Intel won't touch Vista

If has everything to do with empathy and attitude. Steve Jobs has it while Bill Gates does not.

Microsoft's HUGE mistake was their security model: They approached it the Corporate ideal that the End User is a criminal who cannot be trusted (HaHa, LOL, very much like every government and business does; open door ultra-liberal democracy has it's privileges) and they then proceeded to attempt to protect the jewels from us criminals by embedding security (and unknown to most: Big Brother monitoring) hacks in everything and I mean everything!

Had they been smart the would have engineered Vista with the ideal the the end users were innocent babes who must be protected and helped home protected from criminal Big Business and Big Government at any costs.

Had they had done that you would have seen a Vista engineered along the lines of a virtual OS build for speed and stealth. 

They have no choice but to finally throw out Windows and reengineer it from the ground up (which they claimed to have done with Vista but that is an obvious lie). 

I think with Vista we have finally seen the limitations of drag & drop programming and how it's unintelligent and injudicious use will choke out the most perfectly engineered designs.

Vista is really great product.

As long as it's not installed.

{quote}
1) Vista has DRM, ergo no go for me
2) XP works fine enough for me
3) I haven't had a BSOD under XP since I installed it five years ago - not one. I had plenty under 98 (let's just forget 95, right ?), but I have not seen a single one under XP.
4) I have never installed Vista and will never do so. I do not need to install it to know that it has DRM, just like I do not need to go to Iraq to know that I risk being kidnapped or blown to bits by a roadside bomb. If, on the other hand, you estimate that first-hand experience is the only criteria, then I invite you to go to Iraq for your holidays. After all, if you've never been there then, by your criteria, you cannot possibly know there's a war going on, right ? {quote}
1. Vista has DRM....so...are you afraid Microsoft or other developers are noting you are stealing their software?

2. and 3.never had a week without crash or bsod with XP

4. don't make assumptions if you are not willing to try and yes i have been there and didn't get blown to pieces

why ppl tell others they can not speak for a majority and the same time try to do the same

Vista has joined the Microsoft Office string of release failures for the past 10 years. Virtually every new Office 'feature' (since 97) is an annoyance that requires a workaround. 

Its time to MSFT to 're-purpose' every single corporate marketeer who has infiltrated the ranks of the software engineering teams...and then begin the process of developing software that customers actually want to buy.

In a few years, this model might actually generate organic new sales to take the place of forced upgrade cycles.

Vista is a pain to remote login to Small Business Server 2003 (windows, MS) network servers or pc's. Or maybe I've just been unlucky. A few laptops I have tried it on have refused me the connection. I can get as far as selecting the machine and agreeing the options, the "copy to clipboard access ok" form and then I get rejected. This is probably solvable, but that will take time and when I have learned how to avoid/fix this I will have to train the staff. It shouldn't be this way.

Vista and Workgroups:
Worgroups - Vista and XP can't "see" each other, you end up with 2 workgroups, the XP PCs and the Vista PCs. To solve you need to start messing with all the network security settings in Vista, plus you need to download a network LLTD patch for every XP pc. Then run around and configure them all.

This all takes time and money, when if the business sticks with replacing aging machines with XP new machines then they don't have this hassle.

Legacy Business Software - it's already been said, but many businesses use legacy software which is stable on XP and will not work on Vista.

Vista costs more in support, hardware and training. Why throw money away when we are entering a global recession?

Vista Backup - FFS now this is a kick in the teeth. Have you used that piece of junk? You cannot even select folders or files you want to backup. You can only choose "pictures" or "movies" or a few other lame options like that. On Vista Business. Microsft, FFS come on, you cannot be serious.

Small businesses that ask me for advice, it's simple, pay DELL the extra £50 for XP over Vista and you will have no hassle or extra support cost.

For my own support wallet, Vista is a boon. I can't get enough of "we have a vista pc and we are trying to do....can you help?"

Vista = Kerching for support, empty wallet for customer.

Why don't they run with Windows Royale... it's free too... :P

That happens when you try to run a modern OS on a processor/chipset that was designed only to win benchmarks...
"Vista ready" yeah yeah
You go and try Vista X64 on those new AMD "Puma" notebooks.. then tell me.
Not that Vista is flawless, but it works fine if you have the right hardware.

The Inq = noobs
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2002/01/10/intel-chooses-w2k-over-winxp

Every time there is an addition to the Chronicles of Vista Tribulations, the same arguments get trotted out.
"I have no problems with Vista"
"Works better than XP"
"I've not had a BSOD since"
"You've never installed it and you still think it's bad"

etc..

Since there are a few Vista users who deem their experience to be valid enough for the rest of the world to follow, I will state in the same spirit that :

1) Vista has DRM, ergo no go for me
2) XP works fine enough for me
3) I haven't had a BSOD under XP since I installed it five years ago - not one. I had plenty under 98 (let's just forget 95, right ?), but I have not seen a single one under XP.
4) I have never installed Vista and will never do so. I do not need to install it to know that it has DRM, just like I do not need to go to Iraq to know that I risk being kidnapped or blown to bits by a roadside bomb. If, on the other hand, you estimate that first-hand experience is the only criteria, then I invite you to go to Iraq for your holidays. After all, if you've never been there then, by your criteria, you cannot possibly know there's a war going on, right ?


I am really very happy for everyone who uses Vista and is happy with it. Really, I am. But that is no reason to deny the never-seen-before movement of anti-Microsoft sentiment that Vista has generated and, personally speaking, I would like to see people encouraging others to install DRM-infested crapware be hauled off to jail.

But anyway, you like Vista ? Good for you. There are people who like their Lada as well. Doesn't mean that Lada makes good cars.

I beg to differ:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/et-tu-intel/index.html?ref=technology


A nod to the original source of this news would be nice, I'm having a bit of trouble finding anyone else writing on this "too good to be true" article.

Frankly, I'm not surprised at this, our main consultant (MS shop) even admits that Vista is great for people that want to play "Vista only" games, email, create documents and spreadsheets, but that's about it.I think at least one industry uses PCs for more than email and docs (sarcasm).
When you have one or two or five computers at home and can fidget with them, that's one thing, but when you are responsible for 50 or 100 or 1,000 or more, then that overhead of constant tinkering and restoring doesn't look so nice. Sure you can get it to work and do stuff in a limited capacity. If you couldn't there would be a lot more lawsuits. 
However, that's not the point. The fact is Vista runs slower than XP or most any other OS on equivalent hardware (even the latest stuff), with more bugs (even after the service pack) and doesn't run the software most businesses use. 
A forced hardware AND software refresh for all the stuff that does work is not an option for most businesses, not when they also have to port good working databases and other systems to alternatives just to maintain the business they were doing. It's basic economics.
Would you want UPS, for example, to update all their systems to Vista, just because its out there, so it can integrate into and run their shipping infrastructure exactly the way they are running now, except slower? I hope they don't, or I will be shipping with someone else.

Governments are in the same boat. Many American government organizations, for example, are using essentially the same software that was built for them 20 years ago. With periodic hardware refreshes, it works exactly the way it needs to. What they do does not really change that much over time, so what's the point in forcing change if it works (that includes security too)?

Vista's design underestimates the popularity of XP, the vast amount of work already done to optimize software on the platform, and XP's ability to work with almost all legacy software. This issue is a lot more important than Microsoft remembers. They used to know it and that's why XP supported legacy design. If you remember it was a big deal, and that's why Microsoft caved then and kept legacy support.

The real issue is that, at the time XP came out, it was pretty much the best business desktop platform available, especially when you take into account retraining. (Yes, this is an overly general statement.)

With Vista we're in a different situation, as the price is a LOT higher (remember you need 50 or 100 or 1000+ copies), it is different enough that any switch will require retraining, and the tech industry is different now than when XP came out. There are a lot of other high quality options out there. Mac OS X is MUCH better than all previous iterations as they changed the underlying OS foundation. It's still billed as a graphics OS and for consumers, but it is a viable business option now.
Linux (everyone's favorite upstart) is only gaining more traction, with eye candy options which are comparable (better?) than any other desktop OS. Every new version of every distribution brings it in line with every other OS, and it already surpasses Mac and Windows in several areas.
With non-OS software, there are so many non-Microsoft options now, vs. when XP came out, along with the exposure its receiving, Microsoft is trying to get everyone to wholesale upgrade hardware and software, so they are providing very good incentive to switch away. it is just as easy (and cheaper) to switch you're whole operation to non-Microsoft software, Open Source or not.

The end result is that Vista does not match up to current, other software offerings. Vista's sales, along with public/commercial response, reflects that.
Its not a big deal except to Microsoft and its fans, it just means the computer industry is working like it always has. Its progressing.

,ValentineS

Last year, I bought a new Vista laptop with the idea to start developing a program. I downloaded the appropriate free MS programming environments and surprise-surprise, or walla-walla (in Microsoft Language) Vista crashed from a MS program environment. Worse it was non-recoverable. I had to use the restore function.

I contacted MS and was told I would receive a phone call. I waited for the call, and was surprised to get it. Wow. I thought, good going on MS's part. Wrong.

When I started to explain my problem, all he would say was, "I want to know how well MS solved your problem." I told him that I had no satisfaction whatsoever, and asked for some help. He told me he was only there to assess user satisfaction with their help line. 

I told him I hadn't received any help. And therefore couldn't help him. 

"Do you want a technician" he asked. 

"I thought that's why you were calling me."

"No. I can transfer you though."

That was enough. I went to Ubuntu and haven't looked back.

I have been running Vista since beta, and I have to tell ya, it is the most flawless OS I have ever used. During beta, there were some driver issues, that got resolved once the retail version came out. The install was painless, it detected ALL of the hardware that I had installed on my computer correctly (Vista Ultimate x64). File access was noticeably faster, and programs loaded faster to boot. Most people's gripes from the OS comes from their stupidity. The UAL was designed for the average computer user (read: not computer savvy) to basically make the computer prevent them from running malware or getting into system settings that normal users should not be getting into in the first place. It actually makes the OS more secure than any other version of Windows. The other thing people tend to gripe about is legacy driver support or it running slow on their hardware. Microsoft did what it should have done long ago when it came to supporting older machines: it doesn't. When you are writing software, especially an OS, you are limited to the lowest common denominator when it comes to creative design. What that means is that in order to have all of it's fancy new features, it needs a more powerful computer as the baseline to run them on. Game developers have been raising the hardware requirements for running their applications for years, causing many people to upgrade their computers just to run them. You don't hear many people bashing them, because it is popular. Now, you still need to look at the business side of things, where all that is running on a workstation is some word processor and spreadsheet/database apps. You do not need much hardware to run that, which is why Microsoft came out with the version of Vista without Aero. Now there are those of us that use linux as well, including myself. There are some major upsides to linux, it is free, there are lots of freeware programs written for it, and the customization is endless for it. You can run versions of it on the most basic of hardware. But, it has it's downsides as well, it has a very hard learning curve, some drivers are impossible to get working (the notorious wifi broadcom "drivers", some ATI 3d drivers), and you NEED to learn bash to be able to use it to it's full potential (to compile drivers, get binaries, etc). This is why most people run Windows. As for mac, what is the point, hardware costs twice as much, to get 1/10th of the software available for Windows. Maybe if you are a graphic artist, however Windows based computers can run the same programs just as reliably. People always say "Macs are more stable"; this is a half truth. Apple creates the hardware that it develops it's OS on, so they don't deal with supporting 3rd party hardware. For the sheer amount of configurations that a computer running Windows can have, I think Microsoft does a pretty good job. The only pet peeve I have about Windows is one that Macs deal with also, DRM. It is a PITA sometimes, however Microsoft developed it to cover their own ass from the DMCA. The DMCA is what caused the whole mess to begin with, and I see the letters that get sent to the company I work for almost every day (a webhosting company). Some of the letters are legit, however some are ridiculous, some people running non profit fan sites, for example, etc.

To sum this all up, basically there is nothing in my experience wrong with Vista, just users that do not know all of the facts.

So let's toss another anecdote on.

I do IT for a mixed Mac-PC office. Out of our PCs, half were XP SP2 and half Vista. The Vista PCs have been a dream to run (except one we bought prefab loaded with bloatware we had to scrub). The XP boxen didn't seem to want to handle mission-critical applications very well and I kept having to troubleshoot until I finally decided I was done supporting outdated legacy software and upgraded them to Vista. Since then, no problems.

Of course the Macs (isolated hardware failure aside) never had any issues to begin with, except that I deployed Leopard through the office (requirement from on top) and had half a dozen requests to roll it back within a week. Leopard has not gone over well here even though it does look so pretty. 

The internal W2K file server with a three year uptime (since before I got here anyhow) takes the cake. Still I don't get the Vista-bashing. Must be like the other bloke said, gets traffic and hence ad clicks/popularity. Or perhaps people don't remember a whole seven years ago? 

Let's step into the wayback machine to touch base with, say, USENET, and this fellow who says he "decided to stop being a beta tester for
microsoft and call HP to get a new OS. The problem once again... was the XP OS that does not seem to be ready for prime time." But he has some advice!

"My new idea... wait until the first service pack before you waste your time. Eyecandy is not worth it. That is what XP is.. Eyecandy with added programs that others can do better."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.windows-xp/msg/1965edd239692b5a?dmode=source

Sound familiar? Mm. But "plus ca change," as the French say.

-Rob

Hey, john. I noticed your very, very narrow-minded opinion of Macs. Let's take a look at developers today, and what we use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcolmtredinnick/sets/72157603348651958/

Noticed any Macintosh products? I happened to see one or two, you see.

Get a grip, Apple are breaking through hard and fast. The "Art department" view is about a century old.

I like Vista... i'm using the 64bit Home Premium version with 8gig of ram, etc. runs just fine. One of my other Vista machines only has 2gig runs like a dog... so fast vista = Loads RAM

I know IBM is not going to Vista internally, and there are (apparently) skunk works around Linux desktops.....

In the discussion of the Emperor's new attire, the question of just how, with all of Microsoft's assets, can they screw things up so badly, so often. If this were China, they would have gotten a bullet to the back of their heads several versions ago.

Just wondering. I can picture it clearly, the staff @ INQ having a monthly raffle where the one who's voted the best MS-basher gets the prize. Charlie must have a complete room just to hold all the monthly raffles, or perhaps there's a yearly master-raffle going on? Whoever wins (99 times out of a 100 it'd be Charlie) gets the next press invite with hotel and expenses covered. 

I do hope there's some truth to that, otherwise I feel sorry for the poor sods stuck in some time-loop repeating the tired old slogans (and coming up with news ways once in a while) to bash MS or a product of theirs. There's a pretty picture, some fat slobs in a dank pub where never-be's go to boost each others egos. Oh well, at least it's mildly amusing since it's so over the top that few can take it seriously. :)

okie think about this, use your, all be it limited intelligance for a change

Intel is going to use vista, that is a fact, why? because Intel wants to take on AMD(ATI) and NVIDIA in the graphics market, to do that they will have to make a GPU thats DIRECTX compatable and they would be fools to make it DX9 only so we're talking DX10 here so yes they will use vista, 

are they going to use vista PCs for the DX10 and XP PCs for the DX9? i find that highly unlikely dont you?

or are they going to stick two fingers up to everything Microsoft and just stick with openGL? well they might if they wanted to make a joke out of the GPU advanture.

Or perhaps they will use a Mac or linux and port it over, well that would make them popular wouldnt it.

They will use what ever OS they need to which will include Vista and its unlikely they would get 2 PCs doing the job 1 could do.

On a side note i should ask them for a job since ive deployed 100s of Vista PCs with no significant issue and all a working fine. My avarage wage job can take on the might of Intel, i need a pay rise!

Windows 7 = MEII ? what? i thought you coined that term for Vista? or does that not fit the bill anymore so you'll just change your mind? ME stunk on many different levels, ive never seen anything so bad as that from MS however almost everything using Linux with regards to driver support comes in a close second.

Why the f..k cant you elimenate the inputs from that answering bot:
"drashek" or "ultie" ??
I told you so many times now.

Intel has also some technology that are exclusively to Vista. Example Intel Turbo Memory. With Intel set example that it won't use Vista, how can this Intel Turbo Memory developed? Not only that Intel also need driver R&D that use Vista. Why? To create driver of it hardware for Windows Vista. So I don't think Intel will not use Vista.

"If there was ever a company that is loyal to Intel, it is Apple."

6502... 68K... PowerPC... hmmm

I wonder whether the author knows that Intel owns a sizable percentage of RedHat stock.

-RFH



Seriously. I don't have any machines in the house that run Windows anymore. Everything is either Ubuntu or OSX.

Oh, I use VMWare for a couple of special legacy applications, but I suspect that they wouldn't run under Vista anyway.

It was written years ago that Intel was using VMS on it's production lines...is that still true?

Karnak predicts: We are about to go back to the future. Or maybe "Mac to the Future" would be a better way to put it. When MS has such delays releasing new OS versions, and you contrast that with Apple's performance over the past few years, it seems very likely that Intel has reason to pause and reconsider how they might do better. And I'm an old, dedicated Windows PC user who likes Vista...

What happened to the company of yore, that kicked out Windows 95 and had people going to the store at midnight to buy it? Or made one of the best all around OS's ever, Windows 2000? I've been mad at MS ever since XP came with activation, and have used Open Office since day one. 

Indeed, I realized lately the only two things keeping me on Windows are games and a 3D app I hardly ever use but may run in Wine. Otherwise Ubuntu surfs the web, plays music, edits photos, publish and wrote documents, and lets me play some older/linux only games. So the question at this point is becoming Call of Duty 4 or Linux? Which is more important? (And no, I can't get COD 4 running reliably in Wine, at least not the multiplayer.)

You must be kidding, right? Care to mention a verifiable source?

Dude, Vista bashing is so 2007.

Seriously.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2002/01/10/intel-chooses-w2k-over-winxp

Looks like Intel liked windows 2000 too!!
Your bias against vista its too obvious.. (i like xp myself)

Enhancing the user experience matters a swell not just big features, I enjoy using Vista far more than I enjoy using XP.
But when are sexy features like WinFS going to come?

I support both Mac and PCs for a living in one of the largest school districts in the US. I have been running Vista on my main home desktop for about a year and the same for my work laptop. Both machines are fairly modern, Intel Core2 Duo w/ 2 gigs of ram.

You would have to pay me a hefty sum to go back to XP. I can let Vista run for weeks at a time without a single reboot. I have no XP BSODs what so ever. Any application that fails, takes down only itself, not the entire OS. I can't say the same for my prior XP boxes. Memory management is much improved as well.

I think part of the sour graps on Vista is because it gets browser hits. Some folks no doubt do have problems with it. Early on there were some driver issues. Any decent vendor has long ago resolved them from what I have found.

Mac in the enterprise space is a joke at best. Aside from Art departments Macs are few and far between in the big business world and for good reason. Apple does not integrate well with an Active Directory world. Until that is addressed, as well as the million plus applications that are Windows only, things will not change.

Say what you will about Microsoft. Personally I think Steve Ballmer is a scumbag. However they as a company understand business and make products that run and cater to it.

My .02

It still amazes me, the level of ignorance surrounding Vista by the Inq staff. I've been using several Vista machines for well over a year with flawless records on each machine it is serving on. The machines are snappier and more responsive than when XP was loaded... oh yeah and not one single crash. Not one!

Who gave the retarded kid a keyboard?

I guess they don't want to replace a few thousand machines that have Intel graphics. 

LOLOL

This article makes you wonder about a what if... Lets assume Intel delivers a, for their processors optimized version of Linux, and AMD would do the same for theirs (both getting their money like RedHat etc. by offering support etc.). How long would it take for developers to drop MS, and start to switsch? Remember that already more and more software is written for Linux (Technical and Scientific as well as a good alternative to MS office, openoffice). I know it is a dream, but it would at least force MS to get back to the drawing-board for real.

According to this bog thingy: http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2007/03/07/internal-amd-memo-encourages-rapid-company-wide-vista-adoption.aspx

Which thinks Intel is teh stupid for not deploying Vista, AMD is set to upgrade all 100 of their desktops! And may have already done so.

I say Intel doesn't have to deploy Vista to develop for it. That is what labs are for.

The link I provided is from a year ago and I would be very interested to see how AMD's deployment processed.

Things are just going to get worse for Ms; but with the mindset that released vista, killed xp and continue to justify vista despite all, one cannot expect a change in course. Intel is wise not to go down with the ship.

wasn't it newerly, that there was e-mail "campain" about crapping down vista to work on unable intel chips to be markable as VISTA READY and sellable worldwide ?

Kind of like the Catholic church excommunicating the Pope.

It seems unlikely Vista Ultimates Few Remaining Glitches won't be solved soon enough. After All, What Choice Is There?
Charles: Stay Away From Radio Shak Stuff, its Too Advanced, Its Commodore World!
There are Real Advantages to Plethora of XP Software. How About Final Disc From MicroVole? With: Home/Professional & Media both 32 & 64 Bit for HoPro, Put it on 2 sides of DVD disc & Sell it for $400, with 30 installs allowed. Many be happy for Weeks.
Drashek

Who says they aren't just going to stick with WinXP until the next iteration of Windoze?

Macs may be getting a portion of the home consumer market, but MS still has a much heftier share of the enterprise market share.

The more reasons one finds NOT to use it.

And with Windows 7 shaping up to be more like a patch of Me II, then the inmates are truely running the asylum and M$'s goose is surely cooked.

Another case study for business schools: How to turn a monopoly into a nothing in just a few years.

Funny, considering the Aero and Intel IGP fiasco.
But seriously, does Vista have any significant new features over XP (forcing hardware upgrades doesn't count!), because I haven't found anything yet. The flippy alt tab thing is okay for about 5 minutes, but given the exposure Aero received, it's woefully under par of my expectations.