[Advertisements]

I think Vista is great. Not that many differences from Windows XP, but it's really a new look.

I think Microsoft will stay with this Vista look for at least another 10 years, but major Vista upgrades will probably be around in 2009. I don't think it's worth the expensive upgrade price, unless you are desperate to have it. There aren't that many difference between a basic Vista, and a nicely modified XP.

I only have Vista because my new laptop came with it. But I would not have it otherwise. Rip-off prices.

[Kobius]

I think Vista is great. Not that many differences from Windows XP, but it's really a new look.

I think Microsoft will stay with this Vista look for at least another 10 years, but major Vista upgrades will probably be around in 2009. I don't think it's worth the expensive upgrade price, unless you are desperate to have it. There aren't that many difference between a basic Vista, and a nicely modified XP.

I only have Vista because my new laptop came with it. But I would not have it otherwise. Rip-off prices.

[Fenor]

Where did you read that they spent almost a billion on testing? I would like to read the article.

I was way off the mark. Microsoft spent almost $6 Billion dollars on the development of Vista.

http://news.softpedi...tem-44096.shtml

Fenor

[bobmad]

No one here will attempt to deny that many of today's programs are bloated and buggy. However, in the "olden days" that you speak of, there was no competition for software. You got what was available. Today, there are many options which means competition. Can you make your software better than the other guy without adding more stuff? No, so to compete, the programs get more bloated so that they appeal to the biggest number of consumers.

Actually during much of the time I am speaking about these were the Word VS word perfect, lotus 123 VS excel, and many other fights going on where 2 or more companies had 20%-40% of the market share and new versions HAD to offer improvement. I'm not saying that VISTA had nothing new or better. I'm (as you said) looking for more info about what it has that is actually USEFUL. I'll suffer through more "eye candy" for better features, and I'm glad to hear you say those features are there.

QUOTE
Software companies (including Microsoft) need to release new products to maintain revenue streams EVEN IF there is NO REAL IMPROVEMENT. (note I said including, not Especially)
I completely miss your point here. You say you haven't used Vista yet, but you claim here that there is "NO REAL IMPROVEMENT". Based on what standards is there no improvement?

My statement wasn't SOLELY about VISTA (notice I said software companies), and was better thought out than you are guessing. Microsoft and others base a LARGE part of their employee reviews upon "lines of code" written, so they are rewarding those who write bloated code with better reviews and therefore better pay. As any coder knows more code means more bugs (ALMOST universally true). I KNOW that to write tight, efficient code a programmer needs to understand what they are doing at a deeper level. That deeper level of understanding requires more thought and (almost always) more time, but it results in smaller code that runs correctly and quickly.

I'm not saying I know the solution to this problem, but I do see it as a HUGE problem in the software industry.

Fenor said

as software technologies increase, so will the requirements to run them increase.

This IS TRUE. My point is at what RATE? Shouldn't a computer 100 x faster BE 20-30 times more responsive? (of course it is CLOSE on the SAME EXACT SOFTWARE) What I'm trying to say (and probably failing to say) is using the OS of the day and the applications of the day I do not see even a 20x increase in performance on a machine around 100x faster with 500x the ram and 100+x the hard drive space. The hardware would indicate that the newest would perform several 100's of times better... our "improved" software is eating a huge chunk of (if not all of) the hardware gains.

regarding:

These old systems were also capable of 1/100th of what todays systems are. In general, the old systems were more expensive.

So for less money than before, you get more capabilities, I really am missing where the problem is here?

Yes you do miss the point. Hardware is getting faster and better. The software requires we keep buying new hardware to stay "current". Even if the price is dropping, it costs money to upgrade the hardware. (Money we spent in past + money we spend today > money we spent in past). Even general users need to upgrade (too often in my opinion), but it is worse for me, as a "Computer Guy" I need to stay "close to current" for my home machine. When VISTA was in Beta my best machine at home could have barely run it (if at all per Microsoft published requirements). When I got my machine so it could run it, no new beta testers were allowed. (My bad, not blaming Microsoft for my $$ trouble or bad timing). I can do most of my job with a POS machine. What I cannot do is evaluate the new software without frequent upgrades to hardware, (even if free trial versions of the new stuff is available).

Also VISTA costs about what XP did (slightly more), XP cost about what ME or 98 did (slightly more) {I'm skipping 2000-NT tree branches for simplicity}. So you can build a system capable of running VISTA and MS OFFICE for around the same price as VISTA and OFFICE.

Please note some of this IS "OFF TOPIC" if the topic is ONLY VISTA and issues unique to VISTA.

If any of you have links to info about VISTA that isn't all PR/Marketing or (FAN/HATE)boy I'd love to see them. (and I think they would be on topic).

[ScHwErV]

All I would ask for is a less expensive UPGRADE. I have 4 PC's at home, and cannot afford a license for every PC. I just wish Microsoft would find a better way to present the product to a home user with multiple PCs.

There is a ton here for me to respond to, so Ill take it a person at a time if possible.

For this one, here is a sekrit. Become a student. Find a student. Whatever you need to do. MS always gives discounts and deals to students/teachers/schools. Find a student and buy from a college bookstore to get some great student pricing.

[ScHwErV]

I think Vista is great. Not that many differences from Windows XP, but it's really a new look.

I think Microsoft will stay with this Vista look for at least another 10 years, but major Vista upgrades will probably be around in 2009. I don't think it's worth the expensive upgrade price, unless you are desperate to have it. There aren't that many difference between a basic Vista, and a nicely modified XP.

I only have Vista because my new laptop came with it. But I would not have it otherwise. Rip-off prices.

Vista is significantly more than a "new look". Many of the other features have already been discussed, but this is a very narrow look.

Define for me "Rip-off prices". How much would you charge for something you spent 6 billion dollars creating?

[rstones12]

It would be foolish of Microsoft to make Vista cheap from the beginning. No company in their right mind would do that. Look at plasma TV's for example: They started out at $10,000 and people bought them then. Of course not as many bought them as they are nowadays due to the drastic drop in price, but people still bought them and the makers of those TV's made a killing since the TV's cost nowhere near that much to produce. New technologies will always cost a lot when they first emerge, that is just how things work. Give it about a year or two and you will see the same drop in price as you saw for XP two years after it was released.

Not always true, there are many factors to consider when developing and bringing a product to market. Not all "new" products undergo the same rigorous (uses that term loosely) R&D model as Microsoft to develop a particular product or invest the billions of dollars it takes to create a new version of software on that grand of a scale.

Supply and demand drive the market, the perception of value for that particular product also plays a key role.

Of course wanting and needing is another story..

[ScHwErV]

Actually during much of the time I am speaking about these were the Word VS word perfect, lotus 123 VS excel, and many other fights going on where 2 or more companies had 20%-40% of the market share and new versions HAD to offer improvement. I'm not saying that VISTA had nothing new or better. I'm (as you said) looking for more info about what it has that is actually USEFUL. I'll suffer through more "eye candy" for better features, and I'm glad to hear you say those features are there.

2 competing companies and 20 competing companies are the reason for the big jumps. If Office only had one competitor, they wouldn't be working so hard on improving it. In turn, it wouldn't be so bloated.

My statement wasn't SOLELY about VISTA (notice I said software companies), and was better thought out than you are guessing. Microsoft and others base a LARGE part of their employee reviews upon "lines of code" written, so they are rewarding those who write bloated code with better reviews and therefore better pay. As any coder knows more code means more bugs (ALMOST universally true). I KNOW that to write tight, efficient code a programmer needs to understand what they are doing at a deeper level. That deeper level of understanding requires more thought and (almost always) more time, but it results in smaller code that runs correctly and quickly.

I realize that you weren't solely talking about vista, thats why I said Adobe, AutoCAD, and FireFox. I think you grossly generalize the promotion systems within large companies. No company that has grown as successful as Microsoft would only pay for the person who writes the most code. It has to be based on performance overall, not just how much code, but how much good code.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that Microsoft et al do not care that their software is becoming more bloated. I believe you are incorrect. I just don't believe there is much they can do about it. To add function, you have to add code. You add code, you add bloat, and you inherently (as you pointed out) add problems. Its the nature of the beast.

This IS TRUE. My point is at what RATE? Shouldn't a computer 100 x faster BE 20-30 times more responsive? (of course it is CLOSE on the SAME EXACT SOFTWARE) What I'm trying to say (and probably failing to say) is using the OS of the day and the applications of the day I do not see even a 20x increase in performance on a machine around 100x faster with 500x the ram and 100+x the hard drive space. The hardware would indicate that the newest would perform several 100's of times better... our "improved" software is eating a huge chunk of (if not all of) the hardware gains.

No. A computer 100x faster should be more responsive if its running the exact same software. If you update software at the same rate as you update the hardware, you keep the status quo. Now, since you brought up lotus, I remember my computer when I first got Lotus, I used to be able to start lotus, go have lunch and a nap, and come back to see it open. It takes me 1-2 seconds to open Word 2007, how is this worse response? Remembering again that I am currently severely underpowered for the software recommendations.

Yes you do miss the point. Hardware is getting faster and better. The software requires we keep buying new hardware to stay "current". Even if the price is dropping, it costs money to upgrade the hardware. (Money we spent in past + money we spend today > money we spent in past). Even general users need to upgrade (too often in my opinion), but it is worse for me, as a "Computer Guy" I need to stay "close to current" for my home machine. When VISTA was in Beta my best machine at home could have barely run it (if at all per Microsoft published requirements). When I got my machine so it could run it, no new beta testers were allowed. (My bad, not blaming Microsoft for my $$ trouble or bad timing). I can do most of my job with a POS machine. What I cannot do is evaluate the new software without frequent upgrades to hardware, (even if free trial versions of the new stuff is available).

I believe you miss the point. No one is making you upgrade the software. General users do not need Vista, they also don't need Office 2k7. These are what we call luxuries. If you want a luxury, you have to pay for it. In none of my postings have I said "Everyone should have this". All I am trying to do is say that if you want it, its worth it. Its also not as horrible as Microsoft or the general public seem to make it. You do not need a dual core multiple gig of ram monster to run Vista. Have a peek at my system specs to see this.

As for the whole money past + money today thing, please. Put that in the context of a car, or a house, or a boat and tell me how this is any different.

Also VISTA costs about what XP did (slightly more), XP cost about what ME or 98 did (slightly more) {I'm skipping 2000-NT tree branches for simplicity}. So you can build a system capable of running VISTA and MS OFFICE for around the same price as VISTA and OFFICE.

This is because its getting cheaper to build hardware yet it is costing more to pay teams of coders. You cant teach a robot to write code, but you can to put microchips onto a board. Its an unfair comparison at best.

[wannabe1]

And just want to point out, that Microsoft is making a deal for people with multiple PC's. If you buy the Ultimate version of Vista, you are able to buy two licenses for XP Home Premium at only $50 each here in the states. That's a good deal and one I plan to cash in on at a later date. smile.gif

Fenor

Buying Vista Ultimate will give you the opportunity to purchase two upgrade licenses for Vista Home Premium at $49.00 each directly from Microsoft...so to install Ultimate and then upgrade two machines from XP to Vista Home Premium results in a cost per operating system of $133.00. Not a bad price for Vista.

[Fenor]

Yup, and that's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY cheaper then it would cost to even buy just three Vista Home Premium Upgrade DVD's, which are $159.99 for each operating system.

[Fenor]

OH! And those are FULL versions of Vista Home Premium, not the upgrade.