RSSMicrosoft to Alter Vista for EU, Korea
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 13, 2006, 12:23 PM
Microsoft issued a statement this morning saying it is going ahead with plans to release Windows Vista to volume licensees worldwide on November 30, as previously scheduled. There will be no further delays, even in Europe and Korea where competitors have recently raised complaints, but Microsoft will be making changes to Vista.
Microsoft indicated last month, it might have had to delay Vista's release in the EU in order to address concerns raised by the European Commission. Some of Microsoft's rivals had raised concerns there that some Vista features might be too exclusive, preventing customers from choosing alternatives from other suppliers. South Korea will also benefit from these changes, as the company has been facing antitrust proceedings there as well.
This morning, Reuters is citing unnamed sources close to the development process as saying that Microsoft's changes pertain to the ability for consumers to choose alternative features. The precise identity of those features was not named, but given the fact that the most vocal critics of Vista to date before the EC have been Symantec and Adobe, Microsoft may have chosen to give consumers the option of installing third-party security and document rendering features.
Whether Microsoft's openness toward potentially more lucrative features, such as media players and the Web browser, remains to be seen. Likewise, it's unclear whether these options will be featured only in European and Korean editions of Vista, or if they may apply to the North American edition as well.
While Microsoft painted a picture this morning of having appreciated the "guidance" it's received from the EC, general counsel Brad Smith cleverly made it clear that the revised edition may not necessarily have passed any commissioner's inspection.
"We recognize that the European Commission does not give 'green lights' for new products, and we have not asked for one," Smith said. "We appreciate the constructive dialogue we have had with the commission and the guidance the commission has provided," Smith stated. "Based on this guidance, we have made changes to ensure that we're in compliance with our competition law obligations, and we are moving forward to make Windows Vista available on a worldwide basis."
In a statement from Brussels this morning, the EC acknowledged Microsoft had informed it that it would not delay Vista for Europe, but wanted to make sure no one makes the mistake of thinking it had granted its blessing on the product.
"The Commission has not given a 'green light' to Microsoft to deliver Vista," the EC statement reads, "because, as the Commission has consistently stated, Microsoft must shoulder its own responsibilities to ensure that Vista is fully compliant with EC Treaty competition rules and in particular with the principles laid down in the March 2004 Commission anti-trust decision concerning Microsoft. In line with the Commission's obligations under the EC Treaty and its practice, the Commission will closely monitor the effects of Vista in the market and, in particular, examine any complaints concerning Vista on their own merits."
And btw when you have a OEM version of Vista you can only change the hardware once. If you switch stuff twice your licence expires and you are forced to buy a new vista.
Score: 0
*sigh*
It's also cheaper than the full retail version. it also has *all* of the features of the full version (minus the unlimited activations for the same PC).
As for hardware changes, you'd have to swap motherboards, or at least 3 devices (as a general rule) to trigger the activation routine, The hardware hash has a limit, but simply upgrading your Hard Drive or Video card isn't going to trigger it.
...talk about making it sound worse than it is.
Score: 0
that is as bad as it sounds.
why should you have to buy a new OS if you upgrade your computer often?
or even if you move your programs and OS to a different computer?
sounds like a scam to me.
Score: 0
If you often upgrade your computer (which 99% of the population does *not* do), an OEM license would be a horrible purchase.
Duh?
However, if you just need a new PC to support Vista, or don't intend to do any but the most necessary upgrades, and OEM license is a beautiful thing.
Scam? Only to someone who'll see scams where there are none.
To everyone else, it's a discount.
Score: 0
Quoted from PC_Tool
[The OEM version] is also cheaper than the full retail version. it also has *all* of the features of the full version (minus the unlimited activations for the same PC)
Who told you that the full version of vista has unlimited activations? What is "the same pc"? I hope you don't mean the forced mothly homecalls as free unlimted activations, because thats something else: spying, ransom and simply war on customers.
Score: 0
Who told you that the full version of vista has unlimited activations?
Unlimited, as in you can re-activate after changing your hardware with a phone call. It's well documented. Even trolls can find it.
What is "the same pc"?
The Same PC. The one you bought it for. Though it may change with hardware upgrades, etc. This one isn't really that hard to understand. Do you often have issues with reading comprehension, or is it just in relation to MS comments?
I hope you don't mean the forced mothly homecalls as free unlimted activations, because thats something else:
mothly? idiot.
Unlimited activations means unlimited activations, twit. I didn't say a *word* about WGA. Because that *would* be something else.
Score: 0
If you cease your insulting we can continue discussing here:
http://www.betanews.com/...ta_Transfers/1161045250
Score: 0
Yeah, I liked Microsoft much better when they were fighting antitrust allegations with the Department of Justice. That was about the time Windows 2000 rolled-out...still the best OS to date. I kind of had forgotten that until I recently re-installed W2K on a friends computer. The clean install took up less than 1 gig on the hard drive and runs like lightning. If Microsoft would just tweak W2K and keep the activation crap off of it they could resell it as "Windows Lite". That I would buy, Vista I will not.
Score: 0
good,
i like windows 2000, best OS MS ever made.
Score: 0
The point is, for those of us who choose to use Media Player Classic, Firefox, Spybot, etcetera, we have to install the OS *and* all the bundled s*** that comes with it. And then we find that half of it can't be uninstalled and just sits there stealing disk space. All the EU was wanting was a way to uninstall software that comes by default.
PC hardware manufacturers aren't allowed to ship linux on their PCs and enjoy the same level of discounts that they get from Microsoft for their windows PCs. If they ship linux, Microsoft simply stops offering them discounts on licenses for Windows. That's anticompetitive, no?
I installed Vista RC2. 14 gig. 14 gig of what? Why can't I uninstall any of this extra bloat? (clean install of Vista, my windows folder is 6.7 gig) that's about 10 times the size of Fedora, for instance. Which installs twice as fast, sees more devices than Vista currently does and contains a full office suite (OO), a complete IDE (Eclipse) and about 5 different media players and web browsers, IM clients, everything.
I want an OS that is just the operating system. It should manage my disks, manage my devices and provide access to my files and any software I choose to install. If it comes with software preinstalled then this should be optional and uninstallable. It should not be a condition of licensing to hardware manufacturers to include only the one web browser manufactured by themselves. And it should not be a condition of licensing to include only the one media player manufactured by themselves. And it should not be a condition of licensing for these items to not be able to be disabled by the hardware manufacturer.
Score: 0
i agree,
i think the EU only wants a fair market for ALL software.
and yes, MS has WAY too much bundled crap that doesn't give you options on install like it should.
Score: 0
Ask some guy on the street if he wants to pick and choose which components to install or if he just wants it to come installed and done.
I bet he goes for the former.
Just because *you* want it that way, does not mean the target MS customer feels the same. In fact, I'd hazard to bet that the target MS consumer feels pretty much the opposite regarding *most* computer details than you do.
I admit. I'd love to have the option as some sort of advanced installation routine. But they didn't write it for me. They wrote it for folks like my Mom, Dad, sister, or my wife...who couldn't care less. Regardless of what I tell them.
...and my brother uses a Mac, so he's hopeless. :P
I'd rather they focus on making it work for *them* (less work for me) than making it work for *me* (A hell of a lot more work for them, and since I'm their tech, me.)
Score: 0
So what's wrong with having an "advanced" button? I have no problem with Microsoft bundling software with its OS, same as I have no problem with Redhat/Debian/SuSE doing the same. I *do* have a problem with you not having a choice what gets installed. _Every other OS_ offers the chance to choose what you want installed when you install that OS. If that was a feature that people didn't want, then people wouldn't have written it, surely?
This isn't about asking some guy on the street about anything. This is about freedom of choice. Sure, I can choose not to use any of the bundled s***e that comes with Vista, but it's all still there. And at a recommended 20 gig for a clean install, I think it might be a very good idea to be able to remove stuff, don't you?
Or are you still on your "I'm a PC professional" power trip? :P
Score: 0
lmao...
blah blah blah...
Same s***, different poster.
So what's wrong with having an "advanced" button?
Why on earth would you code a setup routine not even 1/10th of the userbase would consider using? THAT would be stupid.
_Every other OS_ offers the chance to choose what you want installed when you install that OS.
Every other OS is seen as more of a PITA to install than Windows by the greater majority of users as well. Huh....
Or are you still on your "I'm a PC professional" power trip? :P
Considering my main point is that it is *not* me they are writing the OS for, I'm thinking....not. But you just couldn't resist the childish urge to throw in a lame insult, could ya?
Score: 0
"Why on earth would you code a setup routine not even 1/10th of the userbase would consider using? THAT would be stupid."
maybe you don't realise how many programs windows xp comes with that you will NEVER use.
including those in every install would be stupid.
Score: 0
> Same s***, different poster.
No idea what you're on about. I just see your posts on almost every single comment thread and they're remarkably uninformed for one who claims to have knowledge ;)
> Why on earth would you code a setup routine not even 1/10th
> of the userbase would consider using? THAT would be stupid.
Because 1/10th of their userbase equates to about 20 million users. Which, at say $100 bucks a pop equates to a cool $2bn in revenue.
> Every other OS is seen as more of a PITA to install than Windows
> by the greater majority of users as well. Huh....
Firstly, the great majority of PC users *won't* be installing Windows. Like ever. PC manufacturers aren't allowed to ship CD copies of XP with their preinstalled and licensed hardware. They are also only allowed to customise Windows in certain ways. They are NOT allowed to include firefox, disable IE or include a different media player. THAT'S MY POINT. Tsk.
Secondly. OSX/Various linuxes all install in about half the time XP takes to install, have this option and work equally well across their respective hardware.
> Considering my main point is that it is *not* me they are writing
> the OS for, I'm thinking....not. But you just couldn't resist
> the childish urge to throw in a lame insult, could ya?
Nope. You seem to read things other people post, rearrange their words in your head to mean something different and then rant about that.
Score: 0
For a clearer picture of things:
http://www.microsoft.com...-13-06VistaRelease.mspx
Score: 0
There are many out there that are flatly against Microsoft. They'll never even look at the Windows operating system with an open mind, and if they do run it they'll run it under and emulation or OS on OS like Wine then complain about how slow it is.
The truth of the matter is, Linux is a good operating system but it lacks the compatibility of Windows. It may be more customisable but its also much harder to use, and for speed for some things it is faster, but for other things its slower. Its just as susceptible to virus and security threats, just that people don't write viruses for systems in the minority - or for systems that they're using themselves.
All in all, Windows is a practical operating system. These things that have to be removed from it, such as the antivirus stuff for some markets, are actually a good inclusion to the operating system. For example, so many people with Windows don't have any antivirus software installed. Those that would normally install antivirus software would probably disable the inbuilt software and use their own anyway. Its like the inbuilt defrag, most people will not fork out extra money for Diskeeper, Perfectdisk etc., so the inbuilt defragger, pathetic that it is, is much better than none at all.
I would use the Windows firewall as an example, but thats worse than the defrag example! but its still shows the point that people who are conscious about security will still fork out money for added protection, and those that don't have a small layer of protection to protect the user.
Is it wise for Microsoft to sell the OS and then say to their customers oh, for this to run properly without the affects of viruses etc you will need to buy and antivirus and a firewall, and to have the OS running well a disk defragmenter. Also you'll need to buy a Media Player and other software so you can use your computer effectively. You'll also need to buy a web browser (ie Opera) so you can use the web.I'm sure you won't mind paying an extra $200 for this stuff, and then paying another $120 each year for upgrades to this software.
Come on, if people don't want to use the stuff its their decision! They don't bundle Office with Windows, that would be an exception!
Score: 0
Well said.
Agree totally
Score: 0
- The best media player is either vlc or media player classic. Both free.
- The best browser "firefox" is also free. Opera is free too.
- and there are plenty of free adware/virus scanner
So forget your story about "extra 200$" and yearly upgrade costs. Allowing MS to add programs into their os guaranties them a huge market share.
There is almost no chance for smaller Companies of surviving this entry. Only the market leaders may survive this.
Score: 0
"The best media player is either vlc or media player classic. Both free."
Best by who's standards? Yours?
"- The best browser "firefox" is also free. Opera is free too."
Again...who declared firefox the best...you did?
Score: 0
You don't actually believe Bill is paying developers so you can have your "free" WMP, IE etc.
If capitalism works as well as many of you here state then why isn't there a windows version with all of these programms that costs considerabelly less than versions with it.
Therefore there should be rules where companies need to abide to.
From an american point of view I must sound like a communist but that isn't the fact at all. Capitalism in its pure form is just as flawed as communism.
Score: 0
Well what would you say is the best browser and media player? MP11 and IE7? They are not yet released.
Score: 0
"There is almost no chance for smaller Companies of surviving this entry. Only the market leaders may survive this."
If your business model can not survive the market, it is not the leader in that markets fault. It is the responsibility of the company that is failing in the market to adapt or become extinct.
Score: 0
Huh...did I say that? Nope I didn't.
Thanks for clearing up that those two are not yet released tho'...really thanks.
Score: 0
blah blah blah...
An alternative version of Windows? ...have you seen a Mac recently? ...a system running Linux?
If MS hadn't put a decent Media Player or Browser in it's OS package, we'd all be laughing at them. "Oh, like Windoze with it's "High Quality" sound recorder?"
Bill is paying developers to code a product people will use, that people will pay money for. Much of what goes into that product comes from our suggestions. It has to have the features and abilities consumers want. It has to be better and more appealing than the alternatives.
Ask any average Joe/Jane on the street if Windows should come with a Media Player or a Browser. I guarantee 99% will answer that yes, it should. Then ask them if they should have to pay for them in addition to the OS itself. Can you guess what the answer might be?
This is what drives Microsoft to add much of it's functionality. Not some conspiracy, not some Evil Plan. Public Demand.
Score: 0
i tried both Ubuntu and SUSE lates version and could not get connected to the internet in any way with my DSL connection that uses a PPPoE connection. Ubuntu did not have it out of the box but susie did but still entered in all my settings and still after hours of googleing could not get it to wrk. so he was right Linux is only for advanced users.
Score: 0
...
A "Nuclear Vista" for North Korea ?
...
The Computer Rodent
...
Score: 0
couldn't come up with anything better than "buffo"?
:-)
lol
Score: 0
So, someone finally banned you eh? Good to see you can keep posting despite it.
Score: 0
Apparently "immature jackass" was taken.
Score: 0
lol
Score: 0
Go away.
Score: 0
How about crumpled buttwipe?
Score: 0
well, i dont really care -- im not picky with computers. I'll be buying Vista, when it comes out. With Microsoft, and computer software in general, newer is usually better, 95% of the time. And don't tell me about Norton AntiVirus -- thats the exception. Vista will be better than XP. People will get bored of Vista. Theyll want something else. Ad infinitum...
I don't mind XP becoz its all I know. When Vista comes out, XP will suck like Windows 98....
Score: 0
you missed windows 2000, it's still a good os, and probably will be for a long time yet.
what do you need all the "pretty" visuals for?
by the way,
windows 9X always sucked
Score: 0
win2k is a great, but I choice xp for speed and compatibilitie.
Score: 0
2000 is much faster than xp, it's why i still use it. i don't know of any compatibility issues, none that effect me at least.
Score: 0
I'd agree with that. I use both for work and W2K is noticeably faster than XP.
Score: 0
I agree Win2K is faster than XP however when it comes to networking I found that there are a few issues. I just hope that I don't have to say that XP was faster than Vista ;-) LOL
Score: 0
but XP is not bad at all in my opinion,
well, considering how many patches have been out...
Score: 0
I would've contributed constructively to this discussion if I'd got in at the start, but as so many people have written so much crap - I can't be bothered. Tsk.
Score: 0
My biggest hangup with Vista is the price. It is way too expensive. Also, the various versions is a bit ridiculous. Why not just have a home user's edition and a professional edition like XP? I will wait till I upgrade my pc and get it for free. The downside to that is I usually build my own PC's. It's a kind of a Catch 22 situation.
Score: 0
"It is way too expensive."
WTF you on about moron? It's far cheaper than XP was when it was first released and it costs no more than a few games.
Perhaps you should try getting a frickin job instead of being sat at home supported by your parents.
Score: 0
400$ is cheap?
Score: 0
the problem here is you are on some quest to prove open source is better but with inane theories and no facts...yes vista ULTIMATE costs $400 but the average user wont need it plus the average user will buy a new pc rather then a new os
Score: 0
xp also has a media center edition as well
Score: 0
Man i don't think there is any better OS out there then Windows XP (and maybe Vista in the future).
Just because i don't apreciate the "pillage business model" of microsoft doesn't mean i hate MS or love OSS.
And its fair enough to call the price for the full version of vista if someone says its cheap, which it is not.
Score: 0
By computershack
posted Oct 14, 2006 - 7:18 AM
"It is way too expensive."
WTF you on about moron? It's far cheaper than XP was when it was first released and it costs no more than a few games.
Perhaps you should try getting a frickin job instead of being sat at home supported by your parents.
^^
That has to be the most ignorant comment. I have a job and technically could blow the money on Vista, but the fact stands, Microsoft overprices their OS's and various other softwares that they make.
CDN$ 499.00 for Extreme - amazon.ca
CDN$ 259.00 for Basic - amazon.ca
In my option even basic costs way too much, and I'll probably never blow that much on a single OS. I'd rather blow that money on hardware upgrades, something they force upon people when they upgrade to their new OS :) Each OS they make you need to pretty much double your ram, and in this case even a new CPU. Mac OS X will never need such crazy specs to run.
Forgot you need to blow (on top of $499 Extreme) another $250ish CDN on a new video card.
I actually wish I had rich parents supporting me :)
Score: 0
Why call me names? Very juvenile on your part. I was just making a comment from my point of view. I do just happen to have a full time job and a family and a home. All which tend to be expensive. If you do your research, you will see that Vista, is alot more expensive that XP ever was.
Score: 0
actually its not more expensive then xp its the same price unless you want the ultimate edition...
Score: 0
Since you are such a huge Mac supporter I wish you would take your unwanted posts to a MAC site.
Score: 0
What would happened if one day M$ decided to strip all programs from Windows and gave the consumers an empty shell. No Internet Explorer to download Firefox, there would probably be riots all over the world. LOL
I don’t know about the rest of you but M$ never prevented me from downloading and install other browsers and media players ect. So what the problem??? Are people really that retarded that they can’t figure out how download and install their own sh!t!!!
Score: 0
As you point out, MS doesn't prevent anyone from doing that now. Even in the EU.
Score: 0
I think this is probably the first time I've ever agreed with you.
lol
Score: 0
It neither allows me to completely uninstall it. But ontopic... i don't want to explain the whole marketdominance thingy again but MS is abbusing it.
Score: 0
However it can be uninstalled or you can set Windows to remove all icons/shortcuts to it.
Score: 0
Do you always remove icons/shortcuts when you want to uninstall a program? Your computer must be a mess then!
Score: 0
Damn!!! I must be losing my touch.
It won't happen again, I'll try harder next time. LOL
Score: 0
I would be all for that GS5. While I doubt it would ever happen.
I wish there was a "proof of competency" requirement in order to purchase a computer. Kind of like driving a car, you need a license and insurance. I know that would never happen in a world where personal responsibility is a dying concept.
Score: 0
...and by not being able to uninstal it, you are inconvenienced how?
Does it *stop* any other program from running? Does it hinder performance when it has not been started?
Do you have an honest b****, or is it your time of the month?
Score: 0
If my theory is proves correct, the Korean version of Vista will have a World of Warcraft icon to replace the Start button.
Microsoft's Korean offices now have "Where do you want to farm today?" slogan on most branded items, including the bootup image on the Korean Vista release.
Score: 0
Microsoft should delete the EU.
Score: 0
I do not like Vista.
I will not use it. I will stay with XP Pro.
Microsoft thinks that by moving around many of XP's functions to different places in Vista makes this unfriendly OS better.
Even though I am the Administrator, I cannot open several folders. Yuck.
In IE7, MS put a lot of the buttons all over the place, which really makes it more time consuming to use. They have also eliminated some tools/buttons that are in IE6. Not smart.
I cannot customize Windows Explorer the way I want to use it. Where are the copy, cut and paste buttons. I know I can use KB shortcuts or go to Edit, but I miss the top buttons like in My XP Pro.
In my opinion Vista is inferior to XP.
Stupid Microsoft.
Score: 0
I dont know what IE7 you are using but all the buttons are there...they made it less cluttered yes it sucks you can't move everything around but its a much cleaner interface...you have to give the adminstrator rights so you can access the folders...a nuisance yes but it keeps people out of your folders...
Score: 0
Funny, people said the same when XP came out..
"I do not like Windows XP. I will not use it. I will stay with Windows 98."
Score: 0
Vista will be on most computers in several years, get used to it. Microsoft will always try and sneak anti-competative software in here and there, get used to it. Third-party software companies will always be filing lawsuites against Microsoft, get used to it. Apple will always offer an alternative, look into it. Linux and Unix are a friendly alternatives, use them. And above all, realize that unless your a major stock holder in Microsoft they will continue to ignore you and use you as a beta tester long after you buy their product. They have billions of dollars and if you don't buy a new dell or whatever with Vista on it, they'll just count their money from the millions of other computer illiterate people who will. Get used to it.
Score: 0
Please ignore the Microsoft lovers here. I do agree with you. Vista WILL be a flop for Microsoft, its filled with way too many bugs, and no sane company would upgrade to it.
It won't even install for me. Wonderful beta testers they have.
Score: 0
lovers...haters, just be a computer user. Of course that makes the whole sports fan thing understandable. Couch potatoes who love watching sports...go figure.
But about installation...because you are unable to install why blame that at the rest of the hundreds of thousands who can?
Use it if you like it, don't if you don't. Test if you're curious...don't if you're not.
Score: 0
Apple will always offer an alternative...
...as long as you don't care about games, or want to build a computer yourself, or mind buying an OS that claims superiority but usually fails in side-by-side comparisons of performance.
Linux and Unix are a friendly alternatives
hahahahah,hahahhahah
Score: 0
I cannot customize Windows Explorer the way I want to use it. Where are the copy, cut and paste buttons. I know I can use KB shortcuts or go to Edit, but I miss the top buttons like in My XP Pro.
Yeah, it feels different without all that clutter up there, but I realized I never used those Cut/Copy/Paste buttons...you did?
Score: 0
it wont install for you...yet its filled with bugs? bad troll!
Score: 0
lol, best comment of all!
Score: 0
Can you seriously name at least one person that wanted to stay with 98?
Score: 0
I know one..
Note: I said *ONE* ;-)
Score: 0
I can name several hundred...because they dont like change...they only want to check their email and surf the net...and for reasons I'll never understand they would rather pay $200 to fix an obsolete system rather then paying an extra $100 to get something that works
Score: 0
I can name two. Seriously. I didn't believe it either when they told me. One of them was just two years ago, too.
Score: 0
It won't even install for me.
Please tell me you verified your system met the minimum requirement before you tried.
Score: 0
I am a supervisor for tech support and I can't tell you how many times I get people on the phone using 98...because our tech support for some reason doesnt understand how to install usb on 98 and since they are reading from a script they refer the customer to their vendor...who of course is obsolete or wants to charge them 50 dollars to assist/fix
Score: 0
Also people claim on Apple that bootcamp is the way to go to use their windows apps but they still have to buy vista to use it right? Windows doesn't just come with apple
Score: 0
wow you must have a really old pc...my pc is 4 years old and vista runs better on it then xp does... 1.83 Ghz 2500 XP 1.5 Gig of Ram 300 Gig HD (the hd is new though but it worked on my old crappy hd too so yeah) and a 25 dollar video card 128 MB (I get the aero theme)
Score: 0
"In IE7, MS put a lot of the buttons all over the place, which really makes it more time consuming to use."
umm yea, what ever you say. I like not having the endless cascading menus myself.
"Where are the copy, cut and paste buttons."
Well there's always the right click option. I always found that quicker anyway instead of having to move all the way across the screen to click a button.
Score: 0
...my pc is 4 years old and vista runs better on it then xp does... ...and a 25 dollar video card 128 MB...
I'm sorry, but that claim sounds extremely fishy. Where exactly did you get a 128MB video card for $25 ...4 years ago?
I don't know about you, but mine cost me $200 2 years ago. It had a tv tuner integrated, but still, it wasn't the most expensive 128MB card I could have bought at the time.
Score: 0
"its filled with way too many bugs"
That's why they call it Beta.
Also how do you know if it has bugs if you can't even get it installed.
Score: 0
Well John, I will not upgrade for awhile either but...I will be forced to eventually as Microsoft will stop supporting Windows XP as it did with Windows 95 and 98.
Score: 0
Ah my bad the video card is about a year old I got it from tiger direct with a rebate... the only reason I got a newer card is so I could play doom granted not in its full extreme with a $500 dollar card but it ran and looked good enough for the price for single mode
Score: 0
I used Win98SE (modded with the excellent Unoffical Service Pack) until November 2005, and I'm very into computers. I just saw no need to upgrade to an OS that added no useful features for me, since I had a system that I had optimised for my requirements.
The only reason I upgraded (to Ubuntu, not XP) was that 98SE was beginning to show its age when it came to newer hardware support, but to be honest I could have still held off and not missed out on anything of real importance.
Score: 0
It's because tech support people are generally becoming of worse quality these days. Companies will hire anyone with a larynx these days.
Plus, none of them are old enough to remember anything else except Windows, so they have zero comparitive knowledge for the most part. I don't think many are really that into computers as an interest - just as something that sounds like it might have a good wage packet attached to it one day.
PS - Tech support people shouldn't be working from a script. If they are *technical*, why do they need one?
Score: 0
trust me I agree but hr does not...I called microsoft about windows live one care beta 1.5 because it would not install and was directed to a page where it said I could call I told the rep and the "tech support" agent that I was running vista and using 1.5 BETA ONECARE he ssaid that was fine...he says he wants to use remote sharing I say fine he gets on my pc and I dont think he listened to anything I said he get on tries to run their cleanup program to remove one care entries...it doesnt work... then he hunts on the computer for 5 mins trying to figure out where add/rem programs is...hes stumped after that has no clue what to do so and I am not kidding he's just spinning the mouse around and around like hes having a seizure then my dumb a** for whatever reason tripped over the power cord and the power of the pc is out he still has me on hold it took him 5 mins to come back not realizing we are no longer connected he comes back and I tell him what happens...and he says "Windows One Care does not work for Vista..." If I could have reached through the phone I would have took his face slammed it into the screen over and over where it clearly states ONE CARE BETA 1.5 now WORKS WITH VISTA and I am looking at this and he tells me no...I must be mistaken...and goes on to talk about version 1.0 he had NO listening skills whatsoever...he was very difficult to understand and I had to ask him quite a few times to say something over and over and he gets madder and madder everytime like its my fault I can't understand his thick accent and pseudo-english
Score: 0
an ever better question would be can you name a person out there that wanted to stay with windows ME :)
Score: 0
Sounds like a typical call to Microsoft. Now and then you can get transferred to the states where you can understand the person on the other end though.
Is their credit card system still broken? My last 4 calls have been free..
Score: 0
You honestly liked all of the BSOD's and Illegal Operation error messages in Windows 98? Why not at least upgrade to the superior Windows 2000 Profesional operating system?
Score: 0
I didn't get that many really, since I didn't install loads of crap onto it. I remember the first time it did crash - SIX months after I'd first installed it, which doesn't seem too shabby to be honest.
Actually,it's just occured to me that although I've been running Ubuntu for 11 months now it hasn't crashed once. Wow.
Score: 0
If only for the USB device driver support alone, XP was worth the upgrade.
Score: 0
does the boot loader for ubuntu screw up vista at all?
Score: 0
Haven't tried it with Vista yet. Sorry.
Score: 0
well since IE is integrated into the OS that is not happening anytime soon...you dont have to use any of the below software..its just there by default...they unbundled the media player in a version of xp...guess how well it sold? If these options were not there people would complain...and instant messenger is not installed unless you install it... windows defender is there but you can turn it off...and most people like outlook express yes it would be nice but every os has their own browser email client media player...not sure how easy it is to uninstall from mac...and the common user will never touch linux until it can be used by any joe schmo, hell the common user has problems with windows as it is...and I am not talking about virus, spyware or any other of the maladies that plague windows..simple navigation or installation is a problem
Score: 0
and the common user will never touch linux until it can be used by any joe schmo
http://www.ubuntu.com
As easy as, if not easier than, Windows for basic functions.
Score: 0
ok I havent tried this version the last version still wasnt very user friendly
downloading now
Score: 0
If all you want to do is check e-mail, browse the internet and make an occasional document (Open Office), then there's no reason anyone should buy Windows instead of installing Ubuntu. That's my two cents anyway.
It's not the best if you want to play games or use proprietary instant messengers (AIM, Yahoo, MSN), although it does include GAIM which works with all major IM networks.
Score: 0
Gah!!
Basic functions? How basic?
Does a resolution greater than 1024x768 fall into that category? How about the ability to connect to a wireless network? Remote Desktop, perhaps?
No?
Heh....
I installed Ubuntu 6.06 off of CD on my laptop this morning. Spent 45 minutes downloading, extracting, and cutting the firmware for the wireless card to get it running. Spent another 30 minutes hacking the Xorg config files to get a decent resolution (1280x1024) on my ATI Radeon, and another 10 or so getting the default player to load and play an MP3.
All of this so I could play my library on the host, and open 2 remote desktop connections (1 to our corporate network over the wire, and one to our DSL network over wireless).
Amazingly, it worked.
...for about 2 hours.
Now I have to disable the wired connection for the wireless one to become active. No reason. it just stopped working after lunch (it locked up while I was out).
I gave it a day. Many of the issues revolve around Ubuntu's BSD-like licensing restrictions, so perhaps I'd have better luck in a true Debian distro.
Perhaps I'll have a go at that next week.
Looks like I get to re-install Windows XP on Monday, though.
:p
Easier than what, again?
Score: 0
Lol... read my reply to the comment just below yours. I didn't say easier for EVERYTHING. Admittedly, I should have explained a little more in my original comment. =p
Also, check out http://easyubuntu.freecontrib.org/get.html
It probably would have made your media troubles a little easier.
Score: 0
How long does it take to install Office, Photoshop, Games *cough heh*, and all the other software you use day to day on a clean XP build?
hint: 4-5 hours probably..
Then there's 2 hours of patching (sp2 + the 40 other patches since it's release, with reboots).
It takes a long time to install and tweak any os unfortunately.
I say unfortunately, but if it was easy there would be no IT industry. heh
Score: 0
I absolutely agree, best comment all day.
Score: 0
A helpful tip for people that spend hours patching/reinstalling everything on their system after a format: Slipstream. After an SP is released and about every 6 months, I take my XP CD and slipstream all of the new patches and SPs onto a CD-RW that came out since the last time I updated the CD. This makes it so when you install XP again, you already have a clean install but with all of the patches and SPs already on there. No need to download for ages and reboot a million times. This is pretty simple to accomplish as well, all you need is a CD burner, really.
When Vista comes out, they have a handy-dandy backup and restore utility that is built in that can make full drive images (think Norton Ghost) that I will use. I'll do a clean install of Vista, install my core apps, patches, games, etc... then create a backup disk image on a backup HDD. Restoring an image will be much faster than reinstalling Vista and all my crap everytime. When major changes/updates occur such as SPs, I'll do a clean install of my image, then install the upgrades, etc...then re-compile my image for next time. ;-)
Score: 0
Next time you should try Suse it's one of the best distros out there.
Score: 0
You have to be a geek to slipstream. ;-) If you don't reload often, it's not really worth the effort.
Score: 0
You could also try PCLinuxOS - www.pclinuxos.com
I have it running at 1280x1024 (my monitor's highest res) without editing the xorg conifg. There's also a nice package manager (Synaptic) that is constantly updated with new applications, bug/security fixes, as well as downloadable third party and beta programs via an extra repo. On a reasonable machine, install takes approx. 15 mins - very cool.
Score: 0
Or you could try one of the "thousands" of other linux distro's out there. I've tried quite a few. I recently tried Ubuntu and I really like it. I had previously stayed away from it because I didn't really like Gnome, but I'll have to say it appears to be way more stable than KDE (which crashed and locks up on me all the time).
Wireless is just a pain on linux. But in it's defense I didn't by a wireless card recommended for linux (but who does ;-).
Remote desktop is not that hard (especially on Ubuntu). Secure remoting is more difficult. All in all, linux is ok, but not up to par with Windows - but then again perhaps if I purhcased a PC with linux already installed then maybe everything would work out of the box too...
Score: 0
Score: 0
Cat got your tongue? ;P
Score: 0
Better the Devil I know, than the Angel I don't?
FWIW: I got it working again. PITA.
Things just shouldn't stop working for no reason.
*grumbles*
But, hey...Now I can use Linux to use Windows.
All together now...
1...
2...
3...
woo....hoo...
...Or something.
On the upside, I now have some "Really Neat-O"™ screen savers no-one else in the complex has.
Sweet....
Score: 0
When are you going to learn to anticipate my impulsive behaviour and post these links *BEFORE* I do something like that?
Sheesh...
Some people.
Score: 0
lmao..
Ubuntu's default RDP client is utter crap. Gnome-RDP is simple enough to set up, but I wasn't really b****ing about that, more-so the networking side of things.
Score: 0
lol That's true. It does come with some great screen savers.
Score: 0
Ah...today's a good day to work in the IT department of a volume licensee.
Score: 0
The European Commission should insist on debundling all unneccesary programs from windows vista.
Media Player
Internet Browser
Email Client
Instant Messenger
Adware Removing Software
are NOT core of an OS. They should be available per download or be on an additional CD. This would ensure some more competition.
Score: 0
Without an Internet browser, how the hell would you download all those "unneccesary" programs?
I don't get people like you. If you don't like what's bundled with the OS, duh.... don't use it? No one's stopping you from using anything else.
As it is, there already is fair competition. Look at IE7. We wouldn't even have it if it wasn't for Firefox and Opera putting enormous pressure on MS for something better. And how many millions of media players are there?
Score: 0
He's probably one those people who think Windows should make it possible to pick what browser they would like during the install process
Score: 0
That's ridiculous. I wouldn't want an OS that didn't come with media playing software, a browser, email clients, IMs and the like. Okay, check this, if you don't HAVE an internet browser bundled with the software, how the hell do you get one? By CD? That's just silly. There's no need to put it on CD when you can download it... or wait, wait, what if it was ALREADY there?! Wouldn't that just be fantastic?! So here's what you do, if you don't like WMP, IE, WLM, etc... DON'T USE THEM. Use IE to download Firefox or the like, and then DON'T use IE. It's as simple as that. I don't know why people can't see that. You DO have a choice, but you'd rather complain about something right? Go complain to someone who cares.
Score: 0
Easy. You open windows update, which is made into an APPLICATION, not a browser, and are given the chance to download all the bundled crap that ships with MS OS's, or youre given the opportunity to download something else.
I hope the EU makes MS strip out all the useless stuff too. Its too bad that they arent making them do the same thing here in the USA.
Score: 0
just dont use it...thats it... it doesnt hurt anything for it to be there
Score: 0
Question, if IE is strip from Windows, how the hell do you d/l?
Score: 0
Firefox is available on CD. Or how about backing up all your crap onto a removable HD or burning your installers onto CD-Rom. There are ways around not being able to use IE. The first thing I do when I install Windows is go into Add/Remove Windows programs and uninstall all their crap and then go from there. The machine runs a lot faster after that too.
Score: 0
FYI: Windows update is not an application. It runs inside of a browser, and ONLY IE on top of that.
Score: 0
Try explaining ANY of that to the average Dell customer.
Score: 0
In vista I believe it is an application as it doesnt require you to open a browser to install updates the only thing I dont like about IE is saving your passwords isnt as secure with other browsers
Score: 0
I sit corrected. Sorry. Haven't tried the Vista update feature yet. Assumed it was the same, my bad.
Score: 0
How about when I go to adobe's web site and click on acrobat reader it sends me to a site that gives me options to download any PDF reader other then acrobat?
Can I click on quicktime in apple's site and have them point me to a site that can view quicktime videos?
Score: 0
Well, if they should remove all that, why stop there? Maybe MS should remove implementations of standard protocols and let the third party developers build their own. Oooh, oooh, and they can unbundle the GUI, let people install their own gui shell from a CD. Of course, the hardware manufacturers will have to develop their own drivers, no using a generic MS provided one. So if a user actually want to change their hardware they will have manually install the driver...
You see, it really is not clear what the "core" of an OS is. A text editor definitely falls in the "unnecessary programs" category. Technically, even the command prompt is not "core" to the OS, look at how many command line shells there are for Linux and you'll see what I mean.
Score: 0
Man you would want an OS that doesn't have all those crap features. You know MP, IE, etc are so called *for free*, but in the end they cost you and everyone, because they are the default on the market dominating platform. They are the defacto standard and this is what gives MS alot of power.
Do you remember how they killed off netscape because they have been about to lose a promesing softwarefield? And what happend after they killed nescape? Years of zero development of the IE. IE7 only got build because firefox is starting to get market share. The defailt search engine in IE7 will be MSN search for sure and this is advertising cash for MS. Its just that easy. Kill off other products by default aplications and harvest money.
Score: 0
Well i am some of those who would like to have a choice. I have a choice because i am some computer nerd guy.
Anyways most ppl don't have a clue how to change things on their system. They just live with it. If the unneccesary stuff would be on an extra dvd, then other companies could bundle their plays/email client/whatever with the "Windows Vista Core"-Edition and get marketshare in a certain field with such ppl they would never reach otherway.
Score: 0
Most likely answer:
Make IE, Firefox, Opera et al available for free on CD for all new purchases of PCs/windows versions.
Real Answer:
Build your own. Except don't, as that would put me out of a job.
Score: 0
Concerning the protocols:
It would be enough if MS would actually document their stuff and make the documentation available for everyone. That way MS wouldn't have a advantage by hidding stuff from competitors. At the moment this is common practice and was one of the key demands from the EU in their suit.
Concerning the GUI
Why not? Why not let third parties design a gui for Windows? It's not like it is totally insane. The gui of windows has running in circles since windows95. Do you think with competition the outcome would have been the same?
Concerning Drivers:
Drivers are a core OS part. Supporting as much hardware as possible does have nothing to do with "additional features". If your soundcard doesn't work with a os, you have a problem.
The core:
The shell is part of the OS. And you should have at least one available. And we don't have a problem with a default Shell, because it's not a software field that the normal user is interested in.
And a text editor is part of the OS for the reason that you need it to edit ini files and the like.
Score: 0
This is something that puzzles me. For some reason, you assume that people who don't know how to change stuff... want... to change stuff.
How do they know it can be different in the first place? To some people, MSN.com is the entire Internet. They're not dissatisfied with it, because, quite obviously, they don't use it a whole lot anyway. If someone wants to change the home page, they find out how to do it, and they do it. Why is that so horrible?
Score: 0
NO ONE has to use the browser, email, media player no one is forcing them...most oses come standard with a media player, browser and email client...the problem with your theory is the average user could never do the things you are asking...windows is the simple solution to do anything out of the box...Linux is good for the common user if they just want to check email, browse, not worry about display setting or mess with wireless and play no games but most of the common users use AOL or AIM or MSN) granted not perfect...Macs I still look at as for the professional not the common user still because a common user (in my experience) having never touched a mac or a pc likes the interface for windows more (granted I am sure you can find the same amount of people that say the opposite)
Score: 0
and If Firefox had its own search I am sure they would use the default as their's as well...why would a company use someone else's search its not like microsoft makes it impossible to correct it theres a nice drop down to change the search provider...oh god not this netscape vs microsoft thing again...netscape was slow and had an awful interface and to this day it still sucks...I'll agree on the IE thing Microsoft didn't move until they had competition but think of ANY company that has zero competition they dont try to advance why should they spend money on development when there is no one to challenge them look at cable internet...its fast and hasnt changed much but thanks to FIOS Cable is worried now and trying to do something about increasing the speeds because you guessed it competition now...
Score: 0
I didn't mean that "people who don't know how to change stuff... want... to change stuff" instead i wanted to say that competing companies could bundle their software with the OS and get market share.
Score: 0
You don't get my point at all. What if MS adds a music shop feature to the Media Player 11 let me make up a name for it ... lets call it URGE.
Lets say that this makes buying music online similar to Apples iTunes per default on every windows system?
This is an unfair advantage of a company, thus reducing the competition. Why should i install itunes if i already have URGE? iTunes is better you say? Well but the average user will probably just buy his stuff with URGE. Its not the nerds that bring in money its the masses.
Score: 0
I give you a different example MS has copied OpenGL piece by piece and gave it the name Direct3D. After their proprietary stuff ran well enough they tried to throw OpenGL out of windows.
With every new version of windows MS tries to trow it out thats a fact. It happended with XP and it happened with Vista. Only massive pressure from the developer comunity made it stay in. What happens if OpenGL vanishes? Yes DirectX will stop being developed. Why continue?
In a healthy environment the two APIs would struggle just by quality, but MS uses every dirty cheat to make things go away that stays in its way. AND they have the power to do so comeing back to netscape.
IE for example didn't render the things in a more web standard comform way then netscape. It was just the opposite. And since that time the web itself has halted in its development to a degree. You can write a book about what standards the IE tries to corrupt by simply rendering stuff wrong ppl are forced to bow to the market share of IE and make their webpages actually nonstandard. Thats just how things go with MS.
Score: 0
clever your what IF when they HAVE already put this service into wmp...I personally think it has better navigation then itunes and the interface is nicer...plus you only have to have windows media player you are not forced to install an app you wouldn't normally use "cough cough quicktime" but everyone knows about itunes and not so many people have heard of "urge" or of the other companies out there selling this so your argument on this is plain stupid you seem to just want to bash windows for anything you can come up with.
You seem to be under the impression that people use whats on the OS because they dont believe they have alternatives...Itunes on a pc is a nightmare...For mac it works well because well its a mac product.
I believe Itunes is installed on a mac by default...I could be wrong though...and urge is not installed by default you pick what store you want during the install or none at all...
Score: 0
clever your what IF when they HAVE already put this service into wmp...I personally think it has better navigation then itunes and the interface is nicer...plus you only have to have windows media player you are not forced to install an app you wouldn't normally use "cough cough quicktime" but everyone knows about itunes and not so many people have heard of "urge" or of the other companies out there selling this so your argument on this is plain stupid you seem to just want to bash windows for anything you can come up with.
See you are just like the average user. You only want to have WMP11 and you dislike other "non MS" software. You don't want additional software with the same functionality on your system.
Of course no one knows URGE why should they? But MS will use their OS to force URGE on to everyone.
Thats just not fair. Its abusing the market share of windows.
You should give direct competitors at least the chance to reside on a windows that doesn't have a MS version of the same software on it. A music shop software is not core part of an OS, thus it should be delivered by an additional CD or download.
Debundling is the only way to help MS to wipe off it's evilness.
Score: 0
I am just like the average user because I LIKE the app microsoft puts out? See, you proved my point you are completely anti-microsoft, I use a variety of 3rd party apps not just microsoft. I PREFER wmp11 because it has a better interface I like the library feature and the import feature...again URGE is not installed by default nor do you have to install it at all...you are being the typical troll...
I said I didnt like ITUNES not one time did I say I dont like 3rd party apps. I use screamer for internet radio b/c the one in wmp isnt as good. I use Opera and Thunderbird at work because I dont like the older style of OE and IE and we are stuck using windows 2000...and one more time you have to download the urge software...do you just make stuff up did you even try anything out because had you you would have seen that you dont have messenger on by default you need to download it. You dont have urge on by default either also another download...the email program, browser and again media player COME WITH ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS...if someone wants to use something else they are free to...Microsoft isnt stopping anyone from doing so...
Now what about third party apps that bundle in software...granted you can choose to uncheck them but the common user wont see this is that fair too?
Score: 0
One word:
NO
Score: 0
all i have to say about vista is well its how the next release is going to be dont use it use it i can care less all i know is its a right direction to the nex os is this going to be the NEXT OS umm no will it chnage the way things are done yes are we all going to like it no am i going to buy it yeah will i love it well did i love xp when it came out no! so there you go do i need the windows os no why do i use it why do you think ummmm let me see anything else oh ummm not really just know that this release is a step in the right direction! thats what i think!
Score: 0
"The European Commission should insist on debundling all unneccesary programs from windows vista."
"are NOT core of an OS."
...just like pretty much every Linux distro does? Every Linux distro I've tried recently comes with a full Office Suite (Windows doesn't), a media player (same as Windows) in the form of MPlayer etc, an internet browser (same as Windows) in the form of Firefox, an e-mail client (same as Windows), Messenger (same as Windows) usually in the form of GAIM.
In fact, a typical Linux distro comes with a shedload of stuff pre-installed that Windows doesn't.
So in fact, LINUX should be MORE of a target than Vista because it comes bundled with a full office suite.
Score: 0
"Concerning the GUI
Why not? Why not let third parties design a gui for Windows?"
You mean like LITESTEP and Stardocks Suite?
Please do try to keep up.
Score: 0
Fanbois like you will never understand. MS is excluding competition by INCLUDING things that have _nothing to do with the OS. If you want to download adobe, you have the choice. If you want to use something else, you have a choice.
When MS includes all this crap that, again, has nothing to do with an OS (which is what windows is) it kills the competition because users already have everything they need. Why download anything else? Even if its superior by a mile, it just wont happen.
Score: 0
Of course its not an application, and if you read my post closely (I dont type things just to type them) I said you turn windows update into an application.
Please comprehend before posting next time, and save yourself the shame.
Score: 0
That's an idiotic comparision. Those programs in Linux are ALL free. No one is making a profit on them or harming competitors. Those programs are also OPTIONAL. Every single one of them. You can choose what to install and uninstall whatever you want later.
Try harder next time.
Score: 0
Exclamation points are *not* the only form of puctuation.
...just sayin'.
Score: 0
It would be enough if MS would actually document their stuff and make the documentation available for everyone. That way MS wouldn't have a advantage by hidding stuff from competitors. At the moment this is common practice and was one of the key demands from the EU in their suit.
Or they could just omit the implementations altogether, that way there is nothing to document. Let the 3rd party developers implement it themselves, or use a third party library.
Concerning the GUI
Why not? Why not let third parties design a gui for Windows?
Like has been said, this has been done; and your response does not address the fact that the majority of users will not want to pick a gui.
Drivers are a core OS part.
The shell is part of the OS.
Again, it all depends on your definition of "core". Would you expect an embedded OS for an optical sensor to have a shell, a GUI, or drivers for a soundcard? Probably not, because the OS is for a specialized task. Windows(in general) is not built for that kind of task, it is built as a user friendly OS; as such, most of its users expect it to come with what they consider the basics: internet, email, light word processing, multimedia, etc... Tomorrow they may expect it to come with voice recognition, and people will be whining about MS bundling a solution for that.
Score: 0
There is a diff though. You can get rid of most of what is on most GNU/Linux distros. You could perhaps get yourself a distro that you can build from scratch.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ and add only stuff you want. It is about choice. And it sure ain't easy being choosy. That is why you have MS Windows for those who don't wanna make choices. If MS manages to continue dominance with the new Windows_waste_ya then I believe an Orwellian world would have come true.
Score: 0