[ke4nhw]

Wow the whining really went up recently. Personally I could care less about MS marketing strategies. I can sum them up in a single sentence. "Okay people, let's find a handful of ways to strangle every last drop of money out of every financial level of the world, Mr. Gates wants a new boat this quarter!" (mind you it's a nuclear powered aircraft carrier but to each their own right?)

It comes to this. Whine as we will, MS doesn't care. They built the product, they'll charge what the want. And the whining about the price of Ultimate? They designed Ultimate for very very high end users, and usually those users either belong to major Fortune 500 companies or are IT professionals with fat pockets anyways. Should they offer a reduced Ultimate to Ultimate upgrade? Certainly. I think that they should offer reduced pricing for upgrades as long as your previous version is either comparably equal or one step down. While it will not be $50 like the regular versions still a cut off the top would be nice, kind of a reward to those who supported Vista's highest releases.

If they do nothing else in Windows 7, with all the redesigning and tweaking and such, I still argue they should REDESIGN THE BOX!!! The System Requirements are not set out the best. They made the Minimum System Requirements too weak. It was saying "We recommend your system meet the following hardware specs in order to boot up and display the windows logo at some time before armageddon." Their Recommended System Requirements said "We recommend your hardware meet these specs in order to have an average and relatively trouble free experience." Bad choice. I'm sure there's peeps out there who upgraded their system to meet the Minimum requirements and found their system still sluggish and downright stalled when they ran other programs that were higher end. On Windows 7, let the Minimum System Requirements say "We recommend your hardware specs meet the following to have an enjoyable and relatively trouble free experience." while the Recommended Requirements are such that they say "We recommend the following hardware specs to have a blistering fast system capable of handling whatever you throw at it with few errors and virtually no slowdowns." If MS does this, Windows 7 should release with far fewer gripes and whines due to perceived shoddy performance. REMEMBER... Perception is Reality. Imagine this for a moment. I'm sure that most here would agree that 2000 was a good release of windows, as was XP (I didn't say perfect, I didn't say anything but good...). Now, imagine someone taking a few million copies of either of those operating systems back in time and handing it to MS with numbers showing how successful it is, and telling them to release it in place of Windows 95. People attempt to install and run this, it's worthless on their cutting edge 300mhz processor, 256mb ram, dual 4gb hd systems. Are they gonna call it a good release? No, it'll be flagged as MS's worst mistake of all time! And it's not that it's a bad product. It was perceived as a bad product by the public because of its inability to run on their systems. Perception becomes reality.

Want to make MS 7 the messiah of MS that it was released to be? Make the hardware requirements realistic. Those who run it with substandard requirements will be marked as illiterate. Then, if people start having problems who ARE running the required hardware, then it'll be newsworthy, after ruling out all ID10T errors and making sure it's not a pebcak issue.

Bottom Line. MS, make the sys requirements realistic. Peeps, deal with the pricing. And if you don't like either, there's always other options out there. And if you whine that you can't run this or that and you don't want mac or linux, then you're always free to find a box, stick it all in there, sell it for a few dollars, and you won't have to worry about MS at all. They can bomb out or do great, you won't be affected.

Oh, and a sidenote. Find an OS that offers that kind of server reliability without the serious pricetag? Nah, Linux could never do that, could they???

[gudgolf]

Anyone that bought Vista (regardless of version) and didn't as a minimum, use the pre-install compatiblility tool from microsoft to check their hardware and software or bought new hardware to replace existing outdated cards, probably hated Vista. I say again, deployment was the death sentence for Vista, poor preparation resulted in failure. And, it was expensive for businesses. They chose to stick with Xp, if they did and are still using the same hardware, they saved nothing. We all remember the days when hardware manufacturers were 100% responsible for drivers. We all remember the days of dual floppies, and "Whats a hard drive"? A processor chugging along at 8mhz. MS Dos. Did we learn anything along the way? Versions came into existance with Xp. And have they grown. Why? One answer, ripoff. I choose to bend over. You choose as you wish. I just pay the price and WHINE. Its my right, I pay for that right.

[Boomshadow]

There are three shrinkwrap versions, not three public versions, per bit level: Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate. There are three more versions, however: Starter, Home Basic, and Enterprise, all available to consumers through other-than-point-of-sale channels. My entire point here is that this profusion of additions is a marketing mishap, not a benefit to the consumer or the IT professional.
Your statement that I'm "not buying a car here" actually supports my line of reasoning, not yours. If I were buying a car, I would have the ability to delete options from the hardware (and, these days, the software) before finalizing the purchase. And just as adding options increases the price of a car, deleting them often decreases the price. The fact is that Microsoft has the most expensive shrinkwrap operating systems on the market, which damages demand by convincing people to hang on to older versions of the software. This is also the case with their office package.

As I stated, my initial price suggestions were necessarily a little low. Microsoft had such trouble selling Vista that they counted pre-installed copies as sales, even if the client also purchased a downgrade license to XP--a "luxury" that has never been needed before at retail.


Also, ease up on the name-calling and invective. You're just not very good at it. Your labeling me "crazy" does not change the facts and does not make your reasoning any better. If disagreeing with you makes me crazy, then I'll wear my straitjacket with pride and distinction. Your lack of ability to show respect to other posters here does not make your posts any better or more helpful. They just reflect poorly on your level of maturity and professionalism. I dread reading your commentary on here, because I know I'll never get that time back, but your writing is a bit like a traffic accident: it's hard not to stare.

[Boomshadow]

I got a computer pre-installed with Vista, and got tired of it running so slowly within a month. Fortunately, I had an extra XP shrinkwrap, which tided me over until I upgraded to 2 GB of RAM and installed 7. Not all PCs that were "Vista Ready" were really Vista-ready, even if they had it stamped in at the factory.

[rasmasyean]

You fell into the Vista Capable lawsuit trap. LOL Anyone who knew anything technical about computers knew those would be lemons.
I know this has been mentioned many times all over the internet, but Microsoft Windows (and any piece of software) always had "minimum" requirements...and recommended requirements. If you were around long enough, you would practically DOUBLE the RECOMMENDED requirements to be safe if you wanted "fast performance".
Did this mean a $3,000 computer? Maybe. But that's what it takes to be on the "bleeding edge". Vista was "bleeding edge" for its time and it introduced many concepts that paved the way for the "slight upgrade" to Windows 7. You can't expect that to be light. But now they apparently will modularize Win 7 for the netbook market and developing world and you can use your "old computer" and pay MS for Windows 7 some "reduced price" that is "low value" for your money.
Ultimate was specifically stated for "enthusiasts". Most people don't fit in this category albeit many people what "the best" anyway. We always knew that "Ultimate Extras" were going to be some trivial stuff anyway and not anything important because then other users would complain about it. Personally, I'm disappointed by the lack of extras as well, but honestly, I can live without a stupid Microsoft Games folder item (they are not gonna give you Halo) and another sound and colors. It's the other features that "IT pros" and stuff can either use themselves...or use to learn about, that really counts. And Fortune 500 use Vista Enterprise, not Ultimate...which tend to be configured as Ultimate stripped of the Home stuff.

[WinTard]

gudgolf said:

Why? One answer, ripoff. I choose to bend over. You choose as you wish. I just pay the price and WHINE. Its my right, I pay for that right.

I would instead only pay for what I appreciate and agree with... And be happy about my purchases. WHINING is a waste of time, and happiness...

I must admit I sometimes whine too. But at least I don't pay for the privilege of whining. Whining feels much better when It's free!

~~~~~~~~~~
Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.
~ Abraham Lincoln

If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain.
~ Maya Angelou

Posted by: Create Web Forms on June 6, 2008 01:06 AM
On a Linux Cruise, I asked Torvalds about his "Software is like Sex, it's better when it's free" quote, and he told me that the first time he said it, a voice from the back of the room piped up to say "How do you know?" Heh.

[Boomshadow]

To be absolutely fair to the "Grammar Nazis," mainly because at times I struggle very, very hard not to be one, this is a technical publication, and aspires to a very high standard. Plus, imagine if somebody made the same mistakes in coding as writers sometimes do in text.

[Boomshadow]

Nope! The "Vista Capable" problem applied only to computers preinstalled with XP and carrying the "Designed for Windows XP/Vista Capable" chiclet sticker and an upgrade coupon for Vista.

As I stated, mine came installed with Vista, and it even carried the "Windows Vista" chiclet sticker as though it were actually ready. As such, I did not join the lawsuit, but rather, adapted, survived, and overcame--first with XP, then with 7 RC, and then with Ubu---err, an operating system not to be named in a Windows thread. ;)

[TechieXP]

I would personally like to know what laptop model you bought that came natively with Ultimate? The only ones I know of cost more than $2000 bec they are the only ones that will natively come with hardware that exceeds Vista requirements.

So I want to know..if you bought a laptop direct from a MFR and upgrade to Ultimate? But I have never seen a ratil store with a laptop that cost less than $2000 with anything other than Home Premium.

I think ur just making up your story.

[WinTard]

Boomshadow said:

>As such, I did not join the lawsuit, but rather, adapted, survived, and overcame--first with XP, then with 7 RC, and then with Ubu---err, an operating system not to be named in a Windows thread. ;)

It's okay, I use Ubu---err also! And I like it! But I prefer Windows 7. ;)

~~~~~~~~~~~
A man who knows four languages is worth four men.
~ Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

[gudgolf]

If you look a little you can find. Try ASUS, Toshiba, HP. (>$1500) Or, maybe they just made that up?

[TechieXP]

Actually you don't even know what you're talking about in soe respects. XP Mode...tell me how that would benefit a home user? For one XP Mode requires VT...it is a technology that help Virtualization perform better. Computers that feature this technology tend to be more expensive. Most home user buy hardware that is low in cost which means they won't even have VT. So why make them pay for a version of Windows that has this feature when they won't even have the hardware to use it?

How did MSFT leave Ultimate user out. I bought Ultimate too..I personally left MSFT out bec I bought the OEM version. Unless you're a PC entusiast or an IT Pro...why would you even buy the ultimate version. It is a more expensove version. it is at the top of the crop. Just like no version of Windows is upgradable to the Server version either. The ultimate version is for a niche group of people. Just bec you chose to buy it for whatever reason doesn't mean you needed it. Do you actually use all the features of Ultimate? Was it really worth it to spend $100 more over Home Premium.

The features of my desktip which I built was designed to take advantage of advanced feature in higher versions of Windows. If you bought Ultimate to install on a branded system that doesn't have advanced hardware tpo take advantage of those features..then its ur fault you wasted your oney on Vista Ultimate. That isn't MSFT fault.

And you bashing the lady? I think she gave an opinion....
I don't think MSFT is making a bad ove here. It just depends on how you look at it. Many people who upgraded to Vista didn't need too. However at some point upgradingis a must if you want to be up to date with new technologies. For a general home users there is no immediate need to upgarde everytime a new OS hots the floor. Some people invite problems byt always needing or wanting he next new thing. At this upgrading to Windows 7 is a must..ON:Y if you have XP. if you have Vista which works perfectly fine if you don't use crappy hardware...you don't need Windows 7. Windows 7 is pefect for business that were being cheap bec they had 10 year old computers that couldn't run Vista bec they didn't upgrade hardware every 5 years like they really should have. That's their fault. SFT worked hard to make 7 run on less costlier hardware...however 7 still need teh same hard Vista needed at teh beginoing. What is better is that hardware has drop in price...now business who didnt get Vista have no excuse not to get 7 and MSFT is making it even easier by drop the cost.

If you have Vista you don't need Windows 7...why concern yourself with upgrading. If you feel you wasted ur money...don't get Windows 7. Vista works just fine. I am only upgrading to 7 bec I want it...not bec I need it. But I am an IT Pro at work and I also have a small business at home. I too just recently bought 3 laptops that came with Home Premium and one came with Ultimate...and I dont feel MSFT is gauging me. I don't need to move to 7 I am simply choosing too. Its a choice not everyone needs to make.

[gudgolf]

First, your arrogance is quite obvious. Or, you are super-natural to know what others need or use or simply just want to have. Try sending or receiving a fax from your Vista Home Premium. The other reasons are just because its there. Your posts are all about you being brilliant and every body else something other. You might consider being objective instead of ........... Oh, yeah, there are other ways to send and receive fax's. Just wanted to save your thought process some extra work.

[vallor]

As someone who uses alternative OS's besides those from MS, I have to ask: why is mentioning alternatives to the hugely-failed "Vista" off-topic for discussions pertaining to such?

In other words: why be in nodding agreement with an obsolete, monopolistic OS development model that stifles computing worldwide...from the company that is all about "trick the consumer" (and stifling any computing that doesn't use their bloated & barely-works OS)?

Seriously: they spent $6 billion to build Vista -- and shills notwithstanding, I've never heard of anyone preferring it over xp. (And as someone who has "f----a" desktops on almost all of his systems, I'd daresay there is nothing MS will be able to do to stem the inroads being made by free desktops...except more of their "trick the consumer" nonsense.)

But hell, I freely admit that I am biased in this assessment: After fiascos that can be identified with the tags: DR-DOS, Win(tard?) 3.11-whatever, proprietary file formats, secret or undocument OS calls... the list goes on, and all being evil schemes used to leverage MS software's place in the market, as well as make it impossible to replace their OS --as has been determined to be monopolistic by the courts, etc., etc. ... after all that, I'll have to say that MS is not my friend...nor are they yours.

That's my story, and I'll stick with it.

-vallor

[TechieXP]

I agree with you on ehat you said about the Ultimate version.

I also agree with what you said about MSFT should rasie teh bar on the requirements.
I see it as this. Th ebare minimum keeps hardware prices low. This means a user can buy and entry level machine at a low cost. However any idot by now should no those numbers will not get you great performance. Those numbers are fine if all you are going to use is the OS only. But if you are adding more software you need better numbers. At this point if users of Windows haven't learned that...they are simply stupid.

Example...lets go back to XP. If you take a system and install the minimum require hardware that would allow XP to install the performanc eis crappy and slow. Same for even 9x that is the saame for any version of Windows I ever used. People simply need to grow up. Most users who got burned by teh Vista Capabale issue were people trying to get a bargain basement price. Fromw hat I saw, they got what they paid for. Any one who expect a $500 system to run Vista Home Premium wAero was stupid to begin with and I don't feel sorry for them. Just like the suckers who git burned with the home sales. Back in 1996 when I was buying a home the agent toldme for every $100K of cost I need to make $35K. So back then a $300K home would need me to make a generous 6 figured salary. No matter how low interest rates are it is obvious u need to make more money. Theye is no way a person making less than 125k can afford a $300k home...unless they plan to only pay for it..and have no car, clothes or car or children. No matter how low the rate variable or fix. For peoplw who fell for that they were simply stupid. Same for buying Windows.

If you look the the recommended specs and compare hardware cost...on everage teh system may cost up too $200 more than the cheap system. if you can afford a $500 system you can afford an $700 one. I bought a Dell laptop that had a 1.6 dual core and 2Gb of ram...it was released before Vista and thus was not include as a system for Vista. However it ran Ultimate just fine bec it had a ATI x1300 which also shared ram...but it had 128 of its own. But I can say it wasn't superfast...but it wasn't do slow either and for $800 it ran perfect...It still runs Ultimate just fine even when I sold it. But teh buyer request Home Premium.

Most people who bought Ultimate didn't even need it. Just like many who buy teh x64 don't need it. You only need x64 to address 4GB of ram or more. If your system can only max out at 4Gb why buy x64? Ity will provide no benefit if you are using x64 based appz and since x64 loads double thr ra on applications...4Gb will run out fast. Again these are buyers who have no idea what they are doing. I have gone to several users homes who have Vista Ultimate and they don't even use teh features. And I asked them why they bought it? They have no idea. They don't even knwo what Bitlocker is.

THis is why MSFT offer WIndows in so may different versions. Only 2 were focused on the general public.Home Basic for cheesy hardware and Home Premium for those who has soething better. Ultimate is for thosw ho have gaming monsters or business workstations. These have teh hardware to run UUltimate and are costlier systems. You can tell what version to buy based on what you bought previously. I know many idiots who upgraded Windows XP Hoe to Professional whne buying direct. They say well i don't see a different. Again stupid. There is a difference. Just bec it looks the same doesn't mean it is. That is why it has a different name. I can't even count how any homes I have gone too using Windows XP Pro. They paid and extra $100 for what...BEING STUPID. Is SFT taking advantage of them..NO.They are simpky victimes of being Stupid and using poor judgement and common sense.

Even with 7 people complaining about too many version...how? There are only 3 public versions....now watch how many opt for the Pro version that they don't even need. Professional = Business. Even if you ahve a business at home it doesn't mean you need this version. That version has special feature that mean nothing if you don't use them.

There is nothing special about OSX which is why it is all in one box....bec it has everything a home users needs. But it is not a business oriented product. And it sucks in the enterprise. Sure you can make it work in soe instances...but its poor at what it doesn't work with. Windows is everything in the box as long as you simply but teh one you need. 3 versions of Windows is like the 3 versions of gas. If your car only requires the lowest grade why spend extra for premium when you don't need it. Premium gas provides no benfit in a 4 cylinder ar...yet I see people all the time buy it and complain about teh cost. All the premium does is give u better acceleration. If you wanted better performance than why are you driving a 4 cylinder...you should ahve bought a 6 or 8 or 10. Again stupid... and I don't feel soryy for thos who get burned by thir own stupidity..and MSFT or any other company won't either.

Their job is to sell you a product. if you take time and read the details a smart buyer can make a giid decision. if you're not sure ask. Don't go to Best Buy if you don't know how to buy a computer. Call Dell, call HP, call Acer and tell them what you do, tell them how much you can spend and they will make the best recommendation. Best Buy doesn't know anything about computers...if you buy there you need to already know what you are doing.

Numbers aren't everything...some people read teh box and pick a system that mests the minimum..that is not how you buy. That's how poor people shop. If you can afford a computer ur not that poor...ur not rich either. So that means you get something in between. Those in between will be sufficient for most users...if you can afford more get more and you will have pleasnat experience. Most people who say Vista runs so great now is bec they simply bought better hardware to run it. But its not MSFT foault if you buy teh bare minimum. That's buyer fault.

[vallor]

"I decided not to go with the 64 bit upgrade because; well lets face it, 64bit is just not main stream yet as far as drivers are concerned and hardware compatibility" -- looks like fe.. I mean, Ubu... I mean: "alternate OS distribution" are ahead of the MS curve on this...as they've been ahead of the curve for 15 years now.
-vallor
p.s. Lord Almighty, I can't close the tab w/out commenting on the guy "needing" windoze over his M-c to run SQL Server: Sir, have you not heard of LAMP?

[vallor]

"There is nothing special about OSX which is why it is all in one box....bec it has everything a home users needs. But it is not a business oriented product. And it sucks in the enterprise."

Oh really? Sez who?
(And the shill stench around here is puke-inducing, ugh.)

[TechieXP]

Anyone that bought Vista (regardless of version) and didn't as a minimum, use the pre-install compatiblility tool from microsoft to check their hardware and software or bought new hardware to replace existing outdated cards, probably hated Vista. I say again, deployment was the death sentence for Vista, poor preparation resulted in failure. And, it was expensive for businesses. They chose to stick with Xp, if they did and are still using the same hardware, they saved nothing. We all remember the days when hardware manufacturers were 100% responsible for drivers. We all remember the days of dual floppies, and "Whats a hard drive"? A processor chugging along at 8mhz. MS Dos. Did we learn anything along the way? Versions came into existance with Xp. And have they grown. Why? One answer, ripoff. I choose to bend over. You choose as you wish. I just pay the price and WHINE. Its my right, I pay for that right.

I agree...however teh tool wouldn't have told u if ur system was fast enough. It simply tells u teh following..

On the Aro assessement it would have warned your graphics solution wouldn't have been sufficient to run Aero. But that doesn't translate to not being able to run Vista.

But SFT has made it in general easy to move to a new version of Windows. They provide tools...but people never use them. To bad for them. That tool you mentioned is as easy as it gets.

[gudgolf]

The tool to test for being "ready for Vista" was far from reliable. What it did do pretty well was to point out questionable functional compatiblity in installed hardware and software. In some instances it provided vender equipment which should run on Vista. It certainly worked for me in flagging my hardware that did not or marginally meet minimum requirements for Vista. It was less effective with installed software. I am not 100% positive but seems like the minimum CPU requirements were listed in the general specifications. Thats been over 2 1/2 years ago. I still cannot understand all the horror stories about VIsta. I think the user displeasure is a strong as with Windows ME and that was a real horror.

[ke4nhw]

TechieXP, There is some truth in what you say. Also a small misconception. You stated "However any idot by now should no those numbers will not get you great performance. Those numbers are fine if all you are going to use is the OS only. But if you are adding more software you need better numbers. At this point if users of Windows haven't learned that...they are simply stupid." I'm sure from our point of view that seems a credible statement. We know what a registry is and how to use it, can install and configure our programs with little to no tech support, and even trace out the occasional network failure and keep things running. But this level of computer knowledge is not the common, the baseline, or to be expected. This is precisely because Microsoft did indeed accomplish one of their objectives. They have made computers more user friendly, and more friendly to the less tech-savvy audience. This is being compounded with an ever-evolving world in which computers are no longer a luxury or business tool, but a common and almost necessary household item. The world is becoming more and more wired, and MS has helped those who prior to now couldn't tell you the difference between a mouse and a monitor to find their place among the rest of us who started out with computers that required a rather decent level of knowledge, and have only advanced since then. But herein lies a problem. As these people join the rest of us, they are behind the eight ball from our point of view. While we know what you said to be true, they on the other hand depend on MS and others to be truthful to them about what they need. They don't know the performance differences between having a huge processor and no ram or having a moderate processor and a few gigs of ram. When they buy software, they look at those numbers, and say "These people wrote the program so they should know what is needed to run it well..." They don't have the experience and knowledge that we do. And we may as well face it, they are the majority of the market today. Those who have always stayed away from those complicated unnecessary machines, and now find them necessary and slightly more user friendly.

So while your statement is true, we can't expect the majority of the market to know this. MS knows this as well. Surely they know who their marketbase is, it's part of their job. Yet, knowing this, they still continue to use the same strategy as always. Give us a set of numbers that we are expected to know is below spec. This is where I have the issue with them. TechieXP, you and I both know well what those numbers represent. However, don't expect your friends grandmother to know this when she heads to Best Buy tomorrow to get Vista. I often believe MS is aware of this fact and use this fact to ensure future business and to work hand in hand with computer companies.

Remember, what you and I know to be valid fact doesn't represent the majority.