The eight guises of Vista

[directhex]

[snip random irrelevancy]

I think this highlights just how much you've completely missed the point I'm trying to make.

1) Even today, even on the very latest configurations, computers are non-trivial to keep running healthily. There's always some random problem.

2) People are remarkably good at "coping", as long as the status quo remains largely the same. If someone's got a spyware-infested computer, with ten popups a minute, largely they'll just try to ignore it. If you hand them a completely different GUI, whether it's easier or not, that's when they'll panic. If someone has done all their learning on MS-DOS, then they'll happily use MS-DOS. If they've learnt on XP, they'll happily use XP. Neither user will be happy on the other's machine.

3) Problems with the system you're used to are still problems, regardless of what the system you're used to is. From pixel shaders and uninstaller woes to EMM386 and CONFIG.SYS, problems are problems. The technology surrounding them is irrelevant to the end user.

4) Problems are still common. This is the point that will be argued. Just because your system doesn't freeze solid (and this does still happen), it doesn't mean there isn't a problem of some kind. Some random software update suddenly breaks something. Some random app won't run. Whatever. The problems still happen, but - and here's the curious bit - because they're so much more varied, they're harder to solve. Even with Google, it's not easy to know that (for example) the solution to "you must install a VGA driver first" errors is to alter some registry permissions. The systems of yesteryear were simpler, and by that virtue the problems easier to solve. They might have been a little more common, sure, but at least the problems were well documented in any issue of PC Plus.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Synergy6]

Vista having 8 versions. Hmm, seems a trifle much IMO, should have stuck to 4/5.

As for this thing about DOS being as user friendly as XP/Vista (seems rather OT for a start), it's kinda ridiculous. To say that a few clicks on a GUI isn't easier than a command line is barmy. If the CLI was as easy, we'd still be using it, rather than it being hidden on modern MS OSs. As for Linux, whatever you think about it, it is obviously not quite as easy to use as Windows. Linux is free, faster, and thought to be generally better in many areas. Usability is one of the things that modern Windows actually has going for it.

As for parents, if they happen to be great with CLIs, all power to them. But I know my parents can do what they need by clicking on nice little icons, whereas they sure as hell couldn't do what need through a CLI.

[TheAnimus]

its worth noteing that the MSH shell could be considered an easyer to use command prompt, easyer to use in the sense once you've mastered it, you can do complex things quickly.

[[GSV]Trig]

linux is only harder to use than windows if you want it to be - and your aforementionned parent user isn't going to want it to be.

I dont want linux to be hard, I want it to be nice and easy, so, find me an distro (I believe thats the right name) where I can put the cd in my drive and install it to my machine and it will install as easily as windows XP does. I downloaded that knoppix thing and that seems fine but is a CD based thing, I want something I can have a proper play with on a machine and not on a CD...
I have already downloaded both of the debian dvd iso's as thats meant to be a nice easy place to start.

[Mike Fishcake]

Can we stop every thread that menitons a good or indeed bad thing about a Windows based OS turing into yet *another* Windows vs Linux debate.

There is no final solution. You just have to accept that each has its strenghts and each has its weaknesses ( contrary to popular belief I do actually quite like linux , even though I work in a 98% wintell environment , which is why I tend to know more about that side of things )

I think there are a number of people here who'd do well to keep an open mind on things.

Give this man a big fat cigar.

(as long as he smokes it before 2007)

So, to get this straight:

- Anyone that uses a Mac can only use one piece of software ever, but damn, that software looks nice.
- Windows users have to reset their PCs 30,000 times a day because it crashes with alarming regularity.
- Linux is used by terrorists and paedophiles.

Debate over. I win.

[Steve]

I dont want linux to be hard, I want it to be nice and easy, so, find me an distro (I believe thats the right name) where I can put the cd in my drive and install it to my machine and it will install as easily as windows XP does. I downloaded that knoppix thing and that seems fine but is a CD based thing, I want something I can have a proper play with on a machine and not on a CD...
I have already downloaded both of the debian dvd iso's as thats meant to be a nice easy place to start.

Thing is, for somebody who wants to just use a computer, it's not hard. But we're the sorts of people who want a bit more control and want things to be right, like you said we want to "play" and that's where the complications come in.

However, I've been dabbling in Ubuntu recently (based on Debian) and have found it to be pretty nice. Then again I'm not a complete Linux noob so that might change my perspective.

Back to the subject of Vista.

I'd like to go out and buy a copy of Windows Vista for my home, or for my office. Any other option is just plain stupid.

[dangel]

As for this thing about DOS being as user friendly as XP/Vista (seems rather OT for a start), it's kinda ridiculous. To say that a few clicks on a GUI isn't easier than a command line is barmy. If the CLI was as easy, we'd still be using it, rather than it being hidden on modern MS OSs.

Oh dear god thank you. I really thought the world had gone mad (or at least one particular part of it)
.

2) People are remarkably good at "coping", as long as the status quo remains largely the same. If someone's got a spyware-infested computer, with ten popups a minute, largely they'll just try to ignore it. If you hand them a completely different GUI, whether it's easier or not, that's when they'll panic. If someone has done all their learning on MS-DOS, then they'll happily use MS-DOS. If they've learnt on XP, they'll happily use XP. Neither user will be happy on the other's machine.

This is just silly. An MSDOS user would have some hope of understanding (with a quick bit of experimentation) XP, the vice versa is not true.

3) Problems with the system you're used to are still problems, regardless of what the system you're used to is. From pixel shaders and uninstaller woes to EMM386 and CONFIG.SYS, problems are problems. The technology surrounding them is irrelevant to the end user.

So what? A problem is still a problem. I agree. And?

4) Problems are still common. This is the point that will be argued. Just because your system doesn't freeze solid (and this does still happen), it doesn't mean there isn't a problem of some kind. Some random software update suddenly breaks something. Some random app won't run. Whatever. The problems still happen, but - and here's the curious bit - because they're so much more varied, they're harder to solve. Even with Google, it's not easy to know that (for example) the solution to "you must install a VGA driver first" errors is to alter some registry permissions. The systems of yesteryear were simpler, and by that virtue the problems easier to solve. They might have been a little more common, sure, but at least the problems were well documented in any issue of PC Plus.

So, we're completely ignoring severity then? The fact that a modern machine, in general terms, is far more stable, is irrelevant? Are we just counting the number of problems and not the effect? That's ridiculous - as is your contention that solving problems under MS-DOS was anything but a black art.
What, do you suppose, would be the result of a hexus poll on whether MSDOS was easier to use than XP?



Any-way... Vista in eight versions..

[dangel]

its worth noteing that the MSH shell could be considered an easyer to use command prompt, easyer to use in the sense once you've mastered it, you can do complex things quickly.

It's got to be an improvement - the current shell is rubbish for scripting in my eyes. Linux has a far more powerful one (if, dare I say, full of some very obscure command names) currently. Personally, I always loved the Amiga CLI which I felt was the best of both worlds..

[fredered]

I think to the experienced user who knows all the commands a CLI is no harder than a GUI interface, and is certainly a lot more efficient, but with a GUI if you don't know how to solve the problem you have the option of clicking rando things until something you want to happen happens where as if you do not know what the command is, no matter how experienced you are you are stuck with a CLI

I agree with most here the stupidly large amount of versions of vista seems excessive and its going to be confusing, but will enterprise be aimed at desktop , in whatever sector, or will iot be a more server orientated os [like most stuff with enteroprise in the name seems to be].

[dangel]

For the most part it won't be tho will it? Joe bloggs will buy his Dell PC and get 'Vista' - the exact version of it will be irrelevant to him, just so long as it says Vista
Mr Server Admin will buy the server version that meets his company requirements and so on..

I think it'd all be worsened by the EU and it's 'non-media' versions of Windows insistance (I couldn't care less personally).

[mike_w]

Really? So why hasn't linux taken over? It's free after all..

Quite simple, in my opinion. I go to school, they use Windows. I go to the library, they use Windows. I go to a friend's house, they use Windows. I turn on the T.V. and get Windows adverts. There are Windows stickers on the sides of computers. The vast majority of people I know have never even heard of Linux. That's why Linux hasn't taken over.

As the eight versions of Vista... I'm not sure it will be that much a problem. Admittedly, less would probably be better, but if the more basic versions are a fair bit cheaper, I'm not complaining! At least then you're not paying for something you won't use. Besides, as somebody said, most people will just buy their computer with Vista preinstalled, so they probably won't even notice what version they have.

[Cobalt]

I think the various packages is a good thing personally. The average user won't be hand picking which version to use (Dell will do it for them) and anybody who is required to pick it will be tech savvy enough to do some proper research on what they want. At the very least there'll be plenty of advice floating around to get them on their way.

I won't be opting for this ultimate version unless the unnanounced "features" drastically reduce required system resources and do some other such thing to improve performance. My guess is the extra stuff will end up making it a worse choice for us enthusiasts if they try to force feaures on us that we don't need but sound good from a marketing perspective (Abit's uGuru anyone?)

The whole DOS/3.1 vs. XP/Vista:
XP/Vista are easier to use thus causing less system errors that are actually due to user error. We have more hardware errors because there is more hardware. We have viruses and spyware problems because of the internet. I haven't ever had a BSOD since I hung my Win98 hard disk on the wall as a trophy (Its still there: 'Lest we ever forget...').

Linux is a whole other argument. It may be better for people like us who have a hope of understanding it but most people still need their start button fix and easy install options. Is it any surprise that the most widespread version of Linux has a windows GUI? The kernal thing even gets me occasionally with all the conflicting opinions and advice. Its just too specialised in its appeal.

Now to finish this math piece that was ment to be in today and I just wasted 7 minutes by writing this.

[directhex]

I dont want linux to be hard, I want it to be nice and easy, so, find me an distro (I believe thats the right name) where I can put the cd in my drive and install it to my machine and it will install as easily as windows XP does. I downloaded that knoppix thing and that seems fine but is a CD based thing, I want something I can have a proper play with on a machine and not on a CD...
I have already downloaded both of the debian dvd iso's as thats meant to be a nice easy place to start.

ubuntu, fedora or suse would be a reasonable start for you.

http://shipit.ubuntu.com will mail you CDs, with a bootable ubuntu cd on one (like knoppix) and the installer on the other

[RedPutty]

It's got to be an improvement - the current shell is rubbish for scripting in my eyes. Linux has a far more powerful one (if, dare I say, full of some very obscure command names) currently. Personally, I always loved the Amiga CLI which I felt was the best of both worlds..

Its funny you should mention that. I remember one of the things that Amiga owners dreaded was when they mentioned their computer and they would get "does it run windows?" NO IT RUNS A BETTER OS

Linux isnt easy, but neither is windows (or computers in general).

[atrull]

ubuntu ain't bad as linux goes, tbh. very clean integration so far.

My mum is running it

[Cobalt]

Linux isnt easy, but neither is windows (or computers in general).

I think Red hit the nail on the head here. Nothing in computers is easy. Even though I'm experienced I still build every computer as if something is going to go wrong, even with the best parts froma reliable source. The fact is that windows is the wide spread OS and thus people find it easier to use and are more comfortable with the GUI. If anything else had made it then maybe we would have slightly more stable systems but the hardware compatibility issue crops up again and spyware would be just as much of a problem.

Worse still if Billy G hadn't made the big time I'd have been deprived of my xbox and precious 360