Re: Top Ten Reasons to Not Wait for Vista

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:31:23 -0800, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <wDpKf.20431$Ly6.9855@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:05:12 -0800, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <QN6Kf.29731$X7.1378@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):


imouttahere@xxxxxxx wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20060210/tc_techtues_pc
wo
rld/124642&cid=1740&ncid=1729

1. Security: User Account Protection. Shipping with OS X now.


Does it matter? Third-party tools have always been developed and shipped
for
Windows which take over the problem of Security.

Not at this level. Strange that it took Microsoft 20 years to figure out
how to write a sudo + libgksu clone.

Microsoft chose to make it easy for the average user to add devices and
software to his machine. Because of this, they had to use a much less secure
way of installing such hardware and software. Microsoft could have at any
time written the necessary security measures to closely guard the
installation of hardware and software. This was NOT what they were trying to
do, however. They chose a different course. They chose to make it EASIER
for the average user, not HARDER, as Apple did.



But Windows users, for the
most part, just aren't technically-minded enough to use them. Microsoft
chose from the beginning to make it's OS open-ended, rather than closed, as
Apple chose to make their OS.

Windows Vista will not be any more 'open ended' than Windows XP was,
unfortunately.

Evidently you and I disagree as to what "open-ended" means. I mean that
Microsoft uses an architecture which is conducive to the use of many
different varieties of hardware, simply by adding a driver for the device,
while Apple closely controls and limits just WHAT hardware may be used with
the OS and HOW it may be used. This was Apple's choice. Because of it, they
wound up with a machine which was HARD to expand (usually one must send his
Apple to the manufacturer if he wants any major changes done, such as a
logic board replacement, or a CPU replacement or upgrade), resulting in a
much lower market share.



Microsoft's choice has made a much larger market for Wintels and the
software
used on them. This was Bill's choice from the beginning. He chose to make
both himself and his developers rich. Steve Jobs chose a different course.
He chose to make only himself rich.

Which is "better"? Each person must decide for himself.

I'm wondering why you replied to my post, if most of your comments were
aimed at the OP.

I replied to "your" post for a simple reason: 99.9% of all OS X newsreaders
do not make a method for displaying previous articles AFTER they have all
been marked "Read". They just do not archive read articles. I would have
replied to the OP directly, rather than indirectly, as I did, if I had been
using Agent or any other Windows newsreader.




<sarcasm>Yeah, hold me back.</sarcasm>

2. IE7: No thanks, we've had tabbed browsing for ages now, and the
browser is already properly sandboxed.


With this, I am in full agreement. Microsoft has been too occupied with
backward-compatibility for too many years, now. A compete change is
certainly in order.

IE7 isn't a 'complete change'.

Again, "some change" is better than "NO change".

Nor was I implying that it was. I was rather remarking on what Microsoft
needs to do, not what they have done, with IE 7.




If you use a loose definition of the term 'properly'.


3. Aero Glass: this wouldn't be Aqua, Quartz, and QE would it? Oh, yes
it would. Zzzz..

No, it wouldn't.


I am sure this is the most important part of Vista. It's slow development
is
only a sign of its complexity, rather than a poor development strategy.

Considering the corporate culture at Microsoft, I'd say it's an example
of poor development strategy.


I can think of more than a few things which are needed in Tiger, such as an
API for adding GUI improvements, such as was built into Vista from the
ground
up.

OS X's UI is hardly a shning example of a well designed and highly
extensible GUI. You need to compare Vista with the reigning champion--X11R7

Yeh, right. "X11R7 "and what desktop? WindowsMaker? or NeXTstep? or any of
the other "Linux" desktops? In yer dreams, bud.

X11R7 is totally USELESS without a Desktop, unless one remains in a CLI world
forever.





4. "Instant Desktop Search": Spotlight. BTDT in 2003/4... so long I've
forgotten...

It would have been better if they could have included the full-on WinFS
implementation that was promised originally.

Many things "would have been better if..."



It will eventually be included as a Service Pack, probably, when the server
version of Vista is released. In the meantime, use Google's Desktop, or
the
MSN toolbar, both of which have "instant" Desktop search.

Desktop searching is almost useless for someone who's got an even
moderately orgainized filesystem. WinFS is useful because it could do
things well beyond merely finding a file (like extracting selected
content from several files, and displaying them according to a
particular set of rules).

I disagree. Spotlight on OS X is a very useful tool. It is much better for
OS X users that it is included in the product, rather than having to install
a third-party tool such as Google Desktop or the Yahoo ToolBar.


All the much better for Windows users once it is finally released.




5. "Vista does away with using Internet Explorer to access Windows
Update, instead utilizing a new application to handle the chore of
keeping your system patched and up-to-date"... um, Software Update
anyone?

Yes, so? It's an improvement over the old update system. Both platforms
still have abysmally poor package management.


Why complain over small favors?

Because that's how you get big favors.

Note that they are "favors". "Favors" are not a result of our complaints.
They are the result of the designers' decision to give us a little more for
our bucks. They don't HAVE to give them to us, but they do any way. Which
"favor" is Linus or Steve giving us?

Personally, I commend Microsoft for finally
getting rid of the old "Microsoft Update" system using Internet Explorer
and
Active Desktop controls.

I'll commend them when they fix their platform's obsolete package
management 'system' (and I use the term loosely).

Again, thank goodness for small favors. Something is always better than
nothing.




6. "WMP, WPG, DVD Maker". Sheez, Micorsoft is about 3 years behind
Apple here.


Behind, shehind. What does it matter? The fact is, Microsoft has always
provided a rudimentary interface for various media forms. That Apple
provides better media control is in its favor. That Microsoft is finally
starting to come around shows that competition in the market place does
work,
as it should.

Don't forget,ALL windowed environments were "borrowed" from Xerox's PARC,

That is incredibly oversimplified. There was a lot of GUI work going on
around then, in places other than PARC.

The fact is, Apple did NOT invent the concept, as many Mac fanatics would
have one believe. Don't try to gloss over this fact.


who
actually spent the development money and did the sweat-work of INVENTING
the
windowed concept,

They didn't invent the concept, the developed an implementation of it.
Yeh, right, Apple "invented the Concept", like in the early 60's, while
Stevie Boy was still in diapers. He was surely a prolific infant, wasn't he?

the mouse,

The first mouse was demonstrated in 1968, well before Xerox developed
tha Alto.

and other methods for accessing computers easily
which we all take for granted today

Nonsense. The Alto's UI shares only basic similarities to modern UIs.
Hell, even UIs from the 80's. "Window", for example. It's also difficult
to grant that sort of 'credit' to a group of people that simply
implemented an obvious idea.



Funny, OS X doesn't even ship with most of iLife anymore.

This is true. To get iLife, one must pay for it.



7. Parental Controls. Apple has some of this now, but I guess the ESRB
blocking stuff is pretty cool, from a technological standpoint.


This has never been a problem of mine, so I really have no comments, other
than to say that it has always been a "problem" for ALL OS manufacturers.
After all, we adults are fighting against our own children, who in most
cases
are MUCH MORE knowledgeable of computers than we, and are usually able to
get
around any limits we might set.


8. Backups: DotMac's had this covered for a while. "System Restore"
functionality is debatable, more an indication of instability than a
useful feature really.

25 megs of "backup" space on DotMac? Yeh, right. That's really gonna "back
up" your system, ain't it?.

Better to do a backup onto an external device, rather than a public (private)
folder on a server somewhere "out there" in CyberSpace, and subject to
examination by the Feds at any time.






Pretty much all OSes require the use of third-party back-up software, if
one
is to back up his software and data incrementally, and onto external media,
such as DVDs or CDs or even FireWire or USB drives.

Most *nixes include some sort of incremental backup tool. Dump, if
nothing else.

Yeh, right. This "free sofware" usually included on a set of Linux install
discs. How useful is that? Not very. It's usually very amateurish, and
poorly designed and implemented.




A) .Mac is not included with OS X.


Nor is a membership in MSN included with Windows. Even free email is
getting
rarer and rarer with MSN.

At least a membership in MSN includes an Internet Connection, as well as
webmail (or POP access, depending on what you opt for). In addition, .Mac
does NOT include an Internet Connection. I guess they have to make up for
this lack some how. So they give a few megs of storage space on their
servers. Big deal.


And more common with many other services.

So which Email service does Linus provide with the purchase of his OS?


Just what does .Mac membership include which is so great, anyway? A small
amount of disk space on an external server to send our private files? Why
not just pay for an external server account for a few bucks a month, rather
than $99 per year for a .Mac account?

It includes some other things, like a system backup utility, virus
scanner, web space, and some other less important things. It's also
reasonably well integrated with certain functions in OS X.

None of these programs are lacking for a Windows PC. All one has to do is
download them. Many times, these programs are freeware.




B) System Restore is actually quite useful for residential users.


Having used System Restore from time to time (because of that hideous
Registry on Windows), I did find it useful every now and then. But System
Restore will not restore improperly installed software or drivers. It only
restores a previously saved Registry.

Which is still very useful.

Sometimes. But only sometimes. Many times doing a System Restore is not
useful at all.



Of course, this is all because of Microsoft's use of dynamic link libraries
and the Registry. This crippled package management system also requires
the
reinstallation of some products or drivers after a System Restore.

The registry is a bad idea, made even worse through real-life
implementation, but Microsoft *could* work around it. If they had some
rigourously managed package system, it wouldn't be nearly as much of a
problem.

But the writer is correct in saying that System Restore is useful for
residential users, who usually have little or no knowledge of computers and
software.

However, I have found that using System Restore is no substitute for
properly
maintaining a Windows machine. And I eventually always wind up
reinstalling
the OS cleanly after 6 months, anyway, just to get a decently-clean
Registry.

Bah, it's faster to just clean out the bad registry entires by hand.

When there are usually over 200,000 (or more) registry entries in a larger
installation of XP, doing what you suggest is actually a nightmare, not
"faster", and will almost always result in broken registrations of
applications and the OS.




If Microsoft continues insisting on using the System Registry and DLLs, a
newer iteration of an old, broken method will not help.


9. P2P. Hello Zeroconf.

Zeroconf is a standard and already supported by XP.

I don't know what "Zeroconf" is, so I cannot comment on it.



10. "Jim Allchin, Microsoft's co-president, says that Windows Vista
boasts a re-engineered install routine, which will slash setup times
from about an hour to as little as 15 minutes". LOL.


Having installed Windows hundreds of times, a 15 minute install is
definitely
an improvement. However, I do not believe this will be the "normal"
install,
unless a "Quick" format is chosen, rather than a "Full" format, which will
almost always take a minimum of 30 minutes by itself.

Seems like a waste of time to me. It's not like their 'full' format is a
so-called low-level format.

Most HDs can only be "low-level formatted" at the factory.



As long as Windows uses the Registry, longer than usual installs will be a
necessity.


And OS X takes at least 40 minutes to install.


Or an hour or more if the complete ("write-zeroes") format is chosen
(depending on disk size).

Let's face it, it takes more time to write zeroes before writing sector
marks
than it does to simply erase the FAT table and re-write it (or whatever OS
X
does for a "Quick" format). It is going to take quite some time on our
modern (>100gig hard drives), whether one uses OS X, or Vista.

Even a 'quick format' on Windows takes ages. It's just plain slow,

"Ages"? I've never experienced a "Quick Format" on Windows taking "Ages" or
"forever", as you claim. They are always finished within 2 or three minutes.
I wouldn't exactly call 2 or 3 minutes "ages" (you must be on speed all the
time).

All that is necessary is for the installer to delete the old FAT table and
write a new empty one. The sector marks are not removed, new pointers are
just written in the FAT table to them.

when
compared with something like ext3 or reiserfs on GNU/Linux.

I know little if any thing about Linux. I have installed several releases on
Windows machines from time to time. But I just don't like the Desktops of
Linux.




I don't even like Windows, and I know you're grasping at straws with these.


Each of us has our "tastes", don't we? Your "taste" is limited to Apples,

Uhh, no. I'm a GNU/Linux advocate, though I use all three platforms daily.

while many other's "tastes" are more expansive. Does it make OS X any
better
because your tastes are limited, or Windows any worse because many of its
users have broader tastes? I think not.

I think OS X is almost as bad as Windows, though for different reasons.

Actually, I like OS X. It is much easier to use than Windows. In addition,
it is much easier to maintain an OS X file system than it is to maintain a
Windows file system.

But I did NOT like Linux. It is much too difficult to configure various
devices. In addition, not much useful software is written for Linux. And
the software which is usually included with various distributions is almost
always very buggy and second-rate (mostly because it is written by relative
amateurs with little or no money for development.)



If you want to compare OS X with Windows, a much different set of criterion
must be applied than just the time it takes to install the OS.

You are responding to the wrong person. I *don't* think OS X is anything
special.

I not sure that I did "respond to you". If I'm not mistaken, all my comments
are almost always made below the comments of the ones who write them. If I
respond to you, my comment will almost always be below your comment.

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may remain intact
==========================================

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Possible virus!
    ... > didn't work then we might have to do a fresh install. ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... I'll mainly work around Windows XP, as that is what the bulk of this ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Does anybody know what virus ive got?
    ... > Internet Security after I install it. ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... I'll mainly work around Windows XP, as that is what the bulk of this ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize)
  • Re: after installing KB011829 OWA is not working anymore
    ... Windows Vista or IE 7.0 no longer includes support for the ActiveX control ... The resolution for this issue is to install hotfix KB 911829. ... and to the back-end server. ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.connectivity)
  • Re: Errors with Windows XP
    ... Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the ... More full function applications for CD/DVD burning would be: ... using Windows XP "prettifications". ... install a third-party application and configure/maintain it. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • RE: DST update for Exchange 2003 and Outlook 2003
    ... Install the Windows OS update to the SBS 2003 server and all Windows ... 931836 February 2007 cumulative time zone update for Microsoft Windows ... there is no order of installing of DST update on Exchange server and ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)