Lmao, i know. I cant imagine anyone that would actually use Windows ME by choice.
When it first came out I put it on my pc, wthin two hours I had put 98 back on.

Originally posted by brigand

Originally posted by esecallum
I use windows Me and may upgrade to windows 2003 configured for desktops.

I wanted to take this post, and you seriously, but seeing as you are sitll using windows ME, I just can't do that anymore. Windows ME has to be the worst OS ever created.

edit: yes, Vista is bloatware.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by brigand]

(DX10 is cool though, too bad no XP update for DX10... thx M$ ).

You can't magically get DX10 to work on XP. It just won't work, the kernal just is totally diferant. Try turning Linux INTO Windows XP, it just won't work.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

could someone please decipher that into non "geek" language.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Badge01
Hey, listen dimwit, they inconvenience those who have purchased the material legally with the bloated code and copy protection stuff.

Dimwit? LOL

perhaps if you larned how to customize the program so it doesn't cause you problems... you wouldn't have any...

But hey that takes computer literacy not piracy. And here I thought ATS crowd was above this.. I should have known...

They can't even understand sarcasm...

Just hope YOU never have to worry about protecting something YOU created... but I guess creativity is lost in this crowd

Yeah, I got carried away. I've had a few programs that refused to work due to copy protection and if you know what you're doing you can reverse that, but it's annoying.

But I should not have to hack the programs that I purchased. It's the principle of the thing.

BTW, I apologized for that at the bottom of the page. The disgust is at MS not the poster to whom I replied.

It's possible to hack anything, including the OS, but it takes some time. It would be nice if there was a way to purchase a 'stripped down' version of Vista without all the copy protex and bloatware. Wouldn't be surprised if that comes out in less than a few months.

I'm looking forward for some uber-hacker to do a paper on just what the heck is going on inside Vista. That should be fun to read.

Ultimately I'll be installing my (legal) copy of WinXP Pro on another drive and setting up a dual boot. As I mentioned, when my PC got a malware several months ago I tried to reinstall XP Pro and though I paid extra for not having to 'activate' the software, the thing had the nerve not to let me in now, saying I needed to call MS. That is really annoying. I booted back over to Win2k.

I kinda like Vista but if it gets in the way then I'll just reboot into XP, which is going to be supported until 2013 or 2017 I forget which - it's longer support than proposed for Vista, that's for sure.

Thanks for the comments.

Best,


[edit on 6-4-2007 by Badge01]

Originally posted by elevatedone
could someone please decipher that into non "geek" language.

You CANNOT get Direct X 10 to work on Windows XP because it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Well first off I started getting into the first few lines of that and I already came across BS.

Disabling of Functionality

You buy an OS which dosn't support your hardware? Your fault.

Don't be silly. A user with a standard Lexmark printer Z715 buys a new PC and then learns that Vista does not support all Lexmark printers!

What the heck??

Then I learn that Lexmark does not intend to make a driver for Vista.

My fault? I don't think so.

There should be a reasonable expectation that Vista will support commonly available hardware.

In addition there should be an expectation that Vista and MS do not intrude on your PC and look at what monitor you have connected and then insist on sending you an update for that monitor. This was benign, but the point is, the OS is scanning my system for what's installed and then "helping me" to 'fix' things. (which are working fine now).

So there you are.

I think saying 'go to Linux' is specious.

What if you bought a car and learned it had a hidden camera in the dashboard and could report you for, say, talking on your cellphone (where it's not legal) while driving, or littering or speeding. Would you not be pissed off? I don't have bad or antisocial habits like this but it's an invasion of privacy and believe me that's being invaded all too quickly. I don't expect to spend money on a system which is working against me.

Originally posted by -0mega-
I don't see the big ruckus here.
There *will* always be cracks / patches / methods to circumvent (as said before) any protection, hell, anything in the world for that matter, so you can either complain here about how this or that is "teh sux", or you can simply do something about it.

No ''conspiracy'' to be found here if you ask me, I'd say this is plain logic.

[edit on 5/4/07 by -0mega-]

Though this is fine it's not without risk. Why should I have to take a risk and possibly damage my setup for something that I paid for. I mean, sheesh, I'd pay more if that's what it took to get a version of the OS without this crap in it. Make it available and people will buy it.

Is MS is SO FREAKIN' afraid of losing a few bucks to pirates that they don't turn out a quality product and instead have thousand of lines of code in it to thwart pirating and the code slows down the system of the legal users? That's not right.

Turn out a great product and so many people will buy it that the pirating will be insignificant (if it isn't already).

I mean c'mon, does BILL really need any more money? MS makes so much cash on this Beta-Test stuff (brilliant), and using us to beta test the stuff that I can't see why they are so worried about some pirating.

You're rolling in dough - do you really need to chase that quarter that rolled out into the street and down the sewer? Do you really need to dig up the freakin' street for a quarter dollar?

I think it's JUST A POWER TRIP on the part of MS. They don't care about the "lost revenue". They want to be IN CHARGE. (sorry about the caps, lol).



[edit on 6-4-2007 by Badge01]

I work for a printing/office supply company, and we've got about 35 computers in house. We've had several computers at work that have shipped recently with Vista, and, as lead designer, and IT guy, I'm usually the one asked to hook them up and get everything working properly. Well, the monitors and printers for the PCs we replaced worked fine, so we didn't order new ones. Our company also prints 3 part NCR invoices and receipts, so it requires an impact printer (read: old dot matrix printers). Impact printers take ribbon, and pretty much last forever. We've used some of these, by the looks of them, since the early 90's. Guess what? No support on Vista. NO way to get updated drivers. Strange, since XP runs them natively, without any added software.

This is just one periphial that we've had trouble with.

Being in the design department, I'm on a Mac (Dual G5), and even with all of the buggy font-management software, and other 3rd party hang-ups, these Macs have been, by far, the easiest to maintain, and the hardest to screw up, computers I've ever worked with. We also have a Linux file server (Suse 9.2.2). I have to say, it's easier to find some obscure driver or piece of software for a Linux machine (because someone has usually had to write one) than it is to find working solutions for some of the hang-ups in Vista!

Just like the article stated, MS is trying to gain what amounts to royalties for ANYTHING that any PC in the world does. It would be like, instead of buying paper and being done with it, the paper company demanding royalties from us on everything we print on their paper.

but the point is, the OS is scanning my system for what's installed and then "helping me" to 'fix' things. (which are working fine now).

Basically the Windows update service does this:
1: Downloads data from Microsoft website which sais which updates there are and what they do.
2: Scans through registry to see what things you've installed
3: Selects which updates apply to you and your applications
4: Shows them to you and there you can select what to install (Atleast on mine it lets me select )

Of course it dosn't work EXACTLY like that, but I guess that's rouphly how it works. If you don't like it; disable it:
Start--->run--->services.msc--->AutomaticUpdates--->disabled--->OK--->close.

A user with a standard Lexmark printer Z715 buys a new PC and then learns that Vista does not support all Lexmark printers!

What the heck??

Then I learn that Lexmark does not intend to make a driver for Vista.

My fault? I don't think so.

But why is he trying to use a printer which dosn't work with the Operating System in the first place? It's also Lexmarks fault for not making a driver for Vista.

Whenever I upgrade ANY part of my computer; including Operating Systems, I will research it and see it everything will work.

Is MS is SO FREAKIN' afraid of losing a few bucks to pirates that they don't turn out a quality product and instead have thousand of lines of code in it to thwart pirating and the code slows down the system of the legal users?

It slows the system down marginally, and on top of that, there is performance enhancing features of Vista.

What if you bought a car and learned it had a hidden camera in the dashboard and could report you for, say, talking on your cellphone (where it's not legal) while driving, or littering or speeding. Would you not be pissed off? I don't have bad or antisocial habits like this but it's an invasion of privacy and believe me that's being invaded all too quickly. I don't expect to spend money on a system which is working against me.

Unless you want tot get into Conspiracy theories, Microsoft dosn't watch what you're doing. Vista watches what things you've installed and tries to help you by giving them updates. It also attempts to stop piracy (Like that's going to work).

[edit on 7-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

[edit on 7-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

I get what everyone is saying about vista, but in terms of general home use and if you have a computer with anything more then a p3, and equal to 512 ram and a dx9 gpu you should be happy with Vista.

Ive been using vista since its early beta and it has certianly come a long way since this time last year and even though the drivers arnt fully developed it still deserves a second look by some people. MS are puching for vista to be used by so many people that eventualy there will be lots more drivers.

I get what everyone is saying about vista, but in terms of general home use and if you have a computer with anything more then a p3, and equal to 512 ram and a dx9 gpu you should be happy with Vista.

In my opinion, I would not attack Vista with anything less than a Core 2 duo E6300 (or any decent dual core), 2gb RAM (1gb is barely enough for XP to run well) and a decent 256 or prefebly 512mb videocard with ATLEAST 12 pixel pipelines and shader model 3 (X1950GT, 7800GT minimum as 128mb is NOT enough for any games, and shader model 3 is a must. Shader model 2.0b or below is slow).

Anything less and you'll get better performance on XP, at them specs or more, you'll get the same or better performance in most applications. That being said, currently, you may get lower performance in Vista on fast rigs as a huge amount of drivers are buggy and slow.

If anyone has below them system specs and complains, they are one thing and one thing only; a moron.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

I get what everyone is saying about vista, but in terms of general home use and if you have a computer with anything more then a p3, and equal to 512 ram and a dx9 gpu you should be happy with Vista.

In my opinion, I would not attack Vista with anything less than a Core 2 duo E6300 (or any decent dual core), 2gb RAM (1gb is barely enough for XP to run well) and a decent 256 or prefebly 512mb videocard with ATLEAST 12 pixel pipelines and shader model 3 (X1950GT, 7800GT minimum as 128mb is NOT enough for any games, and shader model 3 is a must. Shader model 2.0b or below is slow).

Anything less and you'll get better performance on XP, at them specs or more, you'll get the same or better performance in most applications. That being said, currently, you may get lower performance in Vista on fast rigs as a huge amount of drivers are buggy and slow.

If anyone has below them system specs and complains, they are one thing and one thing only; a moron.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Ok, first thing is that I said for home use, thats like general internet use and occasional playing of inkball etc... That type of thing doesnt require a powerful gpu esspecialy the ones you suggested.
A dual core cpu isnt a must, it works fine on most cpus and again if you are into serious gaming that would obviously change.
Your view is serously tanted if you think that you need min 1gig of ram for XP, 512 is more then enough. Even 1gig for vista is fine even for gaming, there isnt a great load of difference in the ram amount taken, If its a big problem turn off superfetch.
Lastly if you are trying to game on vista there is something wrong with you. Drivers arnt fully developed yet and shouldnt be expected to esspecialy since Vista was changing so much during beta that drivers wouldnt work propely on it.

-fm

Ok, first thing is that I said for home use, thats like general internet use and occasional playing of inkball etc... That type of thing doesnt require a powerful gpu esspecialy the ones you suggested.
A dual core cpu isnt a must, it works fine on most cpus and again if you are into serious gaming that would obviously change.

For any powerful applications on Vista Dual-Core is a must. Even in single threaded applications, you should get a particular dual-core processor; the Core 2 duo. Why? Because it also happens to be cheap, fast and efficiant even in single threaded applications.

Vista is also optimised for Dual-Core, if you run a Single core you're doing things it wasn't designed for.

Your view is serously tanted if you think that you need min 1gig of ram for XP, 512 is more then enough. Even 1gig for vista is fine even for gaming, there isnt a great load of difference in the ram amount taken, If its a big problem turn off superfetch.

As I said above, that's if you want a fast computer capable of handling all your applications with no problems at all. On XP, try playing STALKER, Battlefield 2, or Oblivion on computers with 512mb RAM; they'll run like crap. With 1gb it should smooth them out, though 2gb is preferable. On XP with even simple applications, you'll run out of Physical memory and then things will have to be loaded into the slow pagefile.

Lastly if you are trying to game on vista there is something wrong with you. Drivers arnt fully developed yet and shouldnt be expected to esspecialy since Vista was changing so much during beta that drivers wouldnt work propely on it.

I know, I use XP for gaming, and well, everything. The only thing I would use Vista for is Direct X 10 and Flight Simulator X. Flight Simulator X is significantly more smooth on Vista.

Renember, this is only my opinion and the computer I suggested can be had for under $1000 USD.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

The author of this article is a respected C/S and I have always respected his opinions..

en.wikipedia.org...

SD

[edit on 9-4-2007 by SD-JH543]

Well I took the time at work the other day and read the entire article, WOW I can't believe that Bill.G has sold out to the major studios. He will fight the US govt on anti-trust charges but yet will bloat his O/S with all this encryption overhead. I don't really care about HD video on my computer but I'm sure a lot of people will get an eye-opener. The sickest part is the fact that data like credit card numbers will get written to the pagefile as plain text, how insecure is that?
All HD video content has to be encrypted/unencrypted to display, no wonder the overall performance of VISTA is sluggish in comparison to XP.

This article is a must read for technical minded people that would like some insight into what the MS future holds in store.

SD

Originally posted by SD-JH543
The author of this article is a respected C/S and I have always respected his opinions..

en.wikipedia.org...

SD

[edit on 9-4-2007 by SD-JH543]

I just bought Vista *cries*

Not for personal use... I need it for my hardware development machine.

Is there a little red dot on the top of my head? No? Damn.