Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Microsoft's new look

JACK KAPICA

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 9:43 PM EDT 31/01/07

We've got a complete rundown of Vista's pros and cons, and some advice on whether to upgrade ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes:
    It is sad how this country has tolerated a complete monopoly by Microsoft, who in turn, continues to torture consumers by releasing ever more bloated and hardware hungry machines. This has costs both public and private enterprise, billions in needless software and hardware upgrade costs. I still greatly perfer OS/2 which provides the same level of functionality, is faster, but uses about 1/20th of the core memory requirements.

    Microsoft = bloated, slow and expensive.
  2. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes:
    for machines please read operating systems.
  3. gary blades from Halifax, Canada writes: Microsofts R and D department is located in Cupertino California. It's called Apple. Interesting how a company 10 times smaller than Microsoft produced an operating system much like Vista (only better) five years ago.
  4. Josh Tidsbury from Montréal, Canada writes: That's just it, it's an agitating piece of bloatware that will only make me want to continue using my G4 Powerbook. After all, I have all of the features of Vista, and more, running smoothly and crash free on a system more than 2 years old. Looking at the specs, I would have to severely upgrade and spend a heap of money my Powerbook to run Vista, and to gain what? I already run my audio and video applications for my work on this machine at breakneck speeds; I don't need the OS to get in the way of that. I know this comes across to many as 'mac-snobbery', but when you look at the hard and fast numbers, Windows machines aren't at all a value based choice anymore...
  5. jeff peters from Toronto, Canada writes: Duncan - it is only a monopoly to the masses that can't be bothered to try Linux or OX. I have all 3 running at the ofice for different functions and OX and XP at home and I'm not a tech guy at all. I just hate when people say it's a monopoly, when they can go down to their local Apple supplier and pick up a non-Windows OS anytime they want.
  6. Mister Fartleberry from Mississauga, Canada writes: So I should immediately dump my Mac and once I buy tons of virus software and figure out which price structure I am into I'll find I have not only an OS that won't be reworked again for several years but also one that is indeed not even Mac OS-X 10.1?
  7. Ryan Peatt from Ottawa, Canada writes: No mention at all about the HDCP crap forced upon us?
  8. gaetan diotte from Ottawa, Canada writes: I for one will stick with XP until certain graphics drivers become available for Linux. If these certain graphics companies do not choose to do so then I will stop using their product. Soon I will be gladly rid of the remaining Microsoft and other closed source products.
  9. Brian Maranta from Ottawa, Canada writes: XP Users: If you're going to have to spend big bucks to buy a whole new computer just to run Vista (with 4GB of RAM, a huge Hard Drive and a super snazzy Video card), then do yourself a favour and shop around a bit. You can pick up a brand new Mac Mini for $679 Canadian (sure, you'll have to re-use your existing USB keyboard and mouse and your VGA or DVI monitor, but think of it as being environmentally friendly). Don't let the small size fool you (think about the desk space you'll save!); it has a full-blown Intel Core Duo processor running at 1.4 GHz, with plenty of RAM and good graphics ability. You'll now be able to run the latest version of Mac OS X (you know, the one Vista is a poor imitation of), and, if you really have to, you can load up your version of Windows XP on your new Mac and run both operating systems on the same computer. Two computers for less than the price of one; now that is a deal! Not to mention that you'll be able to kiss all those hundreds of thousands of known Windows Viruses and other malware goodbye; Mac OS X still has no known Viruses that affect it. Good news! Only 38% of XP viruses are Vista-compatible... so far. I'm sure the virus-writers are working dilligently to upgrade their code, too. Enjoy!
  10. Always Right from Burlington, Canada writes: It's easy to criticize things you don't understand, isn't it folks?

    Vista is an improvement over XP in a number of ways, and a step backwards in none. The complaints about being 'bloat ware' were made about Windows 95,98,ME,2000, and XP. There is an OS out there for you people, it's called DOS. Vista needs more, because it does more. Simple as that.

    I for one am eagerly awaiting the new OS, and plan to upgrade very soon.
  11. Graham Brown from Sarnia, Canada writes: I recently purchased an Intel iMac. Mac OS X Tiger is awesome. I also run WinXP SP2 on it using Parallels - that sucks in comparison. But with my setup, I can install any OS I like and run 99% of all software ever created on my iMac. That is the wave of the future people - why place any more faith in Microsoft?
  12. Umm... Toronto from Canada writes: It never ceseases to amaze me how short sighted many mac users truly are. They talk about the increased price of upgrading a PC? A $2000 PC will run just about as well as a $6000 Mac. Macs are more expensive. By thousands and thousands of dollars. This is why most people don't use them. Regardless of whether you want to admit it or not, it is cheaper for you to buy an equivalent PC.
  13. Sal Navarro from Toronto, Canada writes: To Umm...from Toronto-I don't know what you're drinking pal, but if you compare prices for high-end machines at Apple and Dell you find that the prices are very similar!

    This is my reason for going Mac: I bought a Bluetooth adapter for my computer. It came with a 10 page installation guide. At the end of those ten pages, was this:
    To install on a Mac simply plug device into an available USB plug. OSX will do the rest.

    Nothing left to say!
  14. Abe MacIntosh from New Glasgow, Canada writes: Umm...ummmm you don't get it do you.

    I am doing this comment on my brand new MacBook 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 1GB of RAM.

    I can do anything on this computer.

    Total cost including 3 year warranty and unlimited TOLL FREE telephone support was under $2000 Canadian.

    For $6000 you can edit Hollywood movies (in fact, Hollywood does make movies on the high end Macs).

    This is my most recent Mac since 1984. When obliged, I cringe and use PCs. They crash, burn, evaporate, lose information, get viruses...

    We used to say Windows 95, Mac 84. They're catching up. Its now Vista 2007 OSX 2002. Where there used to be a 11 year spread there is now only 5. Of course, the newest OSX version is coming out this spring and that should take them 2 or 3 years ahead again.

    Nice to see an article on Vista where most of the comments are from Mac users. Smug...only when the MS people tell me why their computer is better.
  15. Thom Ringer from New Haven, United States writes: I grew up using Macs, but switched to a Windows machine as a price-conscious student. After half a decade of hardware compatibility issues, glitches, and armwrestling with an interface that made very simple things very hard to do, I switched back to Mac in 2005. So far, the two or three minor problems I've had with Mac OS X were fixable by restarting my computer once.

    Like 95% of consumers, I'm not a power user. I want an OS that is clear, bombproof, and does not waste my time on troubleshooting. I am willing to forego the ability to use cheapo generic parts and peripherals from fly-by-night manufacturers in my system. I think of the small price premium on my beautiful Mac machine as insurance against all the known and unknown glitches and compatibility issues I might encounter with Microsoft.

    Let a thousand flowers bloom, a thousand scholars contend, and a thousand nerds bicker -- but I have no confidence that the release of Vista has changed anything fundamental. Where my work and time are concerned, I'll play it safe -- even if it means no Minesweeper.
  16. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes:
    AW$#%T! MS has thrown the home computer another dead turkey. The XP upgrade was horrendous and who the H wants now a bunch of software that will do nothing but clunk up on a whole bunch of vista incompatible devices and programs... all of which originally required effort to provide smooth performance. Also, it appears that vista did not really concentrate on system performance issues. Doesn't do 4GB??? But needs huge gigaresources? what crap! at $300 a pop for a basic home version MS could have had the courtesy of retrofitting the devices supported instead of forcing one and all to cheerlessly replace components. What an overbloated dead turkey!
  17. Globular Cluster from Canada writes: gaetan diotte makes a good point regarding certain companies's reluctance
    to release their programs for a limited market such as linux. But users should keep
    bugging them, demanding that they change. That said, this is not relevant for the average user as very few applications cannot be found for linux, and then, there are
    fake windows shells called 'windows emulators' that can be installed and used effectively for some smaller programs within a linux OS. The average user needs to switch to linux NOW! to stop this madness, in my opinion.
  18. Buckwheat Bubba from MooseBog Swamp, Canada writes: Forget Vista and Micro$soft. The future is with Leopard OS X 10.5 coming in a few months, If Tiger (10.4) was Vistas role model, then 10.5 will be what Windows 2012 will be. Don't believe me? Just Google 'Apple Leopard 10.5' or visit:

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/index.html
  19. Silly Putty from Whammo, United States writes: Put lipstick and eyeshadow on a pig, and its still a pig.
  20. Barry Coulson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thom, you are sooooo right! I have been deeply wedded to the PC world for the past 10 years or so, and I can't begin to express the frustration with Windows and all of its issues. I am no where near a power user - I just want to do my small on-the-side consulting business, do my taxes and digital photos and music files. I am fed up with a system that has crashed several times, lost files, drivers that aren't available or don;t work properly, compatibility issues (with pretty standard hardware too!), etc., etc. I will NEVER purchase another Windows system. If Windows were a car, it would have been considered a total lemon, and be subject to lawsuites and arbitration. I just want something that WORKS.
  21. RJ Roy from Canada writes: I'm not sure what all the Mac/Linux users expect people to do when they switch from PC, personally. I don't know if they realize that the vast majority of software out there is written for Windows, with very few made for other OS. Do they expect a PC user to run a Windows emulator to start using the software they had before? That's certainly not an acceptable option; why buy a whole new machine just to slash it's capabilities by running a slower emulator? Especially in the case of a computer gamer. As for the comments about reliability, I have 2 things to point out. The first is that I will admit that Apple machine are usually more reliable then PCs, but that is only because Macs are made entirely by Apple, and they don't let you change much, if anything. Need to upgrade your capabilities down the road? You need to get a brand new Mac. A PC, on the other hand, lets you simply buy a signifigantly cheaper component and replace the aging one. Because of this, a PC operating system needs to handle a lot more possible configurations and issues, a lot of which are unexpected and thus can cause issues, while a Mac knows how it's internals work. The second thing I'd like to point out is that the non-mainstream OSes are only 'bombproof' because they're not mainstream. Why bother trying to attack a system that the minority of users have? If the tables were turned and Mac OS was the dominant one, I have no doubts that it'd turn out to be just as buggy and hackable as Windows.
  22. T. Bradley from Mississauga, Canada writes: For the most part I agree with the Mac users. My HP with XP pisses me off to no end. But a large part of the market, particularly for younger users are computer games. Unfortunately, the PC with XP is the platform that most games if not all are made for, and the PC is the device with the most appropriate peripherals. If Mac were to become more game-friendly I would be there in a second.
  23. Proud Canadian from Metropolis, Canada writes: I'm with RJ Roy. I need a PC to connect to the business world. Until there are no VPN's that use only PC related software and all become Web-based we must still use MS regretably. I'm not about to replace my new Laptop in the near future with a Mac. Also doesn't MS own a big chunk of Apple so doesn't really care which system is dominant.
  24. C C from Coombs BC, Canada writes: You obviously have not seen a Linux GL fully accelerated 3D windowing setup. Makes vista look like a poodle actually. After you grab a window bottom and spin a cube of 6 windows you may never go back.

    Have fun with your DRM nightmare ... hmm we broke em' both already anyway ').
  25. Cesslar Toronto from Torrana, Canada writes: Every time MS releases a subsequent version of the Windows Operating System, most users require a hardware upgrade of some sort. That symbiotic MS/Intel (and chipmakers in general) relationship may be the reason why we have cheap and powerful microprocessors available to the mass market. I also want to thank Microsoft for inspiring me to gain a vast knowlege of PC's through countless hours of troubleshooting sessions with Windows 98 and XP for myself and friends/family/neighbours. Regrettably, my next computer will be a Mac so I don't expect to learn much more about troubleshooting but I do look forward to a relatively secure and worry-free computing experience.
  26. Pete Kauchak from Cascadia, Canada writes: Beryl for Linux is a lot like Aero for Vista without the need for 'New' Hardware. Quite frankly I wouldn't use either Aero or Beryl . Both just hog up resources for the sake of looking pretty. A basic Windows XP setup is fine for most people. Windows XP SP2 is quite good with a Core 2 Duo PC when you include patch XP patch KB896256 and follow Microsoft's directions to modify the Windows Registry.
  27. A G from Toronto, Canada writes: First Microsoft does not own a chunk of Apple. They are two seperate companies.

    Second you do not need to use a emulator on a Mac you can use Boot Camp. Boot Camp is not an emulator so have to restart your computer to switch to the windows environment. Boot Camp will be packaged for free with Leopard when it is released.

    Third Macintosh computers are now just as affordable as PC actually for stability and power they are far less expensive. Not all Macs are unable to be upgraded, some have a lot of flexibility. Plus the difference is that with a Mac computer unlike a PC you do not need to upgrade as often becuause usually the machines out of the box are far more powerful then you need.

    I use both PC's and Macintosh's. Yes PC's are far more compatible in the business world but for home I will always go with a Macintosh. I just can not afford to pay for the support a PC machine needs.
  28. Gerry Lenihan from Toronto, Canada writes: After a particularly frustrating experience with ME, and refusing to buy into the Apple software subscription plan, I gave Linux a try. That was 4 yrs ago, I haven’t looked back since. Linux is FREE, has all the tools one needs, has industrial strength security built in, it&8217;s endlessly customizable, you can even make it look and act like OSX. (if one was so inclined). Did I mention it&8217;s FREE?
  29. Gary Layng from Canada writes: RJ Roy wonders what we Linux/Mac users expect Windows users to do when they switch:
    - OpenOffice.org opens Excel, Word and especially PowerPoint files, will create them, edit them and resave them, with few instances of loss of formatting. It will even save in Open Document Format, which Microsoft refuses to program MS Office to accept. OpenOffice.org now comes with an Access-like database program, too, which is something you only get with the pricier version of MS Office.
    - Browsers for Linux and the Mac (Firefox, Opera, Galeon, Konqueror for example) are very W3C standards compliant, IE6 is less than 60%, IE 7 is even less so
    - Quickbooks will work on Linux with WINE, as will many other Windows applications
    - Lotus Notes has a Linux port now
    - There are at least two powerful databases available for Linux: MySQL and PostgreSQL. (MySQL is also available for Windows XP.) Both have point-and-click query interfaces available
    - Currently there are a number of open-source and proprietary accounting packages available for Linux, ranging from simple personal bookkeeping to ERP solutions.
    What business application do you have that does not have at least a Linux equivalent? There is only one I am aware of: personal income tax preparation.
  30. Steeve McCauley from Montreal, writes: The funny thing about the comments concerning Vista is that they are almost identical to the nonsense being spewed when XP arrived. XP was supposed to solve everyone's problems, and in the end all it did was create problems. The user interface for XP was an atrocity from the start. And, while I have yet to see the Vista interface, almost anything could be better to what they did to the Start menu with XP. I have been Microsoft free for 5 years, and have never once felt like throwing my computer out the window, since I switched completely over to my linux desktop. I'm not advocating that the average user switch over to Linux ... yet. But the time is coming very soon. Get yourself an Intel Mac if you can't deal with linux. If you're feeling adventurous, give Ubuntu linux a try.
  31. Steve C from WPG, Canada writes: I don't doubt that Vista will be a much better OS than XP but what's with the hardware requirements? Vista doesn't seem to do anything that Tiger doesn't do and you can load that on a G3. What year did those come out? 1998? I'd hate to see what kind of hardware requirements I would need to do the music production I'm doing on my iMac. You want your OS eating up as little of your resources as possible. Ram might be pretty cheap these days but that doesn't mean you make an OS that requires everyone to buy more of it. And a graphics card upgrade? To run an OS? It's not like XP was released in the 80s or back when punch cards were used. People might say that Macs are initially expensive (not really the case with mini-Macs), but at least you can keep upgrading the OS for years without changing the hardware.
  32. Citizen Mykill from Kona, Canada writes: AG you are wrong. Microsoft purchased 150 million in Apple stock in 1997 in exchange for Apple to drop a lawsuit and use IE on the MAC.

    Furthermore Microsoft produces more apple software than any other company due to the MS Office suite for the MAC.

    Lastly Apple only has 3% market share regardless of what you or any else thinks, and it is not due to a Monopoly but consumer choice. Business consumers simply cannot run MAC OS at this point due to the fact that at 3% market share, no-one makes any serious business applications for the MAC.

    Argue all you want. Those are the facts.
  33. Buckwheat Bubba from MooseBog Swamp, Canada writes: Furthermore, Vista and Leopard, and their Linux counterparts may be the last full fledged OS we will see, as more and more applications are moving to being Web (2.0) based!!

    Did anyone notice that Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO and Chairman of the Executive Committee of Google has joined the Apple Board of Directors, and was onstage with Steve at the keynote at Macworld?

    Gee ..... i wonder what thats all about? ........
  34. Ana G. from Ottawa, Canada writes: I won't pretend to know all there is to know about operating systems (unlike other self-appointed IT gurus in this discussion). I grew up using PCs and, with all the shortcomings most people here love finding and pointing out, I still prefer them over any Mac I've ever owned/used.

    I don't know if I've just been unlucky, but every Mac I had the 'privilege' of working on saw fit to crash on me at least twice a day; so forgive me if I'm skeptical about it's much-lauded stability, I only speak from experience.

    Since I bought my latest PC last summer, I've had no major complaints. As for switching to Vista... I'm not paying that much money for something I don't need (my apparently hopelessly flawed XP has served me just fine thus far), but I'm not ruling it out in the future.
  35. R W from St C, Canada writes: When you consider the cost of down-time and anti-virus software subscriptions Mac is cheaper.
  36. Marc D from Canada writes: Citizen Mykill claims that Microsoft has 96 percent or more of the market 'because of consumer choice'. Several lawsuits and fines against Microsoft have shown this statement is false. Microsoft has a quasi-monopoly because of its illegal and unethical business practices that specifically DIDN'T give consumers any real choice. They got a toehold on the market early, and then used every dirty trick in the book to slam their competitors. This has been proven in several courts of law at this point.

    That's the kind of business model that anyone purchasing Microsoft products is supporting.
  37. Duncan Munro from Langley BC, Canada writes: The Federal government should have declared Microsoft a monopoly, removed all MS software from Federal Gov. computers and refused federal funding for anyone who used MS products. If the provinces did the same it would have created a large and viable market for non-MS software, broken the MS monopoly, and saved the tax payer hundreds of millions in royalty payments. MS has gotten rich by delivering 'planned obsolescence to consumers who are forced to upgrade to gain hardware compatibility or to fix bugs, while MS office continually creates new file formats that are not backward compatible, this kind of behaviour can only happen in a monopoly environment.
  38. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: To Duncan Munro: Amen. and Amen again.
  39. Peter van der Kloot from Calgary, Canada writes: Most comments are about the outside. Inside does Vista still use the DOS shell? Why no comments about the structure? Except the way the OS uses h/w. As to business users, most servers do not run MS, and many now use Linux for the desktop.
    Will you analyse the structure of Vista with the others and then make a technical description? As others wrote about lipstick, remember that is the first thing that comes off!!
    (DOS still stands for Dismal Operating System...)
    'The Flying Dutchman'
  40. Nick Bibassis from Toronto, Canada writes: my last comment was rejected so let's try again...

    For an operating system to rate a X2 3800 with 1gb of ram so low on its scale of usability shows MS can't engineer well-coded software.

    I do work in IT I can tell you that we're not upgrading from XP anytime soon. My shop is a mix of 100 Mac OS and XP systems and I wouldn't be surprised if we dump XP for a Citrix solution.

    Citizen Mykill, Microsoft bought non-voting shares as part of the 'settlement'. They are useless shares. I'm impressed that you know that fact. Most people believe the money was to 'save' Apple, even though they had billions in the bank at that time.

    I'm impressed how many Mac users are posting here. I've been a Mac user sice 1987 and haven't looked back. It's nice to see that average users are embracing OS X, not just designers and engineers!

    Now where is my iPhone?
  41. JOe Smith from Waterloo, ON, Canada writes: Good luck playing any of the latest 3D games on a Mac. If you're lucky, the game will be release a year later, but in most cases, you can forget about it.

    I'm not sure why anyone would buy a Mac, when you can buy a PC and put Linux on it. I'm using Fedora Core 6 with the latest version of Beryl as my interface, and it runs great. Oh, and did I mention that it's all free software?
  42. Martin Taylor from Toronto, Canada writes: It really shouldn't matter how nice it is to use a Vista machine as opposed to a Linux machine or a Mac OS X machine. The real problem with Vista lies elsewhere.

    I'm surprised that nobody has yet referred to the analyses that have been published about the costs of Vista's DRM management, not only to the Vista user, but to the whole computer industry, not to mention the issues associated with the Vista EULA (End User Licene Agreement). Here are a couple of links. You can easily find others: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html about the serious security (as in National Security) issues of the DRM management, and http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/420 about the EULA. Both, but particularly the DRM issues, seem calculated to produce a situation in which Microsoft either commits suicide or acquires a legally enforced monopoly on all computing (shutting out Linux and Mac, as well as homebrew machines). Any time a foreign manufacturer requires you to give it the authority essentially to turn off your computer at its own whim, you have a situation that needs examining.

    Disclosure: I've used Macs exclusively at home since the first one came out in Feb 84.
  43. Richard F from Victoria, Canada writes: Microsoft a monopoly? You bet! M$ software is shoved down our throats but the retail/hardware/software marketing cartels. When was the last time you could go to Best Buy and purchase a brand new box with Linux on it? It'll never happen. Sure you can take your new box home, format the hard drive to remove the latest M$ bloatware and install Linux. But you will still pay the tax to Redmond. Unless it's a Mac, most retailers will not sell you nor will they promote any PC without some version of M$ Windows O/S preinstalled.

    No wonder the consumer gets hooked on Windows.
  44. RJ Roy from Canada writes: To Gary, thanks for your list, however it doesn't really matter. All of that software is also available in the Windows environment, exactly the same. So you're saying to shell out the extra cash to get a machine that does the same thing, except interfaces worse with most other business machines out there? And then when you come to a non-business user, such as a gamer, you have a completly different problem. A G gives some examples of software for that, however again it unfortunately doesn't really matter. Boot Camp is nothing new; people have been multi-booting machines for ages, but are you saying it's reasonable for a person to have to restart their machine every time they want to run different programs? I won't say I speak for many people, but I sure as hell would not want to have to restart my computer after writing up an essay so that I could play, say, NWN2. Also, what kind of upgradability are you refering to? I'll admit that I don't follow Mac equipment much, but the last Mac upgrade I've seen in any of the stores I frequent (which also carry a fair number of Mac machines) was an internal floppy drive.
  45. Glenn Hawley from Canada writes: So Vista needs 2Gb of RAM to run properly, yet only recognizes a bit more than 3Gb???

    A computer ought to be there to do work for its user, not dedicate two thirds of the maximum available resources just to sit there and play with itself. Say, maybe MS is going blind from doing just that...
  46. Geoff Virgo from North Vancouver, Canada writes: 'And Linux fans will scoff too, mainly because it's part of the Linux culture to disdain any form of eye candy; a lot of Penguinistas still haven't forgiven Novell for incorporating sexy features into its latest version of SUSE.'

    I wonder has the author ever installed Linux? Does he know that 'Linux' is the kernel; nothing more, nothing less. Has he looked at the wide variety of window managers available for X? Gnome and KDE, the 2 most popular, both introduced highly visual alpha blended desktops back when Windows98 was still the defacto standard desktop. While I tend to agree that Vista is an interesting exercise but hardly anything to rush out and upgrade to, I can't help but wonder how much more weight the authors opinion might carry if he actually knew as much about technology as his writing tries to portray.
  47. Jason Thorne from Vancouver, Canada writes: I for one am not going to upgrade to Vista. I will continue to use XP for as long as I can and then either switch to Linux or buy a Mac. Boot camp would allow me to run XP (don't know if it will work with Vista) on the Mac. More games are coming out that are playable on Macs, which has been the main reason for avoiding Mac. With Linux there seems to be more stable Windows emulators than before, which is why I would consider switching to that. Vista is a huge resource hog and doesn't seem look to be a huge improvement over XP. I will most likely need a new computer to run Vista because my mother-board doesn't support the dual core processors or 4GB of RAM, all of which would need to be purchased. Argue what you will, I am not telling anyone to do the same, it is just my personal preference and I am sick of doing this for every Windows upgrade.

    As for the monopoly arguement, I would agree that Microsoft is a monopoly. They have 80% of the market. If software makers continue their move to support other OS's then that will change, but until that happens Microsoft continues to have a strangle-hold on the masses.
  48. Stephen LaRose from Regina, Canada writes: The Globe and Mail's reviewer regarding Vista seems to be more interested in the style of the product instead of finding out whether it actually works. Large, cumbersome, and riddled with technological limitations demanded by the music and movie industry, Vista sounds like a mess. I would have something that works and looks like XP than something that looks nice and contains more bugs than a hobo's blanket (as all initial releases of Microsoft products do).
  49. Walter Shillington from Windsor, Canada writes: Hi:

    Seems to be a lot of Linux and Mac users here. Have never touched a Mac but have used many different Microsoft and Linux Operating Systems. I love to play! The article was wrong in one respect. Many Linux users do love eye candy. Otherwise the article seemed fair. I do believe Microsoft has put much work into Vista and it is a lot more then 'lipstick'. I do believe that it is too expensive but when you buy a new computer the added cost of preinstalled Vista will be a lot more reasonable. I think the 'hackers' will hit it hard but that will not be because it is less protected then Linux but because it is used a lot more (96% of computers run Windows) and the hackers like to attack the big guys. The important thing is they have worked hard and made a lot of progress. Since Linux has,pretty much, caught up with Windows XP (It is a pretty old OS) it will be nice to have another target to overtake.

    cheers
    Bryce
  50. Phil G from Ottawa, Canada writes: Am I the only one who's been reading all these nerdy comments aloud in the voice of that 'Android's Dungeon' character from The Simpsons? 'Worst. OS Evangelicals. Ever.'
  51. Peter Cromerovich from Calgary, Canada writes: I have no experience whatsoever with Vista but those wishing to upgrade might first want to read an article by Chris Mellor in ITWorldCanada entitled 'Vista crippled by content protection' . He describes research by Peter Guttman, a well-known and respected security engineering researcher at New Zealand's University of Auckland and his paper entitled 'A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection'.

    http://www.itworldcanada.com

    Specifically:
    http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?id=idgml-f723e34f-1e1a-44f3&Portal=252cc78a-a947-4072-84be-f50cac8ec48e&sub=154840
  52. Bruce Kerwood from Klamath, CA, United States writes: I'll wait for service pack 2, ...or 3, ...or 4.
  53. Alan Wong from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: Phil G, what is 'Android's Dungeon' from the Simpsons? I'm not saying I don't watch TV, but that's gotta be one of the most umm... let's say 'out there' references I've heard in a while. The problem with Vista is not that some people have associated their self-worth with the products they consume (really, people have been doing that since there WERE products to consume), the problem is that it takes a HUGE amount of power for minimal improvement in usability. Microsoft OS products plateaued at 2000 (If not NT 4.0). That's when the added usability stopped increasing, and 'user-friendly'ness became the main focus. Why user-friendliness (which, really, should only effect the UI) continues to require more and more system resources that could actually be spend RUNNING THE PROGRAM, is beyond me. Most programs have their own UI anyways, eliminating the need for some complicated OS UI. I have always used MS as my main OS, but Vista is the straw (or 10 ton anvil) that broke the camel's back. I'm switching to Linux. Most business/work programs are starting to have a web-based UI, and I don't play many games anymore, so goodbye MS. Mac OS is not an option because it trades 'ability' for 'usability'. If you're reasonably computer savy, Linux with a graphical user interface is the way to go. Gnome or KDE. It's actually EASY to use (providing you come fresh onto it without any conditioning by other OS), and in the event you actually become a power-user, it's really the only way to go. Oh, And it's free.
  54. Doug R. from Burlington, Canada writes: Phil G. I didn't think your Simpson's reference was 'out there' at all. In fact, other than Stephen's comment about MS software having 'more bugs than a hobo's blanket' it was the only thing that made wading through this entire discussion entertaining. Thank goodness that some 'geeks' have a sense of humour!
  55. Stephen McPherson from Bradford, Canada writes: There are 2 fundamental truths in the dsk top computing world that have not changed in 2 decades and won't change for another 2 decades:

    Truth #1 - Mac Users don't tolerate incompetent software. They throw it in the trash can where it belongs.

    Truth 2 - Windows is incompetent software.

    Any Tom, Dick or Harry can buy a Windows SDK and a C compiler, whack some code together, call it an application and charge for it. Developing for the Windows has been a very open and accessible environment for one and all. In contrast, Mac has provided a fantastic user environment at the expense of the devleopment environment. It's more of a challenge to develope applications for Mac.

    If you can tolerate a car that breaks down a lot and leaves you standed when you need it most; Windows is for you. If you suffer unreliability and incompetence lightly and you need you car to get you to and from work each and every day, then go Mac.
  56. steve bee from Trawna, Canada writes: ... or just get a Mac and live like the rest of us.
  57. Peter Kells from Ottawa, Canada writes: And so it goes - we are all supposed to pay the 'Windows' tax to Microsoft and Mr. Kapica seems to be operating from that premise. Unfortunately, I do not see any improvements in Vista that I do not already have with Linux and I don't have to pay the hefty price. In terms of quality software, Microsoft with all of their money and resources are now playing catchup to the volunteer geeks who write the Linux code. The only thing that Microsoft seems to have going for it is the lucrative deals it strikes on operating systems for new computer sales. In future that cash cow will pass as more hardware companies offer options - Lenovo already has introduced Linux certified laptops and I am sure that many more will follow in future and pass on the money savings to their customers.
  58. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: No thanks.
    Looking at internal Microsoft memos and messages which are now publicly viewable thanks to a class-action antitrust suit against Microsoft in Iowa, there is one REALLY good reason not to bother with Vista.

    Microsoft's Vista chief Jim Allchin:

    'I would buy a Mac today if I was not working at Microsoft. The company has lost sight of what matters to our customers.' (he's leaving at the end of the month)

    Steve Jobs used that quote - in giant letters- as a testimonial during his recent Macworld Expo keynote.

    I'm going to follow Vista chief Jim Allchin's advice and pass on this one.

    For a good time, look at these other exhibits offered by plaintiffs in the case.

    http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/01162007/
  59. Derek Gee from Chilliwack, Canada writes: Gee guys, looks like MacOsx 10.1 - welcome to 2002. Only problem is, you are still 5 years behind. Although we few, the proud, the productive may have to pay an added 5-10% for a mac, it works. Flawlessly, all the time, is a pleasure to drive and did all of this stuff years ago. I really hope MSN has finally got it right, but me thinks probably not. Keep following boys...
  60. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: QUESTION:
    Is the Blue Screen of Death still blue?
  61. rob tomba from Victoria, Canada writes: Always right in Burlington , you sound like a Microsoft employee.

    This new operating systems hardware requirements are bloated and the reasons are not just because of the slick new interface.

    (It is in fact plagiarized from Apple as mentioned)<---hmm irony.

    Anyone interested in this new system should check out what Steve Gibson and leo laporte et al are saying about it at grc.com.
  62. j machat from Redmond, United States writes: Reply to Paul from Vancouver:
    Yes, it is. However, you will get it only on 'Unrecoverable error during initial load.'
  63. Matthew Yeo from Canada writes: If Linux could get its act together, this conversation wouldn't even be happening. Over a five year period, MS has wanted to charge its customers, at bare minimum, $500 for OS products ($250 for XP Home at launch, $259 for Vista Basic). Apple, over the same period, wants to charge me about $800 - $179 each for 10.1 through 10.5. We don't HAVE to pay this and can stick with the first OS from each company, but if one wanted to keep up, this is the price tag. Linux has charged me ... zero. That being said, Linux is NOT the average person's OS, not by a long shot. Much is made of the super-easy install for Ubuntu Linux (and it was super-easy when I did it) but very little is mentioned about how difficult configuration of the OS is after install is done. Getting basic DVD support and support for my audio files I imported from my Mac cost me hours on the Internet researching and a bunch of tinkering with different players, codecs and audio back ends. iPod support required wiping the Apple firmware from my iPod and replacing it with the Windows version ... not for the faint of heart. The average user is simply unwilling or incapable of this kind of effort to get to the point where stuff just 'works'. Even when done, nothing was as visually unified or user friendly as my Mac, either. Cutting and pasting between apps is a PITA, for example. After a few months playing with it, I turned around and re-installed OSX 10.4 because I was tired of the niggling issues. Too bad ... the price was sure right.
  64. Mike G from Canada writes: The operating system of a computer actually has nothing to do with the user interface. It provides essential services such as memory management, file I/O, peripheral I/O, security etc. The user interface is known as the 'shell', and the GUI is the graphical interface for that shell. All of the bells and whistles and gadgets are part of the GUI for that shell. I attended the Vista launch in Toronto last fall, and saw some neat stuff and some 'you gotta be kidding me' stuff. Like doing away with the menu bar in office 2007 (Again not part of the OS), and using a plethora of toolbar buttons that occupy 1/3 of the screen real estate. Microsoft failed to deliver on the cmponent which held up release of Vista, the new filesystem. i'm not sure that, other than the visual toys, the OS is not much of an upgrade from XP. I keep reading about the virtues of MAC OSX. What people fail to mention, is that while it is a very good OS, it is in fact a version of UNIX that has been around for decades. Apple has always been fond of releasing new operating systems that were incompatible with older versions, rendering expensive software packages unusable. Now that they have adopted a standard hardware and software platform, hopefully there will be backwards compatibility for future releases. This is an area where Microsoft has protected it's Customers. Office 97 still runs on the new Windows platforms. The same cannot be said for Filemaker Pro 98 and Mac OS X. Now that mac has released OS X, I may consider a Mac. Not because of the GUI (remember the shell?), but because I would like to have a decent UNIX OS to use, and am not happy with linux.
  65. Michael Bonazza from Toronto, Canada writes: Why is it that everyone is criticising Microsoft's new product without even trying it? Most people are just bitter and jealous of big companies. Hey, why don't we ask the Government to tell Microsoft to lower the price on Vista, people think it's ok for the banks!!! (Sarcasm obviously)
  66. Swifty J from Mariposa, Canada writes: The best-before date on most of the anti-Mac FUD in this thread was somewhere around 1996. I suspect a good deal of it is good old-fashioned leg pulling. Floppy drives? No upgradeable parts? $6000 for $2000 worth of computer? Cmon, that's just silly and you ought to know it.

    More silliness: Microsoft's 'stake' in Apple. It was a tiny minority stake to begin with, and MS sold it years ago for a tidy profit. Look it up. Microsoft's stake in the Mac today is nothing more nor less than a source of highly profitable software sales.

    In any case, there's no one system that's right for everyone. Hardcore gamers and those who rely on apps without Mac versions (e.g. AutoCAD) should generally stay away from Macs. Everyone else should just choose what they prefer and be done with it. Unfortunately, the great majority of computer users don't get to choose at all: they have to use whatever the boss puts on their desk.
  67. Rob C from Toranna, Canada writes: It's nice to see varying opinions on OS and diff. systems.

    I really like the choices across all platforms. It's good to see the Mac drop down to affordable pricing finally.

    However as others have mentioned- the PC and it's software is the language of Business. And majority of companies rely on the PC precisely because of this. Games have been mentioned- but game players are another breed who will hack and add whatever they need to get whatever game they want to run.

    I am a power user and have had no problems with XP- I have thrown a lot at it and it still comes out without a hitch. A fry cry from past Windows OS.

    It all comes down to a well built system, and your choice of quality software and user habits in the end. I usually find that when people complain about an OS (Windows being the biggest, thus the most complaints,) is that something is not setup correctly on their computer.

    I see little reason to upgrade to Vista especially because of the DRM issue that Martin Tayler and others have mentioned.

    Bottom line- use whatever system that suites your needs and ignore the rest.
  68. Abe MacIntosh from New Glasgow, Canada writes: Mike G. You're 6 years behind the times. As a Mac user since 1984, my experience is more in depth than yours. For all versions of Mac OS from OS 7 to OS 9.2.2 (the last update before OS X) the software was ALWAYS backwards compatible. In March 2001 the first version of OS X was released. This was the first time in Mac history that software was NOT backwards compatible. Not a bad record (1984 to 2001). Even so, for the next 4 years, until the switch to Intel processors, there was built in to the software a 'Classic Environment'. This was an OS 9 emulator that allowed those of us with pre OS X software to continue to run the software. It still exists except on newer Macs with the Intel processor. So, get it correct. Apple has ALWAYS been friendly to older software. In addition, not only is OS X stable, but, on my older iMac I can still run any pre OS X software in Classic Mode. Not only that, I can boot the computer up in either OS 9.2.2 or OS X and the Classic environment and run programs in native OS 9 or Classic mode.

    With my new MacBook, Intel Core 2 Duo chip, I have finally (after 20 years) lost the ability to use old software.
  69. Michael Tripper from Van, Canada writes: just wanted to let everyone know that indeed I am running Tiger on a B
  70. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: just wanted to let everyone know that indeed I am running Tiger on a B
  71. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: dammit! ampersands appear to end comments on this board!

    ust wanted to let everyone know that indeed I am running Tiger on a Blue and White G3 - 300MhZ - yes 300 a fraction of todays machines cpu power - I doubt very much a wintel machine would last this long!

    need a new one this year - love the idea of dual-booting so MacTel is my choice...Vista, let's wait and see what happend between now and Leopard launch...
  72. Joey Schwartz from Toronto, Canada writes: Apparently, even an Intel-based Mac can now run OS 8 or 9 software, with the appropriate virtual machine or emulater. Sheepshaver apparently has beta version of its software that will allow the Classic environment to run on a Intel Mac OS X system .
  73. A Reader from Canada writes: To Michael from Vancouver ... A couple of years ago, I had a blast making my 9500 run OSX. Right now I have one Blue and White running 10.4.8 and another running 10.3.9. The rest of the world can squabble all they like about Windows and Macs ... I just have fun making my Macs do things that they're not supposed to do!! Cheers
  74. A Reader from Canada writes: To Umm from Toronto ... I'm not aware of a $6000 Mac. As another reader pointed out, a Mac Mini will run Windows and Mac OS' beautifully. Two for one ... and the Mini will cost you less than $1000. Please don't spout the old price argument ... we've heard it too many times and it doesn't really ring true. Never did, BTW. If you did a comparison, feature-by-feature, between a Mac and a brand-name PC, you would never have much of a difference. In any event, that's old news now. The fact that you can run both Windows and Mac OS' on Mac hardware is unbeatable - two for one ...
  75. A G from Toronto, Canada writes: Just thought I would wade in with one thought .... my current company runs both Macs and PC's. Unless you knew the person's title you would not know who is on what platform! This is the same for my parent's company that uses both computers. Kinda makes the PC are the only computers that work in a business environment a mute point.

    As a side note, Apple just had a 30% growth in 2006 for there computers. The industry's growth overall was 3%. Do you think Apple maybe doing a little catch-up!
  76. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thanks A Reader - cheers!
  77. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: Mac lovers make me laugh. Nobody except Apple makes software for Macs. Even Adobe has given up on Apple. My Dell PCs running XP work better, cost less, don't crash unexpectedly like Macs and let me do anything I want. Hell, Macs even have Intel processors and run Windows now -- they are PCs! Baahahahahahhahaha!
  78. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: I love the way Micahel Tripper's Mac keeps screwing up his posts. Priceless!
  79. Allan Crespi from Ottawa, Canada writes: People use Windows because they HAVE to. People use Mac OS X because they WANT to.
  80. Chad Remmel from Canada writes: What a bunch of whiners! Enough already. Microsoft has improved their products (outside of the Windows Millennium release) each time they release a new OS or office suite.
    No one HAS to use it.
    Go ahead - get one of the 500 flavors of Linux or spend more $$ and buy a MAC.
    You have the power of choice.
    Go get Open Office. It works. ( http://www.openoffice.org/ ) Stop complaining and find an alternative. I myself like MS products. They have enabled everyone to just hop on any Windows PC and know immediately how to use it. It bought together what was a fragmented, disorganized way to use a PC to a nice common platform. Nothing is perfect.
    Anyone complaining about Intel's lock on the market and how they paid out the US Government to avoid press and attention. Man their market share at one point was higher and something I am sure Microsoft has wet dreams of. And yes you can buy AMD equipped PC (i have for many years) instead. There is choice.
  81. Chad Remmel from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I have to ad that in order to have a Apple, you pay a premuim.
    Also, in the early days Apple was nothing more than an over priced attempt to be a monopoly themselves. They controlled everything. OS, software that goes in and on and the hardware. 100%. We briefly had clones but Apple pulled the plug on that. The only problem with Apple is they were always over priced and hit resistance in the market. IF they had goten competitive - they would have won and we would be complaining about Apple, instead of Microsoft.
  82. Swifty J from Mariposa, Canada writes: Craig - that's right, when a Mac crashes it's unexpected. Unlike when a Windows machine crashes. (BTW, Michael's problem appears to be that including the ampersand in a post causes the forum software to truncate the post. It's nothing to do with the client computer, assuming his diagnosis is correct.)

    Chad - go price some current Macs against name-brand systems from HP, Lenovo/IBM, Dell, etc. They're highly competitive now. It's true that Apple doesn't have an entry in the lowest end of the market and can't beat a generic beige box or entry-level Dell on price, but when you compare models with similar specs and build quality, Apple is right there with the other name-brand players.

    And Chad, plenty of people DO have to use Windows. They are the legions of white-collar workers who have NO say about what computer and software they must use to do their jobs, and they probably represent about 70% of all desktop computer users.

    & test truncation bug here.
  83. Matthew Yeo from Canada writes: Chad Cooper - Do some homework, son, and stop posting from your Momma's basement. Check the longest running computers list available through Google and tell me how many WinOS PCs you see in there? None? Right. Then, once you've determined that you are wrong there, go to your local Apple store and watch the salesclerk run Unix applications right from within OS X via Apple's free X Window system. Then, watch him boot up via Bootcamp into WinXP so that he can play some games in his spare time. What, you say? All THREE platforms available through one computer ... and you didn't have to do anything other than download some FREE software to do it? Put that in your PC pipe and smoke it.
    • Posted 28/01/07 at 12:34 PM EDT |