Re: Top Ten Reasons to Not Wait for Vista

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:35:40 -0800, Donald L McDaniel wrote
(in article <0001HW.C021EEFC00134FC9F0488550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):


On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:14:10 -0800, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <ZfTKf.19519$UD1.13150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):


Donald L McDaniel wrote:

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.

Which does not require a bus-sized vulnerability in how your permissions are set bey default; for an example of this, see Ubuntu Linux or OS X. Both of which make installing hardware/software a breeze, without having the user run as a superuser all the time.

That's strange: Not all the software I install on my OS X machine asks for a username/password when installing. Only system-level software asks for this.
How is this any more "secure" than always asking for a username/password?


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.

It's no *easier* than what Apple or Ubuntu have in place, but a great deal less secure.



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,

No more so than any other platform. Windows is not particularly well designed for handling a wide variety of hardware, it's simply got a lot of vendor support because it's on 95% of desktop machines.

And its on 95% of desktop machines for a simple reason: Microsoft designed the OS in the first place to be easily used with many varieties of Vendors' devices, rather than just a few, as Apple did with OS X.


Truth be told, Linux does a *better* job of detecting and managing hardware than Windows does. It just doesn't have the same level of vendor support, so certain bits of hardware just don't have drivers available.

Usually the most important "bits of hardware". Let's face it: Linux has just not caught on as a Desktop OS. It may or may not be great for servers, but as a Desktop OS it fails drastically. People who use Desktop OSes just don't want to have to recompile the OS every time before they can use their particular "pet" device.


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.

There are third party drivers for OS X. There's absolutely nothing about OS X preventing a third party vendor from writing a device driver for their unsupported bit of hardware.


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.

This is just flat out wrong. Macs are 'hard' to upgrade only because they have a limited marketshare, so there's no vendor support.

And WHY is there no vendor support for Apples? Because APPLE is the Vendor. Apple itself refuses to supply the support, unless it is on THEIR terms (That


is, "expensive and time consuming").


Why bother writing an Os X driver for the 3% of the world who might potentially be using it?

Well, it may be because "3% of the world who might potentially be using it" adds up to several hundred millions of users (when you assume that there are over 6 billions of persons on the face of the earth). Several hundred million desktops are not a "few", my friend.

Yet Apple does not allow its users to replace their own logic boards or CPUs if they so desire and need to. In these cases, the "vendor" would be Apple itself.

I can understand this in the case of iMacs or PowerBooks. Both of them are hard to open and access, and should only be opened at the Factory (or shop), by trained technicians.


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".

Thunderbird does. IIRC, Entourage does as well.

It's too bad that Microsoft chose to use an Apple model for the newsreader capabilities of Entourage. They left out the best capabilities of Outlook Express for Windows when they designed it.

As far as Thunderbird is concerned: It is a pretty good email client, but a very poor Usenet client, much like the rest of all other OS X clients.


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.

Use Thunderbird then.

Yeh, right. If you actually think that Thunderbird is any kind of "Usenet client" for OS X, you are sadly mistaken. What it is is an email client with


Usenet capabilities. And poor capabilities at that. It is, however, an excellent client for OS X users, since none of them know what a decent newsreader is anyway, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference in any


case.


<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.

GNOME or KDE are both a match for Windows XP these days, and IMO, OS X as well. But I'm sure you'll continue to dismiss it with unfair comparisons.

Been there, done that. Both Gnome and KDE are poor desktops compared to either Windows or OS X. They both use pretty much the same Docks (usually a combination of the best features of Microsoft's Start Menu and Apple's Dock).
In addition, both Desktops are still unfinished and unpolished, while both Windows and OS X are very polished and mature.

There is certainly nothing novel about either of them.

Let's face it: A Desktop is only as good as its underlying Graphics Subsystem. Gnome and KDE both use the same subsystem (a free version of X11). I rest my case.


Though you *did* happen to prove my point for me. X Windows is the king when it comes to extensibility and tweakability, as demonstrated by your ability to mention multiple window managers/desktop environments.

Crap! Even Windows can use "multiple window managers/desktop environments".
X11R7 can't hold a candle to Vista's graphics subsystem. It can't even hold a candle to OS X's graphics subsystem. If it is so much better than OS X's,


why doesn't Apple use it exclusively, rather than adding on Quartz and Aqua?.


Of course, Apple does use X11 to an extent, since its code-base is FreeBSD, which uses X11 as its graphics subsystem.


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

A) You were talking about the subsystem with Vista, now you suddenly want to talk about the desktop environment?

No, I was talking about the Operating System "in toto".
YOU assumed that I was referring to just the underlying Graphics subsystem.


B) I had assumed that the simple act of filling in the obvious blank was within your capability. (GNOME or KDE would *easily* meet your criteria, so pick one.)

Gnome and KDE both came to my mind, and neither of them "met my criteria", so


I did not "pick one of them".



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..."

Instant Desktop Search just isn't that amazing, or all that useful.


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.

Ooh, you can find a file. Wow, hold me back.


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.

That still doesn't make it much of a selling point. Instant Desktop Search just isn't all that valuable.



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

Will they finally figure out something useful to use it for?

I find Spotlight on Tiger to be a very effective tool for searching for files


on my HDs. Perhaps you know exactly where every file you have lives on your HDs. We are not all so gifted.


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.

How do you figure that? I'd rather have no dog shit on my shoe than some dog shit on my shoe. Same thing with software, if it's bad enough.


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.

It's not the ones who "invent the concept" who wind up making the money off of it. It's the ones who "develop the implementation of it" who do.


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?

Where did I say that? I said that Xerox didn't invent the concept, not that Apple invented it.


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.

If a windowed OS were so "obvious", WHY wasn't one implemented before the 80s, then? I will tell you: Because the "obvious idea" was still in development state at Xerox's PARC.


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?.

I can carry around most of my critical data on a memory stick that isn't much larger, once compressed.

My "Critical Data" fills up half of my FireWire Drive (50+gig capacity). That won't exactly fit on a 256 meg memory stick.


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.

Data storage companies don't exactly stand by while the feds confiscate data. There have been many court cases contesting the right of the federal (or state, for that matter) government to confiscate private data without a court order (and if they have a court order, then they can just search the external drives anyway).





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.

Windows XP Professional includes (for free) Microsoft Backup (which will probably allow for incremental backups to external devices in Vista).



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.

I'm sure IBM would love to hear your well-informed and rational opinion regarding their product.


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.

I didn't say it was a good deal, but they do offer more than just e-mail.


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.

As is the case with the Mac. But Apple *does* offer integrated tools and web services for $99 a year.

"Integrated tools and web services"? What are you talking about? The only "integrated tool" which DotMac offers is "BackUp", which Microsoft offers for


free with every copy of XP Professional.

As far as "Web services", this is composed of iDisk (which gives one about 100meg of storage space on Apple's server) and the ability to put a few pictures on your "own" website. All for "only" $99/year.


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.

It's always useful, when you use it for the function it was intended to perform.


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,

Fortunately for any sane person, you only need to review the keys in a select few locations. Mostly just removing the crud from the various startup entries, though there are some other things you can do. There are a couple of tools that make the task much easier, though it's definitely a bad idea to just let them run through automated.


not "faster", and will almost always result in broken registrations of applications and the OS.

I'm pretty sure I can clean out the Windows registry in less than 30 minutes, which would make it faster than restoring a disk image...

I guess we're not all as "gifted" as you.


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.

Ignorance hasn't stopped you before, why would it now?


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.

Since the modern usage of the term is a misnomer for writing out 'zeros' to the drive, I beg to differ.


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.

vs. a few dozen seconds for a 40GiB ext3 partition...

Considering that neither Windows nor OS X can use an ext3 partition, these "few dozen seconds" is kind of out of place in this conversation, don't you think?.

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.

I am aware of the general premise of what goes on--and it still takes forever compared with other options.

"Options"? What in God's Name are you talking about? All disks are formatted pretty much the same way. The difference between a "Quick format" on a PC and a "Full format" is usually 30 minutes or more. It's pretty much the same with an Apple. If you actually think that "2 or 3 minutes" is the same as "30 or more minutes", you definitely are strung out on speed.


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.

Then you have only yourself to blame, since there *are* no hard rules about how an X Windows desktop will look, feel, or act. Don't like the way something works? Change it.

Change it to WHAT? ALL Linux desktops in existence are basically the same: Either KDE or Gnome (or specialized versions of these two desktops). All with poor graphics, poor design, poor text display.

Basically, the only difference between the two are that KDE makes it easier to access and configure your hardware.


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.

Not much easier.

I was up and running with OS X within an hour of using it for the first time.


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.

How much device configuration did you plan on doing? Was 'working' not good enough?

"Working" is good. But my ATI video card (with built-in TV tuner) would only


allow me to use the video portion of the card, and would NOT allow me to use the TV tuner. So "working" is not quite the operative word here. "Half-working" would be a better description.

This was the case with EVERY version of Linux I tried. There simply is no driver for the ATI AIW Radeon 7600 card which enables the TV tuner portion of


the card to work in Linux (any version). In addition, there is no TV program


for Linux which recognized the TV tuner.

So "Working" is a rather deceptive word in this (and many other) case(s).

In addition, not much useful software is written for Linux.

There's a ton of useful software written for Linux. Just because *you* didn't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


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.)

No *that* claim is complete bullshit.


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.

Well, you replied to my message, then wrote a bunch of comments about the OP. It doesn't make much sense.


If I respond to you, my comment will almost always be below your comment.

You should have made two different replies--one to the OP, in response to their post, and another in response to me, with comments relating to my post.


What I should or shouldn't do is strictly my business, and absolutely none of yours, or anyone else's, for that matter.

I chose to reply to the message which had what I wanted to talk about. That it had two or more person's words is irrelevant. I replied to the words I chose to reply to, in the way I did it. Get over it, my friend.

If you are not able to differentiate between my remarks to another person and my remarks to you, you need to change your concept of "personal space".
It's *annoying*, not difficult.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!
    ... "hardware mix and match" for home users, where they could slot in any ... that with the PC's delibrately "loose" architecture then machines ... slowness of Windows software to cater for something that no-one seems ... The only advatange of Microsoft stuff; The installs tend to be less ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Windows vista will leave too many people behind.
    ... You are being forced to upgrade by Microsoft? ... 'force' making you get Windows Vista. ... persuade or to have the power to influence or control. ... hardware - then they likely wanted to in the first place. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: On-line Review of "Art of Assembly"
    ... > work with another PC OS, including the hardware drivers? ... Windows, you can use "CygWin" where the Linux kernel has been written ... Plus, on this score, stop to think about _why_ Microsoft insist on ... "protection" was totally flawed from beginning to end and only hurt ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • SecurityFocus Microsoft Newsletter #176
    ... MICROSOFT VULNERABILITY SUMMARY ... Microsoft Windows XP HCP URI Handler Arbitrary Command Execu... ... PHPNuke Category Parameter SQL Injection Vulnerability ... Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer Vulnerability Identific... ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • Re: reactivation when nothing changed
    ... it would realize that every piece of hardware had been reseated ... Put a pencil in your pencil cup. ... >> with the way Microsoft has its reactivation currently coded, ... > reactivate Windows and yet they still hunt around or swap CDs to play games. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)