C
Charlie Tame
Right, couple of things Mike.
I agree with most of what you say so why did MS simply rearrange a lot
of things for the sake of it. Example the Add remove programs that has
historically been in control panel is in "A" control panel but not the
familiar one, so you find that but then have to go hunting around for
the other "Controls".
Given that the functionality has not really changed then why enforce a
learning curve when it is not necessary?
I have one person who called me a liar (Despite a reboot showing the XP
Pro splash screen) and insisting that the machine is an "Old one with
W98 on it" and calling our IT guy to demand one with "XP" on it. She now
thinks he's lying too and complains all the time. Why? Because we set it
with "Classic" start and folders which is what everybody else was used to.
UAC is not really going to do any good because everybody wants to
override it and the ways to do that are now published, roughly the same
applied to the older "ActiveX" security but by default that was less
draconian, however there never was a "Pain free" setting for that
either. This is not MS fault, it is a user problem, but UAC seems as
clumsy a way of dealing with it as it's possible to make one.
Many people bought systems new in anticipation of Vista, good time to go
64 bit eh, but when they tried to install it - no drivers. Should not
have been a problem for OEM branded machines but releasing the retail
version with a great fanfare of publicity for many buyers to get it home
and hit a brick wall was not good PR IMHO.
Less said about WGA and WPA the better, sure fire loser there for anyone
who knows anything about using a PC and they WILL inform others. KDE is
not so unlike windows that the learning curve is greater than from XP to
Vista.
Complaints are NOT always an attack on MS, rather they are a warning
sign that all is not well.
I always used OE for this (Newsgroups) so tried the Vista mail client
and it worked but was damned slow. So seeing as WLMD looked like OE with
colors I tried that. Still terribly slow but worse, some of the useful
things in OE were missing / unfinished. Then it was updated and the new
version wouldn't even install. After about a week I decided to try
Thunderbird and guess what, much like OE AND just as quick. W Mail and
WLMD went in the hypothetical trashcan from that point on. I can have
the same familiar look and functionality on XP, Vista AND Linux. If
Thunderbird can do this quickly what the hell is wrong with MS that
their software is so damned slow?
File copying in Vista is slow, try a large folder and often it will fail
for no apparent reason. XP and all other systems I have tried had this
too but at least failed relatively quickly so you knew it had failed. My
experience was you set the copy going, watch it for some time, and as
soon as you turned your back it popped up an error saying "Unable to
copy xxxx" or some garbage, so delete that one file and start over. This
simply does not happen with Linux (At least none that I have tried" You
can drag and drop copy a huge amount of stuff and it simply copies it...
Hmm.
So, no doubt unlike some here, I complain because I DON'T want to see
Vista fail, I want things to be fixed. I think they will only get fixed
if Linux or MAC appears to demand fixing from MS, instead of the current
"Let them eat bloat" philosophy remaining.
It is extremely bad business practice to openly denounce users
(Customers) as being 100% at fault, especially in a belligerent manner
to their face as some here do, and bad business practice to insist
there's nothing wrong with Vista ever and it's got to be someone else's
fault when clearly no system is perfect and working round problems can
be achieved with a little effort.
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
> Stuart
>
> You don't have to legislate against anybody. Linux and all open source
> programs are out there already. All free too. With what people paid for
> OEM XP, after a couple of years, they have had their monies worth. So
> why don't they download Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS, or order the CD?
>
> My guess is that they probably think they will struggle with it, that
> they will get complaints from family members that this or that no longer
> runs.
>
> Look at the amount of posts here where people are complaining that Vista
> changes over XP are too much for them. Imagine the family waking up to
> Feisty Fawn. No more MSN Messenger or 'Barbie' program, different
> colors, menus, games. Where is the start menu? Why doesn't the webcam work?
>
> I know one or two that started with AOL and swear by it (not at it).
> They would never change, free or not. People don't want free. They want
> what they are used to running, and nothing too technical. Just turn it
> on and everything is there, two mouse clicks away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:J%MEi.141760$fJ5.107482@pd7urf1no...
>>
>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>> news:uhTycEm8HHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Money CAN be made with Linux by selling services, which is the same
>>>>>>>> way money is made with Windows. However you need to have people
>>>>>>>> willing to use Linux first and then start selling them services
>>>>>>>> contracts.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> For linux to become popular it has to be installed on OEM
>>>>>>> machines. This
>>>>>>> is what initially drives the market. When a new Microsoft OS
>>>>>>> comes out
>>>>>>> the previous is eventually made irrelevant because new computers
>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>> new OS. Most people don't care what OS they run. They walk into a
>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>> and buy whatever the salesman gets the best commission on. Once
>>>>>>> they get
>>>>>>> home or back to work they try to figure out how to use it. If new
>>>>>>> computers came with linux they would figure out and use linux.
>>>>>>> This model
>>>>>>> isn't based on selling a service but selling a product. OEM's aren't
>>>>>>> going to switch to linux anytime soon for several reasons. The
>>>>>>> main one
>>>>>>> is money. They have a lot of money invested in the Windows
>>>>>>> ecosystem. It
>>>>>>> would be very expensive for them to switch to a different OS even
>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>> OS was free. That brings up the second problem. If the OS is free
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> is the incentive to develop it into a product that can be sold?
>>>>>>> Yes, some
>>>>>>> money can be made selling services to medium and big business.
>>>>>>> No, a lot
>>>>>>> of money can't be made selling desktop services to the general
>>>>>>> public.
>>>>>>> Currently the general public through OEM computer sales drives the
>>>>>>> desktop market.
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree it will change. I think we disagree on when or what will change
>>> it. I also disagree that anyone has a monopoly on "knowledge of how to
>>> provide knowledge via a computer". This knowledge is
>>> actually very common and supersedes Microsoft. Microsoft has a
>>> monopoly on
>>> selling Windows not on how to create an OS. They may use monopolistic
>>> marketing techniques to get Windows on as many computers as they can.
>>> This
>>> is part of doing business in a capitalist society. I am not
>>> expressing an
>>> opinion whether I agree with this or think it is right. I am saying
>>> what I
>>> think the current reality is. The future may have a linux based OS as
>>> the
>>> main desktop for most computers but I don't think it will come to
>>> pass. I
>>> think we are stuck with Windows until someone comes along with a new OS
>>> that has something in it we all want/need/desire and currently don't
>>> have
>>> or even know what it is we want/need/desire. All of the current OS' for
>>> micro computers are too close to really say one is better. All we can
>>> say is they are different and I prefer Windows/linux/OS X/Solaris/BSD,
>>> whatever. It will take something new or someone with a lot of money for
>>> marketing to knock Microsoft off the top of the heap.
>>>
>>
>> With rather severe editing of the above, to focus in a few specific
>> points.
>>
>>
>> I believe that the problem is going to be a difficult one. In this
>> market, there must be one major company 'owning' an OS sufficently
>> that they can invest major funds in marketing.
>> 1. We know that MS offers significant price and other concessions to
>> any manufacturer who stays 'windows only'. So to gain a few short term
>> sales in the linux market, every pc they sell becomes more expensive.
>> As long as the computer makers compete so much on price, we are stuck.
>> What we need os an 'oligopoly' of manufacturers to tell MS to (*&^
>> themselves. None have the courage or the means to do it by themeselves.
>> 2. If a superior OS did happen, and was owned and properly promoted,
>> MS would kill the company, directly like they did for Geoworks and
>> DRDos, steal the code, like they did for 'superstore/superspace', or
>> simply buy the company.
>>
>> The reason that linux can survive is that nobody owns it. There is no
>> one party for MS to attack. Therefore the one thing that saves it,
>> also prevents it from becomming a dominant force on the OS business.
>>
>> I think it is time for all of us to work for a change in the laws that
>> MS hides behind. Like maybe you can't copyright software that is not
>> guaranteed. Or, you can't copyright something that does not work
>> prperly. You have to put the teeth in the profitability part of it.
>> Telling/legislating that MS must guarantee/fix their product is a
>> waste of time - there is no alternative right now, and they won't
>> bother fix it. If there were competition, such as the auto or laptop
>> computer industries, then a guarantee works - if they offer a bad
>> product you just go to the other supplier. If MS faced the prospect of
>> giving away windows until it worked properly, they would smarten up
>> very quickly.
>>
>> Even if the US legislators and DOJ were not owned by MS, changes in
>> approach would be a hard sell because of all the foreign exchange and
>> income tax MS generates. (yes, the government profits from illegal
>> activities). However, those of us in other countries can make a
>> difference - and we are dealing with a company that is a drain on our
>> foreign exchange, creates no significant employment directly (I mean
>> MS employees in the country), and pays no or very little income tax to
>> our government.
>> Perhaps we will have a world where MS owns the US but linux run the
>> computers in the rest of the world.
>>
>> If this worked, I can see 2 significant benefits to all of us. MS only
>> gets paid if their software works, so we get versions of windows that
>> work. And when MS can't perform, then linux gets a fair chance.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>
I agree with most of what you say so why did MS simply rearrange a lot
of things for the sake of it. Example the Add remove programs that has
historically been in control panel is in "A" control panel but not the
familiar one, so you find that but then have to go hunting around for
the other "Controls".
Given that the functionality has not really changed then why enforce a
learning curve when it is not necessary?
I have one person who called me a liar (Despite a reboot showing the XP
Pro splash screen) and insisting that the machine is an "Old one with
W98 on it" and calling our IT guy to demand one with "XP" on it. She now
thinks he's lying too and complains all the time. Why? Because we set it
with "Classic" start and folders which is what everybody else was used to.
UAC is not really going to do any good because everybody wants to
override it and the ways to do that are now published, roughly the same
applied to the older "ActiveX" security but by default that was less
draconian, however there never was a "Pain free" setting for that
either. This is not MS fault, it is a user problem, but UAC seems as
clumsy a way of dealing with it as it's possible to make one.
Many people bought systems new in anticipation of Vista, good time to go
64 bit eh, but when they tried to install it - no drivers. Should not
have been a problem for OEM branded machines but releasing the retail
version with a great fanfare of publicity for many buyers to get it home
and hit a brick wall was not good PR IMHO.
Less said about WGA and WPA the better, sure fire loser there for anyone
who knows anything about using a PC and they WILL inform others. KDE is
not so unlike windows that the learning curve is greater than from XP to
Vista.
Complaints are NOT always an attack on MS, rather they are a warning
sign that all is not well.
I always used OE for this (Newsgroups) so tried the Vista mail client
and it worked but was damned slow. So seeing as WLMD looked like OE with
colors I tried that. Still terribly slow but worse, some of the useful
things in OE were missing / unfinished. Then it was updated and the new
version wouldn't even install. After about a week I decided to try
Thunderbird and guess what, much like OE AND just as quick. W Mail and
WLMD went in the hypothetical trashcan from that point on. I can have
the same familiar look and functionality on XP, Vista AND Linux. If
Thunderbird can do this quickly what the hell is wrong with MS that
their software is so damned slow?
File copying in Vista is slow, try a large folder and often it will fail
for no apparent reason. XP and all other systems I have tried had this
too but at least failed relatively quickly so you knew it had failed. My
experience was you set the copy going, watch it for some time, and as
soon as you turned your back it popped up an error saying "Unable to
copy xxxx" or some garbage, so delete that one file and start over. This
simply does not happen with Linux (At least none that I have tried" You
can drag and drop copy a huge amount of stuff and it simply copies it...
Hmm.
So, no doubt unlike some here, I complain because I DON'T want to see
Vista fail, I want things to be fixed. I think they will only get fixed
if Linux or MAC appears to demand fixing from MS, instead of the current
"Let them eat bloat" philosophy remaining.
It is extremely bad business practice to openly denounce users
(Customers) as being 100% at fault, especially in a belligerent manner
to their face as some here do, and bad business practice to insist
there's nothing wrong with Vista ever and it's got to be someone else's
fault when clearly no system is perfect and working round problems can
be achieved with a little effort.
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
> Stuart
>
> You don't have to legislate against anybody. Linux and all open source
> programs are out there already. All free too. With what people paid for
> OEM XP, after a couple of years, they have had their monies worth. So
> why don't they download Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS, or order the CD?
>
> My guess is that they probably think they will struggle with it, that
> they will get complaints from family members that this or that no longer
> runs.
>
> Look at the amount of posts here where people are complaining that Vista
> changes over XP are too much for them. Imagine the family waking up to
> Feisty Fawn. No more MSN Messenger or 'Barbie' program, different
> colors, menus, games. Where is the start menu? Why doesn't the webcam work?
>
> I know one or two that started with AOL and swear by it (not at it).
> They would never change, free or not. People don't want free. They want
> what they are used to running, and nothing too technical. Just turn it
> on and everything is there, two mouse clicks away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:J%MEi.141760$fJ5.107482@pd7urf1no...
>>
>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>> news:uhTycEm8HHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Money CAN be made with Linux by selling services, which is the same
>>>>>>>> way money is made with Windows. However you need to have people
>>>>>>>> willing to use Linux first and then start selling them services
>>>>>>>> contracts.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> For linux to become popular it has to be installed on OEM
>>>>>>> machines. This
>>>>>>> is what initially drives the market. When a new Microsoft OS
>>>>>>> comes out
>>>>>>> the previous is eventually made irrelevant because new computers
>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>> new OS. Most people don't care what OS they run. They walk into a
>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>> and buy whatever the salesman gets the best commission on. Once
>>>>>>> they get
>>>>>>> home or back to work they try to figure out how to use it. If new
>>>>>>> computers came with linux they would figure out and use linux.
>>>>>>> This model
>>>>>>> isn't based on selling a service but selling a product. OEM's aren't
>>>>>>> going to switch to linux anytime soon for several reasons. The
>>>>>>> main one
>>>>>>> is money. They have a lot of money invested in the Windows
>>>>>>> ecosystem. It
>>>>>>> would be very expensive for them to switch to a different OS even
>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>> OS was free. That brings up the second problem. If the OS is free
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> is the incentive to develop it into a product that can be sold?
>>>>>>> Yes, some
>>>>>>> money can be made selling services to medium and big business.
>>>>>>> No, a lot
>>>>>>> of money can't be made selling desktop services to the general
>>>>>>> public.
>>>>>>> Currently the general public through OEM computer sales drives the
>>>>>>> desktop market.
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree it will change. I think we disagree on when or what will change
>>> it. I also disagree that anyone has a monopoly on "knowledge of how to
>>> provide knowledge via a computer". This knowledge is
>>> actually very common and supersedes Microsoft. Microsoft has a
>>> monopoly on
>>> selling Windows not on how to create an OS. They may use monopolistic
>>> marketing techniques to get Windows on as many computers as they can.
>>> This
>>> is part of doing business in a capitalist society. I am not
>>> expressing an
>>> opinion whether I agree with this or think it is right. I am saying
>>> what I
>>> think the current reality is. The future may have a linux based OS as
>>> the
>>> main desktop for most computers but I don't think it will come to
>>> pass. I
>>> think we are stuck with Windows until someone comes along with a new OS
>>> that has something in it we all want/need/desire and currently don't
>>> have
>>> or even know what it is we want/need/desire. All of the current OS' for
>>> micro computers are too close to really say one is better. All we can
>>> say is they are different and I prefer Windows/linux/OS X/Solaris/BSD,
>>> whatever. It will take something new or someone with a lot of money for
>>> marketing to knock Microsoft off the top of the heap.
>>>
>>
>> With rather severe editing of the above, to focus in a few specific
>> points.
>>
>>
>> I believe that the problem is going to be a difficult one. In this
>> market, there must be one major company 'owning' an OS sufficently
>> that they can invest major funds in marketing.
>> 1. We know that MS offers significant price and other concessions to
>> any manufacturer who stays 'windows only'. So to gain a few short term
>> sales in the linux market, every pc they sell becomes more expensive.
>> As long as the computer makers compete so much on price, we are stuck.
>> What we need os an 'oligopoly' of manufacturers to tell MS to (*&^
>> themselves. None have the courage or the means to do it by themeselves.
>> 2. If a superior OS did happen, and was owned and properly promoted,
>> MS would kill the company, directly like they did for Geoworks and
>> DRDos, steal the code, like they did for 'superstore/superspace', or
>> simply buy the company.
>>
>> The reason that linux can survive is that nobody owns it. There is no
>> one party for MS to attack. Therefore the one thing that saves it,
>> also prevents it from becomming a dominant force on the OS business.
>>
>> I think it is time for all of us to work for a change in the laws that
>> MS hides behind. Like maybe you can't copyright software that is not
>> guaranteed. Or, you can't copyright something that does not work
>> prperly. You have to put the teeth in the profitability part of it.
>> Telling/legislating that MS must guarantee/fix their product is a
>> waste of time - there is no alternative right now, and they won't
>> bother fix it. If there were competition, such as the auto or laptop
>> computer industries, then a guarantee works - if they offer a bad
>> product you just go to the other supplier. If MS faced the prospect of
>> giving away windows until it worked properly, they would smarten up
>> very quickly.
>>
>> Even if the US legislators and DOJ were not owned by MS, changes in
>> approach would be a hard sell because of all the foreign exchange and
>> income tax MS generates. (yes, the government profits from illegal
>> activities). However, those of us in other countries can make a
>> difference - and we are dealing with a company that is a drain on our
>> foreign exchange, creates no significant employment directly (I mean
>> MS employees in the country), and pays no or very little income tax to
>> our government.
>> Perhaps we will have a world where MS owns the US but linux run the
>> computers in the rest of the world.
>>
>> If this worked, I can see 2 significant benefits to all of us. MS only
>> gets paid if their software works, so we get versions of windows that
>> work. And when MS can't perform, then linux gets a fair chance.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>
eople would rather pay for Windows than use Linux.
