Because some of my clients will be using Vista, and I may occasionally need to see just what they see on their screens.
Not a very urgent need for me
But add that I'm a OS junkie (as well as a browser junkie) and I'll probably get Vista one day. And use it for 30 seconds every 2 months. Think of it as an interesting piece of computing history.
So MS decided to ship to businesses so that businesses could debug the OS for consumers. Does that make sense to all of you?
I know MS didn't want to ship a buggy OS to millions of users but what worse here, and be honest: consumers getting a buggy OS? or businesses with tens of millions of dollars at stake getting a buggy OS?
It's pretty clear MS is releasing Vista in that bass-ackward manner for its own sake. And thus, MS truly *is* evil since it doesn't care if businesses go tits up because of a problem with Vista.
MS is everything that has been wrong with the economy (or almost.) If you think of all the money lost to viruses in Windows, crashes due to Windows, technical support, etc. you'll agree with me.
Businesses are a whole different ballpark when compared to consumers. If you can't handle the game, you shouldn't be playing it. Clearly, MS can barely handle the game...too bad businesses are letting MS play it. It's their loss (and ours obviously).
So MS decided to ship to businesses so that businesses could debug the OS for consumers. Does that make sense to all of you?
No, some business elected to have their Windows Vista shipped early, knowing perfectly well that it isn't ready for prime time.
And yes, that does make sense.
Quote:
I know MS didn't want to ship a buggy OS to millions of users but what worse here, and be honest: consumers getting a buggy OS? or businesses with tens of millions of dollars at stake getting a buggy OS?
What's worse is IT managers at these "business with tens of millions of dollars" making such decisions. You can't blame Microsoft. The IT managers are either smart enough to be very well aware of the risks, or they shouldn't be in such a high position to begin with.
Quote:
It's pretty clear MS is releasing Vista in that bass-ackward manner for its own sake.
No. What's clear is that Vista got delayed, MS had a hard time containing a battle between its engineers and managers, and the end result was to let businesses access it a little earlier.
3) To gather showstoppers at enterprise installations (which are already beginning) and avoid them for consumers.
I'm curious as to how this works. If they find showstoppers between now and Jan. 30th, do they create a patch which then needs to be downloaded as soon as a consumer installs the OS from CD? Or would they send another modified version to manufacturing that would be sold to consumers?
I'm curious as to how this works. If they find showstoppers between now and Jan. 30th, do they create a patch which then needs to be downloaded as soon as a consumer installs the OS from CD? Or would they send another modified version to manufacturing that would be sold to consumers?
My understanding: a little of both.
The RTM is done, and the businesses essentially get the same build this month as consumers will in January. Manufacturing for consumers has ramped up. Of course, this runs in batches though, so if huge problems are found (and fixed; don't forget actually getting a bugfix —*or "hotfix", as Microsoft calls them —*written and quality-assured can take several weeks as well, if not longer) later batches could just come with the "hotfixes" already applied. With the tight integration of Windows Update (aka: "took us about 7 years to realize that making this a website wasn't such a great idea"), applying this patch to earlier batches as soon as they connect to the Internet and give their okay to installing won't be much of a problem.
But yes, this would mean that later boxes of Vista will have a patch that earlier ones won't, and also that, for manufacturing complexities, they'll be virtually indistinguishable (i.e., you won't know when going to a store whether that retail box is actually up-to-date). Now, Microsoft could do their badging thing they used to love in the 90s, but I think retailers would protest, as that would effectively make old boxes look obsolete to half-educated customers. I.e., how are you going to sell the boxes that don't have the patch, if you clearly label those that do? Who would voluntarily buy something outdated for the same price? Would Microsoft do a discount (doubtful)?
To run Autodesk Inventor 11 (itsa Windows only 3D software). It is the industry standard for engineers & product designers and more fun to play with than PS3 8)
I'm curious as to how this works. If they find showstoppers between now and Jan. 30th, do they create a patch which then needs to be downloaded as soon as a consumer installs the OS from CD? Or would they send another modified version to manufacturing that would be sold to consumers?
I'm with Chucker on this. They'll release manufactured CDs (well, DVD[s], I assume...) with progressively updated builds/ patches. They won't mark it because good point, retailers will be stuck with older boxes and it just adds to the overall mess - 6 versions of Vista, imagine if you had to trawl through 6 versions of like, is it Vista Home 1.0.2 or 1.0.5? Or what about Vista Premium 1.0.1 instead of 1.1.3? Or Vista Premium 1.1.3 with IE Hotfix 1.0.3 ?? Head-exploding stuff.
Question? What does it mean when the report says "demanding a price premium for the legal right to run Vista in a virtual environment"? Does that mean running this OS on Virtual PC or Dual Boat on MacIntels will require a separate cost aside from that of purchasing the OS itself?
This is just out of curiosity. No way am I installing this on a Virtual PC. XP is slooooow enough without causing even greater performance issues with this bloated buggy mess. LOL!
I'm with Chucker on this. They'll release manufactured CDs (well, DVD[s], I assume...) with progressively updated builds/ patches. They won't mark it because good point, retailers will be stuck with older boxes and it just adds to the overall mess - 6 versions of Vista, imagine if you had to trawl through 6 versions of like, is it Vista Home 1.0.2 or 1.0.5? Or what about Vista Premium 1.0.1 instead of 1.1.3? Or Vista Premium 1.1.3 with IE Hotfix 1.0.3 ?? Head-exploding stuff.
Isn't this is how pretty much all software works? If you buy it, and have the ability to connect to the internet, it gets updated. It's not a big deal if you get version 1.0.1 or version 1.0.5 because it checks for updates when you install, and also at least once a week in normal use. Same as with iTunes (which needed updating for the new nano, etc.), and OSX, which also gets updates all the time. You don't need to worry which version you have, because the updating software automatically checks at the same time.
If you buy OSX today, it's probably an updated version over what you got a year or two ago, but does that make things difficult or confusing? Maybe there are still older builds on the shelves in some stores, but really, it's no big deal (unless you're just trying to make it a big deal to take a piss on microsoft...)
Question? What does it mean when the report says "demanding a price premium for the legal right to run Vista in a virtual environment"? Does that mean running this OS on Virtual PC or Dual Boat on MacIntels will require a separate cost aside from that of purchasing the OS itself?
I think I read on here somewhere that of the four Vista editions, only the higher priced editions will be the ones that you can use (legally?) with virtualization.
Ok, so that means they cannot run independently? That means games like Quake written in open source code like OpenGL and SDL will be crippled on Vista machines right? And is this necessary to modernize Windows, or is this a deliberate policy by M$ to slow the growth of Linux and cripple OSX?
If you buy OSX today, it's probably an updated version over what you got a year or two ago, but does that make things difficult or confusing? Maybe there are still older builds on the shelves in some stores, but really, it's no big deal (unless you're just trying to make it a big deal to take a piss on microsoft...)
OSX Updates are excellent and make a lot of sense. The Combo updaters are excellent. Individual App updates are excellent. Buying Tiger off the shelves, yes it is excellent for the Mac user that they don't have to care whether it is 10.4.0 or 10.4.2 or 10.4.7 that is in the box. If you are buying XP, you need to make sure it is XP Pro and XP Service Pack 2 all there on one DVD to save yourself a lot of trouble.
Yes, I'm taking the piss out of Microsoft (aussie/UK(?) saying) or as you say, pissing on Microsoft. The problem is the hotfix and patches and all that sort of mess. How many patches are there for XP? and is that XP Home, XP2 Home, or XP Pro, or XP2 Pro?? Media Centre??
The challenge is that Microsoft has at least 6 different versions of Vista. There's going to be different builds and different patches applied to this or that depending on what you have installed, etc. This is a far cry from OS X and the Mac updating experience. Generally the updates are beneficial. In some cases the Microsoft Updates jack up your system because it disables something else, or something was not updated as well, etc.
Zune doesn't work with Vista. That's the first in a long line of compatibility issues. Even the development team at Redmond will be so hard pressed to, while still developing and debugging Vista, to keep track of all the builds and all the patches for different builds, and which patches have been integrated into which builds, etc. etc.
MS is facing a tougher challenge in the Update scenario compared to OS 10.3 upwards. I propose the user experience with updating and patching will be more complex and frustrating in the MS Vista scenario. How big of a deal it is depends on how and why a user installed Vista.
Ok, so that means they cannot run independently? That means games like Quake written in open source code like OpenGL and SDL will be crippled on Vista machines right? And is this necessary to modernize Windows, or is this a deliberate policy by M$ to slow the growth of Linux and cripple OSX?...
It's a deliberate policy to just get everyone to focus on DirectX10 for the next 3 years. And push OpenGL down the ladder as far as Windows is concerned, yes. Hmmm... anticompetitive behaviour you say? Yes, the courts agree with you, if history is anything to go by. So who is going to sue on behalf of OpenGL and SDL ??
For the record though I don't like the Quake4/Doom3 OpenGL engine. From an aesthetic point of view, nothing against OpenGL and Linux and stuff...
Edit: Also this is clearly a policy for Microsoft to try and hamper virtualised Windows Vista on non-MicrosoftVista computers -- eg. OpenGL based systems like Linux and Mac OSX that have to emulate DirectX to some degree AFAIK for virtualised Vista running smoothly with the now DirectX10-graphics eye candy used for general computing not just in games.
You sound pretty technically informed, so can I ask you, what engine powers Resistance Fall of Man the new game on PS3? It's sure not the Quake/Doom 3 engine is it?
Comments
Because some of my clients will be using Vista, and I may occasionally need to see just what they see on their screens.
Not a very urgent need for me
But add that I'm a OS junkie (as well as a browser junkie) and I'll probably get Vista one day. And use it for 30 seconds every 2 months. Think of it as an interesting piece of computing history.
4) To fix the thousands of bugs found when they release it to their business customers.
Didn't Chucker already say that?
3) To gather showstoppers at enterprise installations (which are already beginning) and avoid them for consumers.
Today 03:11 AM
Didn't Chucker already say that?
Bingo.
I know MS didn't want to ship a buggy OS to millions of users but what worse here, and be honest: consumers getting a buggy OS? or businesses with tens of millions of dollars at stake getting a buggy OS?
It's pretty clear MS is releasing Vista in that bass-ackward manner for its own sake. And thus, MS truly *is* evil since it doesn't care if businesses go tits up because of a problem with Vista.
MS is everything that has been wrong with the economy (or almost.) If you think of all the money lost to viruses in Windows, crashes due to Windows, technical support, etc. you'll agree with me.
Businesses are a whole different ballpark when compared to consumers. If you can't handle the game, you shouldn't be playing it. Clearly, MS can barely handle the game...too bad businesses are letting MS play it. It's their loss (and ours obviously).
So MS decided to ship to businesses so that businesses could debug the OS for consumers. Does that make sense to all of you?
No, some business elected to have their Windows Vista shipped early, knowing perfectly well that it isn't ready for prime time.
And yes, that does make sense.
I know MS didn't want to ship a buggy OS to millions of users but what worse here, and be honest: consumers getting a buggy OS? or businesses with tens of millions of dollars at stake getting a buggy OS?
What's worse is IT managers at these "business with tens of millions of dollars" making such decisions. You can't blame Microsoft. The IT managers are either smart enough to be very well aware of the risks, or they shouldn't be in such a high position to begin with.
It's pretty clear MS is releasing Vista in that bass-ackward manner for its own sake.
No. What's clear is that Vista got delayed, MS had a hard time containing a battle between its engineers and managers, and the end result was to let businesses access it a little earlier.
3) To gather showstoppers at enterprise installations (which are already beginning) and avoid them for consumers.
I'm curious as to how this works. If they find showstoppers between now and Jan. 30th, do they create a patch which then needs to be downloaded as soon as a consumer installs the OS from CD? Or would they send another modified version to manufacturing that would be sold to consumers?
I'm curious as to how this works. If they find showstoppers between now and Jan. 30th, do they create a patch which then needs to be downloaded as soon as a consumer installs the OS from CD? Or would they send another modified version to manufacturing that would be sold to consumers?
My understanding: a little of both.
The RTM is done, and the businesses essentially get the same build this month as consumers will in January. Manufacturing for consumers has ramped up. Of course, this runs in batches though, so if huge problems are found (and fixed; don't forget actually getting a bugfix —*or "hotfix", as Microsoft calls them —*written and quality-assured can take several weeks as well, if not longer) later batches could just come with the "hotfixes" already applied. With the tight integration of Windows Update (aka: "took us about 7 years to realize that making this a website wasn't such a great idea"), applying this patch to earlier batches as soon as they connect to the Internet and give their okay to installing won't be much of a problem.
But yes, this would mean that later boxes of Vista will have a patch that earlier ones won't, and also that, for manufacturing complexities, they'll be virtually indistinguishable (i.e., you won't know when going to a store whether that retail box is actually up-to-date). Now, Microsoft could do their badging thing they used to love in the 90s, but I think retailers would protest, as that would effectively make old boxes look obsolete to half-educated customers. I.e., how are you going to sell the boxes that don't have the patch, if you clearly label those that do? Who would voluntarily buy something outdated for the same price? Would Microsoft do a discount (doubtful)?
My question is why? You are already running OS X.
To run Autodesk Inventor 11 (itsa Windows only 3D software). It is the industry standard for engineers & product designers and more fun to play with than PS3 8)
w00t. Can't wait to install it.
All that sucks is the EULA..
Already got my copy, though I have no idea when I'd ever use it
I'm curious as to how this works. If they find showstoppers between now and Jan. 30th, do they create a patch which then needs to be downloaded as soon as a consumer installs the OS from CD? Or would they send another modified version to manufacturing that would be sold to consumers?
I'm with Chucker on this. They'll release manufactured CDs (well, DVD[s], I assume...) with progressively updated builds/ patches. They won't mark it because good point, retailers will be stuck with older boxes and it just adds to the overall mess - 6 versions of Vista, imagine if you had to trawl through 6 versions of like, is it Vista Home 1.0.2 or 1.0.5? Or what about Vista Premium 1.0.1 instead of 1.1.3? Or Vista Premium 1.1.3 with IE Hotfix 1.0.3 ??
This is just out of curiosity. No way am I installing this on a Virtual PC. XP is slooooow enough without causing even greater performance issues with this bloated buggy mess. LOL!
I'm with Chucker on this. They'll release manufactured CDs (well, DVD[s], I assume...) with progressively updated builds/ patches. They won't mark it because good point, retailers will be stuck with older boxes and it just adds to the overall mess - 6 versions of Vista, imagine if you had to trawl through 6 versions of like, is it Vista Home 1.0.2 or 1.0.5? Or what about Vista Premium 1.0.1 instead of 1.1.3? Or Vista Premium 1.1.3 with IE Hotfix 1.0.3 ??
Isn't this is how pretty much all software works? If you buy it, and have the ability to connect to the internet, it gets updated. It's not a big deal if you get version 1.0.1 or version 1.0.5 because it checks for updates when you install, and also at least once a week in normal use. Same as with iTunes (which needed updating for the new nano, etc.), and OSX, which also gets updates all the time. You don't need to worry which version you have, because the updating software automatically checks at the same time.
If you buy OSX today, it's probably an updated version over what you got a year or two ago, but does that make things difficult or confusing? Maybe there are still older builds on the shelves in some stores, but really, it's no big deal (unless you're just trying to make it a big deal to take a piss on microsoft...)
Question? What does it mean when the report says "demanding a price premium for the legal right to run Vista in a virtual environment"? Does that mean running this OS on Virtual PC or Dual Boat on MacIntels will require a separate cost aside from that of purchasing the OS itself?
I think I read on here somewhere that of the four Vista editions, only the higher priced editions will be the ones that you can use (legally?) with virtualization.
...
...
If you buy OSX today, it's probably an updated version over what you got a year or two ago, but does that make things difficult or confusing? Maybe there are still older builds on the shelves in some stores, but really, it's no big deal (unless you're just trying to make it a big deal to take a piss on microsoft...)
OSX Updates are excellent and make a lot of sense. The Combo updaters are excellent. Individual App updates are excellent. Buying Tiger off the shelves, yes it is excellent for the Mac user that they don't have to care whether it is 10.4.0 or 10.4.2 or 10.4.7 that is in the box. If you are buying XP, you need to make sure it is XP Pro and XP Service Pack 2 all there on one DVD to save yourself a lot of trouble.
Yes, I'm taking the piss out of Microsoft (aussie/UK(?) saying) or as you say, pissing on Microsoft. The problem is the hotfix and patches and all that sort of mess. How many patches are there for XP? and is that XP Home, XP2 Home, or XP Pro, or XP2 Pro?? Media Centre??
The challenge is that Microsoft has at least 6 different versions of Vista. There's going to be different builds and different patches applied to this or that depending on what you have installed, etc. This is a far cry from OS X and the Mac updating experience. Generally the updates are beneficial. In some cases the Microsoft Updates jack up your system because it disables something else, or something was not updated as well, etc.
Zune doesn't work with Vista. That's the first in a long line of compatibility issues. Even the development team at Redmond will be so hard pressed to, while still developing and debugging Vista, to keep track of all the builds and all the patches for different builds, and which patches have been integrated into which builds, etc. etc.
MS is facing a tougher challenge in the Update scenario compared to OS 10.3 upwards. I propose the user experience with updating and patching will be more complex and frustrating in the MS Vista scenario. How big of a deal it is depends on how and why a user installed Vista.
Ok, so that means they cannot run independently? That means games like Quake written in open source code like OpenGL and SDL will be crippled on Vista machines right? And is this necessary to modernize Windows, or is this a deliberate policy by M$ to slow the growth of Linux and cripple OSX?...
It's a deliberate policy to just get everyone to focus on DirectX10 for the next 3 years. And push OpenGL down the ladder as far as Windows is concerned, yes. Hmmm... anticompetitive behaviour you say? Yes, the courts agree with you, if history is anything to go by. So who is going to sue on behalf of OpenGL and SDL ??
For the record though I don't like the Quake4/Doom3 OpenGL engine. From an aesthetic point of view, nothing against OpenGL and Linux and stuff...
Edit: Also this is clearly a policy for Microsoft to try and hamper virtualised Windows Vista on non-MicrosoftVista computers -- eg. OpenGL based systems like Linux and Mac OSX that have to emulate DirectX to some degree AFAIK for virtualised Vista running smoothly with the now DirectX10-graphics eye candy used for general computing not just in games.
You sound pretty technically informed, so can I ask you, what engine powers Resistance Fall of Man the new game on PS3? It's sure not the Quake/Doom 3 engine is it?
...