I was at CompUSA today and played around in Vista on one of PC's there, and it is soooo damn convoluted with stuff! The main OS window and all of its organizational functionality is just ridiculous. I can't even begin to explain it all. Its like they have directions written everywhere in the windows and drop down tabs menus etc... anyone else notice this?
I was at CompUSA today and played around in Vista on one of PC's there, and it is soooo damn convoluted with stuff! The main OS window and all of its organizational functionality is just ridiculous. I can't even begin to explain it all. Its like they have directions written everywhere in the windows and drop down tabs menus etc... anyone else notice this?
Are you saying this as an OS X user or an XP user? Just asking so that I can understand what your benchmark is....... if you are an OS X user, it is a somewhat irrelevant comment, and one that will have little bearing on either Microsoft's or Apple's market share.
I've had no such problems with vista running in BootCamp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypoluxa
I was at CompUSA today and played around in Vista on one of PC's there, and it is soooo damn convoluted with stuff! The main OS window and all of its organizational functionality is just ridiculous. I can't even begin to explain it all. Its like they have directions written everywhere in the windows and drop down tabs menus etc... anyone else notice this?
And for those saying that the install base is larger, which is true, 20 million in 2 monts is very good. Once big business start to get their programs working with Vista, that number will skyrocket.
I was at CompUSA today and played around in Vista on one of PC's there, and it is soooo damn convoluted with stuff! The main OS window and all of its organizational functionality is just ridiculous. I can't even begin to explain it all. Its like they have directions written everywhere in the windows and drop down tabs menus etc... anyone else notice this?
The organization is pretty bad. I was surprised at how many different issues I had getting Vista shares to see/access XP shares and vice versa. I've been using it for many months now--since RC2-- and I'm still amazed at how often I'm googling for a solution to some Vista issue.
Huh? What does this have to do with my reply? If your company is purchasing these computers with Vista licenses, whoever is making that financial decision should be fired. Period. The only possible exception would be if your company is actually using Vista, which would absolutely astonish me. And this has nothing to do with Apple.
You said "Any hospital big enough to require 2000 PCs, these days, would have a contract with a company such as IBM for their hardware. This hardware would be installed by the providing company (e.g. IBM) and would be pre-configured to meet the customer?s needs."
To this I call BS. Most companies do not allow whoever they buy hardware from to come in and install the hardware nor do they prefer to have a base image installed for them before the desktops arrive at the dock. Its just not how its done in large companies. Some do, but most don't. End of story.
Then you said "nor would most of the computers meet Vista system requirements". For the last year, every desktop we have been ordering either meets or exceeds the Vista requirements. Every facility Admin I meet at various conferences have been following this same ordering path.
Our entire IT staff is using Vista and we have started deploying to key areas where our Managers of various departments are key "beta" testers for new hardware and OS versions.
As a long time Windows user(recently switched to OS X about 2 years ago) I can say Vista is definitely a step forward. I'm not going to be blind and just say "oh Leopard will win, microsoft sucks!". Most people won't be switching from a mac to a pc, it will be a pc user either upgrading to Vista or OS X...and in that case, Vista looks mighty tasty. Confusing/complicated/ugly for us Mac users? Yes...but not for most XP users. There's a lot of pressure on Leopard now which is a good thing, we want competition.
For me, personally, if Leopard just increased the overall speed of my computers and upgraded spotlight that would be enough for me to stay. Why? I can put it into one easy phrase I tell all my pc friends...
To find the preferences in a windows program, you must look around for it. To find the preferences in a mac app, press apple + ,
I am sure people will brand me a apple-fan-boy, but had I paid real money for Vista, I would have been furious. It's actually very sad to see Microsoft in this state. And it's not good for Apple either since competition is a good thing--just look at what the lack of competition did to Microsoft.
I would bet that the number of people who are saying "Where's Windows XP? What is this Vista junk? Everything's in a different place. Can I get XP back?" far outnumbers the people who are thrilled with Vista.
All I care about is that Leopard sells enough copies to stick around and is useful enough for Apple to continue development. 2mil copies? bueno.
I don't think that's a problem. If Apple sells a copy of Leopard for half of the existing Macs currently in use, that would be 10M. That's a bit optimistic, but it's not outlandish. There is a chance that Apple could sell 4M+ new Macs with Leopard pre-installed, this year. As such, by the end of this year, there may be 8M+ Macs running Leopard.
Once big business start to get their programs working with Vista, that number will skyrocket.
Not so fast on that big business prediction re Vista. There is a raging controversy going on right now in Vista-land which is not going to go away anytime soon. Well known and respected Computer systems Security expert Peter Gutmann published an article entitled "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" . Here's the link"
Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called ?premium content?, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
For those interested, this article is well worth reading (especially the developers in the audience). Gutmann's claims regarding the DRM "Trojan Horse" bomshell contained within Vista are being taken very seriously by the Wintel Business community. According to Steve Gibson,
another respected Wintel security expert, the business world will be very slow to implement Vista, if at all, because of the inherent disastrous consequences described in detail in the Gutmann article.
MS of course has tried to downplay the Gutmann claims in its public responses.
You said "Any hospital big enough to require 2000 PCs, these days, would have a contract with a company such as IBM for their hardware. This hardware would be installed by the providing company (e.g. IBM) and would be pre-configured to meet the customer?s needs."
To this I call BS. Most companies do not allow whoever they buy hardware from to come in and install the hardware nor do they prefer to have a base image installed for them before the desktops arrive at the dock. Its just not how its done in large companies. Some do, but most don't. End of story.
I guess it depends on the type of company. If the company has a trained and specialized IT department that deploys its hardware, that may very well not be the case. But offices, retail stores, and many similar companies have contracts with IT departments to populate their drone-level PCs. These computers may or may not be supported by said company, and they may or may not be under further contract restricting use and disassembly (it depends on the business). I can agree with you in cases, but not to the full extent you seem to present. Maybe we?re thinking of two different things, here?
Specialized computers are never managed in such a way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trailmaster308
Then you said "nor would most of the computers meet Vista system requirements". For the last year, every desktop we have been ordering either meets or exceeds the Vista requirements. Every facility Admin I meet at various conferences have been following this same ordering path.
Our entire IT staff is using Vista and we have started deploying to key areas where our Managers of various departments are key "beta" testers for new hardware and OS versions.
Who is using Vista? Managers and the like at their desks? I can see that in some environments, and it would come down to the IT staff. But for general deployment to secretaries and similar staff that isn?t cost effective, nor does it present the groundwork one might expect of a secure and stable network (I know at least that IHC and Kaiser do not deploy networks of this kind). As for medical computers?the computers on which lives might depend, it would be absolutely insane to rely on unproven technology like Vista. Every IT guy I?ve worked with would prefer to give Microsoft time to work out their bugs before considering such a move (which would have to be cost effective to be considered).
Many of these networks rely largely on Windows 2000 right up to this day.
Again bear in mind I?m talking about the rank-in-file computers in these environments. Not the computers used for special staff, management, or other specialized tasks.
I've had no such problems with vista running in BootCamp.
And for those saying that the install base is larger, which is true, 20 million in 2 monts is very good. Once big business start to get their programs working with Vista, that number will skyrocket.
I think almost all of the above comments on the various ways these "sales" were made are valid. Manufacturers of all types do this all the time. When I was younger I was a record store manager. Often you'd see ads in Billboard about how so & so's album sold several hundred thousand the first week. But that's just sales to the retailers not the consumer. Later in life I was an analyst for a furniture manufacturer. A part of thier "sales" were based on orders written by retailers, not furniture sold to consumers. don't know that M$ is doing that, my point is just that it is SOP for manufacturers to inflate such claims using little technicalities.
But why is all this "daunting" to Apple per the headline? My own personal belief is that this could be hugely beneficial to Apple. I have yet to hear or read or view a Vista commentary/review without some kind of significant objection to it. These objections are usually price and compatibility issues (I just saw a CNET video that claims you can buy the premium edition but you probably won't be able to use all the features you paid for). I heard a national radio host who is by all means a typical PC consumer go on a rant about what a horrible time they had trying to install Vista and that they were returning it the next day. His co-host said, "I'm so fed up with Windows I really think I'm ready to move to an Apple." I know someone who got a new Windows laptop for Xmas marked "Vista Ready" but after upgrading many of the advanced features do not work on it. I know a Major University IT guy who complained about the headaches just getting their network ready for students using Vista.
Ok, so this is a very small sample and I'm risking a huge generalization here... but I think it's safe to say that many of these people M$ brags about selling Vista to have a very bad taste in their mouths because of it. All the more reason consumers will want a computer that "just works."
Doesnt matter how many copies of vista Microsoft said it "sold"
Apple earns way more cash from each box than Microsoft does. Apple OS X users has almost no hardware limitation when they have to upgrade. This hasnt changed a bit with Leopard. So that 19 million user base could migrate in a small percentage to Leopard and still make more than good profit to Apple.
Vista still falls short compared to Tiger, and dare to compared it to Leopard it is just fool and not keen at all. Apple is selling more computers each quarter, half of those buyers are new to Mac. Education market its growing a lot, that no only means that schools prefer Apple, it also expose a whole new generation of future buyers that will buy with close eyes Apple products for life cuase they just like they work. They already have iPods, they get used with iLive and its ease of use. The perfect platform to develop their future.
So, nice joke dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineWine
This is silly. There's no way Apple can compete with Microsoft numbers. This is not exactly news.
What's far more interesting, is to see what Leopard brings to the table. Apple needs a big, big leap right now over Tiger - since the distance between Tiger and XP was pretty big, yet Vista has partially closed the gap with Tiger. Now, if Apple is to get any traction against Vista, they need to make the gap between Leopard and Vista at least as big as the gap between Tiger and XP. Why?
Remember when Win 95 came out? Right. Even though it was barely catching up to Apple's OS at the time, it was "close enough" - and it removed folks motivation for going to Apple "Win95 is almost as good as Apple's OS, so I'm staying with Microsoft". It pretty much gutted Apple. Before that, Apple had a fighting chance because Windows 3.1 etc. was just such a vastly inferior system.
And here we are again. Switching from XP to Tiger makes some sense, cause the differences are pretty big. If Vista is too close to what Leopard can do, Apple will get gutted again. Remeber, Apple cannot sustain their business based on their installed base. They MUST get people to switch to really get the numbers to grow (there are not enough people who have never had a computer before, so the only way to get a bigger market share is to take it away from Microsoft).
I don't know what "secret features" Leopard has, but so far I'm not overly impressed with Leopard (I do like Spaces, though).
It is in this context only that Vista matters - if it is "good enough" compared to Leopard, folks may not want to switch. If you already own a Nissan, you may not go for a Toyota (even if the Toyo is slightly better), but you may go for a BMW. This is why Leopard must blow Vista out of the water. And I fear, it may not. I guess all hope is now in those "secret features". We'll see if that's enough to get folks to switch in big numbers.
I am sorry guys - AppleInsider really does a good job, but this was truly a dreadfully written article, which beggars belief in its spin on the Vista sales figures and how they should be directly compared to Apple's for its OS X. Dreadful truly dreadful.
also a 3 million increase from 17m to 20m isn't all that great when you think about how many more PCs there are now from when there were when XP was released
Comments
I was at CompUSA today and played around in Vista on one of PC's there, and it is soooo damn convoluted with stuff! The main OS window and all of its organizational functionality is just ridiculous. I can't even begin to explain it all. Its like they have directions written everywhere in the windows and drop down tabs menus etc... anyone else notice this?
Are you saying this as an OS X user or an XP user? Just asking so that I can understand what your benchmark is....... if you are an OS X user, it is a somewhat irrelevant comment, and one that will have little bearing on either Microsoft's or Apple's market share.
I was at CompUSA today and played around in Vista on one of PC's there, and it is soooo damn convoluted with stuff! The main OS window and all of its organizational functionality is just ridiculous. I can't even begin to explain it all. Its like they have directions written everywhere in the windows and drop down tabs menus etc... anyone else notice this?
And for those saying that the install base is larger, which is true, 20 million in 2 monts is very good. Once big business start to get their programs working with Vista, that number will skyrocket.
I was at CompUSA today and played around in Vista on one of PC's there, and it is soooo damn convoluted with stuff! The main OS window and all of its organizational functionality is just ridiculous. I can't even begin to explain it all. Its like they have directions written everywhere in the windows and drop down tabs menus etc... anyone else notice this?
The organization is pretty bad. I was surprised at how many different issues I had getting Vista shares to see/access XP shares and vice versa. I've been using it for many months now--since RC2-- and I'm still amazed at how often I'm googling for a solution to some Vista issue.
Huh? What does this have to do with my reply? If your company is purchasing these computers with Vista licenses, whoever is making that financial decision should be fired. Period. The only possible exception would be if your company is actually using Vista, which would absolutely astonish me. And this has nothing to do with Apple.
You said "Any hospital big enough to require 2000 PCs, these days, would have a contract with a company such as IBM for their hardware. This hardware would be installed by the providing company (e.g. IBM) and would be pre-configured to meet the customer?s needs."
To this I call BS. Most companies do not allow whoever they buy hardware from to come in and install the hardware nor do they prefer to have a base image installed for them before the desktops arrive at the dock. Its just not how its done in large companies. Some do, but most don't. End of story.
Then you said "nor would most of the computers meet Vista system requirements". For the last year, every desktop we have been ordering either meets or exceeds the Vista requirements. Every facility Admin I meet at various conferences have been following this same ordering path.
Our entire IT staff is using Vista and we have started deploying to key areas where our Managers of various departments are key "beta" testers for new hardware and OS versions.
For me, personally, if Leopard just increased the overall speed of my computers and upgraded spotlight that would be enough for me to stay. Why? I can put it into one easy phrase I tell all my pc friends...
To find the preferences in a windows program, you must look around for it. To find the preferences in a mac app, press apple + ,
A reported swelling of the former's ranks to 22 million this month, according to analysts' estimates, would still be overshadowed by Windows.
So basically you´re saying that Apple won´t overtake Windows this month or the next. I think that is a conservative estimate, at best.
In China.
For 3 bucks.
Was it worth it?
Nope. (Seriously)
I am sure people will brand me a apple-fan-boy, but had I paid real money for Vista, I would have been furious. It's actually very sad to see Microsoft in this state. And it's not good for Apple either since competition is a good thing--just look at what the lack of competition did to Microsoft.
Vista is fine.
All I care about is that Leopard sells enough copies to stick around and is useful enough for Apple to continue development. 2mil copies? bueno.
I don't think that's a problem. If Apple sells a copy of Leopard for half of the existing Macs currently in use, that would be 10M. That's a bit optimistic, but it's not outlandish. There is a chance that Apple could sell 4M+ new Macs with Leopard pre-installed, this year. As such, by the end of this year, there may be 8M+ Macs running Leopard.
Once big business start to get their programs working with Vista, that number will skyrocket.
Not so fast on that big business prediction re Vista. There is a raging controversy going on right now in Vista-land which is not going to go away anytime soon. Well known and respected Computer systems Security expert Peter Gutmann published an article entitled "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" . Here's the link"
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
Heres the Executive Summary from that article.
Executive Summary
Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called ?premium content?, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
For those interested, this article is well worth reading (especially the developers in the audience). Gutmann's claims regarding the DRM "Trojan Horse" bomshell contained within Vista are being taken very seriously by the Wintel Business community. According to Steve Gibson,
http://twit.podzinger.com/viewMedia....h_form&index=2
another respected Wintel security expert, the business world will be very slow to implement Vista, if at all, because of the inherent disastrous consequences described in detail in the Gutmann article.
MS of course has tried to downplay the Gutmann claims in its public responses.
You said "Any hospital big enough to require 2000 PCs, these days, would have a contract with a company such as IBM for their hardware. This hardware would be installed by the providing company (e.g. IBM) and would be pre-configured to meet the customer?s needs."
To this I call BS. Most companies do not allow whoever they buy hardware from to come in and install the hardware nor do they prefer to have a base image installed for them before the desktops arrive at the dock. Its just not how its done in large companies. Some do, but most don't. End of story.
I guess it depends on the type of company. If the company has a trained and specialized IT department that deploys its hardware, that may very well not be the case. But offices, retail stores, and many similar companies have contracts with IT departments to populate their drone-level PCs. These computers may or may not be supported by said company, and they may or may not be under further contract restricting use and disassembly (it depends on the business). I can agree with you in cases, but not to the full extent you seem to present. Maybe we?re thinking of two different things, here?
Specialized computers are never managed in such a way.
Then you said "nor would most of the computers meet Vista system requirements". For the last year, every desktop we have been ordering either meets or exceeds the Vista requirements. Every facility Admin I meet at various conferences have been following this same ordering path.
Our entire IT staff is using Vista and we have started deploying to key areas where our Managers of various departments are key "beta" testers for new hardware and OS versions.
Who is using Vista? Managers and the like at their desks? I can see that in some environments, and it would come down to the IT staff. But for general deployment to secretaries and similar staff that isn?t cost effective, nor does it present the groundwork one might expect of a secure and stable network (I know at least that IHC and Kaiser do not deploy networks of this kind). As for medical computers?the computers on which lives might depend, it would be absolutely insane to rely on unproven technology like Vista. Every IT guy I?ve worked with would prefer to give Microsoft time to work out their bugs before considering such a move (which would have to be cost effective to be considered).
Many of these networks rely largely on Windows 2000 right up to this day.
Again bear in mind I?m talking about the rank-in-file computers in these environments. Not the computers used for special staff, management, or other specialized tasks.
I've had no such problems with vista running in BootCamp.
And for those saying that the install base is larger, which is true, 20 million in 2 monts is very good. Once big business start to get their programs working with Vista, that number will skyrocket.
Or MAYBE NOT... http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/03/...switch.to.mac/
But why is all this "daunting" to Apple per the headline? My own personal belief is that this could be hugely beneficial to Apple. I have yet to hear or read or view a Vista commentary/review without some kind of significant objection to it. These objections are usually price and compatibility issues (I just saw a CNET video that claims you can buy the premium edition but you probably won't be able to use all the features you paid for). I heard a national radio host who is by all means a typical PC consumer go on a rant about what a horrible time they had trying to install Vista and that they were returning it the next day. His co-host said, "I'm so fed up with Windows I really think I'm ready to move to an Apple." I know someone who got a new Windows laptop for Xmas marked "Vista Ready" but after upgrading many of the advanced features do not work on it. I know a Major University IT guy who complained about the headaches just getting their network ready for students using Vista.
Ok, so this is a very small sample and I'm risking a huge generalization here... but I think it's safe to say that many of these people M$ brags about selling Vista to have a very bad taste in their mouths because of it. All the more reason consumers will want a computer that "just works."
Apple earns way more cash from each box than Microsoft does. Apple OS X users has almost no hardware limitation when they have to upgrade. This hasnt changed a bit with Leopard. So that 19 million user base could migrate in a small percentage to Leopard and still make more than good profit to Apple.
Vista still falls short compared to Tiger, and dare to compared it to Leopard it is just fool and not keen at all. Apple is selling more computers each quarter, half of those buyers are new to Mac. Education market its growing a lot, that no only means that schools prefer Apple, it also expose a whole new generation of future buyers that will buy with close eyes Apple products for life cuase they just like they work. They already have iPods, they get used with iLive and its ease of use. The perfect platform to develop their future.
So, nice joke dude.
This is silly. There's no way Apple can compete with Microsoft numbers. This is not exactly news.
What's far more interesting, is to see what Leopard brings to the table. Apple needs a big, big leap right now over Tiger - since the distance between Tiger and XP was pretty big, yet Vista has partially closed the gap with Tiger. Now, if Apple is to get any traction against Vista, they need to make the gap between Leopard and Vista at least as big as the gap between Tiger and XP. Why?
Remember when Win 95 came out? Right. Even though it was barely catching up to Apple's OS at the time, it was "close enough" - and it removed folks motivation for going to Apple "Win95 is almost as good as Apple's OS, so I'm staying with Microsoft". It pretty much gutted Apple. Before that, Apple had a fighting chance because Windows 3.1 etc. was just such a vastly inferior system.
And here we are again. Switching from XP to Tiger makes some sense, cause the differences are pretty big. If Vista is too close to what Leopard can do, Apple will get gutted again. Remeber, Apple cannot sustain their business based on their installed base. They MUST get people to switch to really get the numbers to grow (there are not enough people who have never had a computer before, so the only way to get a bigger market share is to take it away from Microsoft).
I don't know what "secret features" Leopard has, but so far I'm not overly impressed with Leopard (I do like Spaces, though).
It is in this context only that Vista matters - if it is "good enough" compared to Leopard, folks may not want to switch. If you already own a Nissan, you may not go for a Toyota (even if the Toyo is slightly better), but you may go for a BMW. This is why Leopard must blow Vista out of the water. And I fear, it may not. I guess all hope is now in those "secret features". We'll see if that's enough to get folks to switch in big numbers.
also a 3 million increase from 17m to 20m isn't all that great when you think about how many more PCs there are now from when there were when XP was released
17 mil was for 2 months (XP)
20 mil was for 1 month (Vista)
Read twice before posting. Double is accurate.
17 mil was for 2 months (XP)
20 mil was for 1 month (Vista)
Read twice before posting. Double is accurate.
as mentioned above it was 60 days Vs 56 days