Pssst. Get Linux. If you have a Vista PC and want to switch, I'll even offer to help you with it.

If you can't use zmud on vista you are doing it wrong. Right click on the shortcut (or zmud.exe) and set it to Windows XP compatability mode and tick it to run as administrator. Works fine then.

Having to dick around with XP compatibility ftfl. Win95 compatibility, sure, make it a hassle, barely anyone needs it. Windows XP has been the standard for years, and is still in heavy use. Making it a hassle to switch is a bad business decision.

Not really.

Security and reliability is much more important than being backwards compatible, moving forward.

Two years time people will be saying "xp who?"

Not really, the reason a lot of programs that actually use the compatability modes are because of bad programming (which was exactly the same with the move from DOS/Win3.1 -> 95 ->98 -> XP). If programs are written correctly they don't require admin privileges or compatibility modes or anything else of the like - they just run.

Zugg also specifically said that you will need cmud for Vista and that Zmud won't work, its impressive to me that it does.

Two years time people will be saying, "2000 who?"
Two years time people will be saying, "98 who?"
Two years time people will be saying, "95 who?"
Two years time people will be saying, "3.1 who?"

Yeahhhhhh... no. People, specially in corporate environments, are still running legacy software that's as old as 95. So you're off by ten years in your estimate. Vista adoption, compared to previous versions of Windows, has also been pitiful (Because of a much higher discrepancy in hardware requirements, and other reasons.) Finally, Microsoft's priorities have always put backwards compatibility above everything; on Vista, though, it seems to have taken the back burner to content protection schemes, special effects, and hare-brained attempts at securing the system.

And furthermore, backwards compatibility is only relevant when you have an ever-changing API and binary-only software distribution. Both Linux and OS X have totally failed to give users headaches about their old applications no longer working, and they both get new versions - and thus opportunities for breaking stuff - a lot more often. An OS update should not instantly make your software need a compatibility layer to work.


Another reason why I'm never buying anything from Zuggsoft.

Except for the fact that the changes from XP to Vista are more like the changes from Dos to 3.1 rather than 3.1 to 98.



Something tells me that you never buy anything from anybody.

Two years from now, people will say, "DOS who?"
Oh wait, no. The switch from DOS to 3.1 wasn't a switch... Windows, at that point, worked on DOS, rather than without it. That caused chaos when NT came out, breaking everyone's DOS programs, and when 2000 came out, forcing people to use an NT-based kernel that broke everyone's DOS programs again. Windows wasn't an operating system until NT; it was a half-assed graphic shell. You might wanna try understanding what you're talking about before making analogies. Vista is most analogous to the switch between 98/ME to 2000, because of the new system internals and kernel. And when Microsoft cut support for 98, hardly two years ago, there was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. As a matter of fact, Dell went back to selling computers with XP preinstalled due to popular demand. Vista adoption is going sloooow.

Something tells me you're working hard to justify gullible purchases of faulty software to yourself.

If you're running network software with admin privileges, you're doing it wrong.

Actually, MS biggest problem of late has been ignoring the backward compatibility, or Raymond Chen mode of doing things, and has been switching/developing new APIs way too often, so I think that has something to do with it.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/04/25.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

I do think Microsoft is starting to lose patience from it's installed base, and they need to slow down a bit with all the upgrades. I love Office 2007 and have it on my work XP box. But I won't install Vista until time passes and I get a new box with some of the new micro-architectures and peripherals designed to take full advantage of the OS.



Well, some people still use OS9 and there are headaches for those users.

http://lowendmac.com/misc/07/0402.html

As a note--I've noticed many people get mad, haughty, and arrogant when they're platform of choice is of the minority. I rarely see Windows users do the same to Mac/Linux/Amiga users--I usually only see them get mad when the minority pokes them or does crap like the "Mac vs. PC" ads. Why do you care? The reason I ask is, if Linux is good for you, why do you care that others use or want to use Windows or OSX? I personally think it would be more constructive helping that user fix his Vista problems than forcing a conversion. I think the advocacy hurts more than helps the users who want Linux to eventually replace Windows.

Several reasons.

1) The existance of a software monoculture hurts me, specially when it's a Microsoft monoculture. It hurts me in the form of hardware incompatibility, of less games available for my platform, and it hurts the whole Internet with its security issues. A completely unsecured Windows box isn't just the problem of its owner; those boxes rapidly turn into parts of botnets, causing DDoS attacks and spreading all kinds of spam. The less Windows boxes there are on the Internet, and the more different operating systems there are on the Internet, the healthier the network is.

2) In the long run, it's easier for the user to switch than for him to try and fix Vista to work properly. Vista problems are often unfixable, or you're at the mercy of Microsoft for having it fixed. Even for nonprogrammers who can't fix issues themselves, emergency issues will tend to fix themselves (Very, very fast. Major security flaws get fixed overnight, regardless of petty distractions such as weekends.) or you can pay someone to change the software for you (Which, unless you're the only person wanting that feature, is very cheap - if ten thousand people want a particular feature to be implemented, they can, through the Internet, organise a bounty and have it implemented for less than $1 each. Even if you do this sort of thing all the time, you'll never pay more than you'd pay for proprietary software; and the more people doing that, the more features are implemented and bugs are fixed, so everyone benefits.

3) I'm not as knowledgeable about Windows as I am about Linux; additionally, I can never become as knowledgeable about Windows as I can be about Linux, simply because I have no access to the internals of the Windows operating system. Such restrictions apply to everyone. It's vastly easier to learn and help people with Linux; and the more Linux users there are, the bigger the overall community and the better the user experience for everyone.

Well, #3 can either mean being silent or informing a friend or associate of yours for help. It's like the stereotypical "comic book guy" belittling the customer if he wants X-Men and you want him reading Fantagraphics. And since you're not experienced and don't know the user's exact needs, #2 shouldn't really apply. People are working of fixing the problems with it.

#1--A while back, when I suggested having more restrictions on the Internet, you said "filters are fine for Spam". Granted, maybe Linux or Macs might be inherently safer than Windows, but I honestly think you're kidding yourself if you believe it will improve the state of the Internet. (Not to mention realistically removing Windows completely will take at least a few decades). We're going to start to see DDoS attacks and spam start infecting the appliances on a network (CISCO or other router exploits, Cell Phones hacked), and attacks from dedicated rouge nations, terrorists, and fanatics, etc. If you take away Windows, you'll just have them move to another platform. The key things that need to be done is to punish and block the spammers, remove "total anonymity" so people are responsible for their actions and can be prosecuted for crimes, and change the Internet to better isolate problem nodes. It can no longer be the anarchy it was in the last decade.

Why should I refrain from offering the help I can offer (Helping them switch to Linux) specially when I know it would be a superior alternative (Depending, of course, on the user's condition - I'm not going to lie to someone and tell them a Linux box is a good gaming platform, or that they shouldn't be careful to check for hardware compatibility before making the switch). And your analogy is faulty; I'm not the guy selling people Vista, or Vista support.

You can't "block the spammers". What you fail to understand is that most spam nowadays is distributed through botnets - Innocent computers, almost always poorly secured Windows boxes, which have been silently hijacked and are used to deliver spam. Additionally, a certain degree of imperfect anonymity is an inherent property of the Internet. There's no magical switch you can flick to suddenly "reduce" it; there are means of making oneself more anonymous, but you can't make people less anonymous, nor is it in anyone's best interest that the Internet become less anonymous, except maybe a handful of fascists. "Isolating problem nodes" is futile in an era of massively distributed malice; the Internet just doesn't work that way. Network appliances becoming part of botnets are isolated incidents, happening because of egregious mistakes on the part of administrators or vendors; the idea that they'd be capable of replacing Windows as a platform for deploying malicious software is laughable. Not only are there vastly less systems to be infected, there is also more variety in their configuration. Again: When virtually every desktop computer on the Internet is running the same operating system, deploying viruses and creating botnets is vastly easier. I don't think a Linux monoculture is an ultimately desirable goal; I think a marketplace that is properly varied, and broken between solutions from multiple sources, communities and vendors while supported by cross-platform applications would be much stronger. I would consider ourselves (The FOSS community) to have won when we have a situation where 30% of computers run various different Linux distributions, 30% run OS X, 30% run Windows, and the remaining 10% run alternative operating systems - as long as market tendencies point towards even greater variety. One size does not fit all - The current OS market is kind of like everyone driving small, inefficient, ugly compact cars.

I did see vista and even got a chance to use it and what i saw was frightening(i really overestimated it).
1. Language is still hardcoded into the OS which lowers it's useability. To change in which language your desktop is communicating with you you basically need to buy a new copy of vista.
2. Most of the hard work that was made around the world in researching on how should a modern OS look and work were totally ignored. Most standards were ignored and instead they used old versions of them or invented their own "standards" which are not used anywhere.
3. Resources hunger iis just horrible. I don't see WHAT possibly can eat so much of them. I run Ubuntu 7.04 with Beryl( Beryl in action) on AMD 1.4Ghz with 384ram and GeForce FX 5200, It runs like a dream.
4. Compability is a huge issue, not only programs from xp refuse to work on vista or work incorrectly(mostly), but they managed to make development of applications and drivers for vista to be a total ugly and nightmerish process(coding for windows always was a pr0n, now it crosses all limits. Not very wise to offend developers).

Overally, getting vista is really a bad idea. If you want games stick with winXP. If you need a desktop OS that works good then get linux (Ubuntu).

Few of the rumours that i heared about linux are: Linux is only for hackers;no hardware supports linux;linux is hard to install, configure and use; no application works on linux; linux is made by a bunch of pirates who stole Miscrosoft's intellectual property.

WRRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

I use linux for uh 7 or 8 years as my main OS, and while some of that -was- true in the past it's no longer the case. Linux evolves quick with new versions of the OS released which make it more powerfull, easy and secure. It's desktop environments follow the latest trends and the developers(who happen to be any user that wishes to contribute) make sure that it follows the latest standards.

As for Phred's comment that it won't help with security in the internet if you eliminate all windows boxes. My opinion that it will. The biggest security problem out there are users. When majority of people use and OS that simply encourages them to run applications as administrator and do other not very safe things, then you get what we have now.

The day games work on Ubuntu without having to fight wine the day my windows machine goes full linux. Until them, dual bot for the win. With an original windows, before somebody starts with the omg pirate! song.

And no, I am not purchasing Vista. I saw it, tested it, and I just don't get what benefits it gives. Well, maybe if you're a clueless computer user it's true that Vista won't allow you to hurt your computer so much as XP did. The resource hogging is just sick. And the eye candy... If I want eyecandy I go play a console, really. Or use Beryl.

A new computer more powerful and expensive that I'd need, new peripherics because my Palm is too old to be supported (3 years), that's a lot of money for a new operative system...

Erm...perhaps you should take a longer look. As several of you know (if you've read my tech posts before), I use Windows, I LIKE Windows. Macs and *nix OSs both have their uses, but for a home PC for the average user, I would never recommend either. Back to the point, I'm currently running Vista on my laptop (it has pretty good hardware, except the video card), and would like to address a few of your comments.

1. No. Changing the language is as easy as installing a new language file.
2. Microsoft has rarely in their existence come up with anything new. They look around at what other people are doing that people like, and work it into their product. Vista is no exception. Visually, it's made to look impressive, especially with aero. It is more user-friendly than its competitors (which is the biggest reason I'm a proponent of Windows), though it's not as easy as XP. It even borrowed a few things from Mac OS (like window selection - hold windows + tab in Vista if you don't know what I'm talking about).
3. This, I can agree with. Vista is a resource hog. On the bright side, they make use of other technologies to help (things like using external flash memory as temporary system memory, etc). Still, if you dont' have a monster computer, I wouldn't recommend Vista
4. XP programs will mostly work on Vista. The ones that don't fail because of Vista's new security features - which were greatly lacking in XP. UAC (much as people complain about it) is a huge improvement in security. I almost laugh every time I hear *nix users complaining about UAC (su ftl?)

UAC is the devil. I've been a long time Windows user, and have a haughty contempt for Macs and other OS. UAC is annoying, makes programs and installations fail, and is basically like a back seat driver.

"You are attempting to change for Desktop background. Please confirm that you really are and this isn't some hacker changing your desktop background."

No thanks.

It's not needed for people who are savvy enough to know what they're doing. For the average user, it's almost necessary. People do all kinds of moronic things without really realizing what they're doing. Popups like that would be handy if, for example, they did download something which decided to hijack the desktop - especially with active desktop, which can execute scripts. The proper way to handle it would just be to never log in as the administrator - everyone should have a separate user-level account, and only login as admin when they're doing admin-related things. Nobody actually does that, though, so UAC gives a way to log in as a normal user, then switch briefly to admin to do admin stuff, then switch back again.

The real issue is that Windows users are used to being logged in as admin all the time, so they don't like the extra click of switching modes. Really, that's the exact reason they put UAC in - staying logged in as admin when people don't know exactly what they're doing is dangerous.

Except Windows software often refuses to run as a regular user... in the *nix world, we have the very opposite of that (XChat for example will bitch if you try to run it as root). In fact, the very fact that it's dangerous for active desktop to execute scripts is laughable... it's like needing root access to confirm you want to view a web page with Java Script in it. I'm consistently appalled at Windows users looking at Microsoft's ridiculous blunders and thinking they're the Natural Way of Things. They're not.

As for UAC being annoying, yes, yes it is. I have to deal with su only for a handful of things on Linux; the vast majority of users would only need to do it to install new software system-wide. And once I've confirmed I'm me by using gksudo, I'm not prompted again for a certain length of time. UAC is nothing like *nix account control. Please don't compare an intelligent, robust system to a set of totally ineffective Draconian measures.

Second... the notion that Linux is harder to use than Windows is purely a myth. It's different; some things are harder to do (But getting easier - Like installing codecs for viewing certain file formats or setting up certain hardware configurations) but other things are vastly easier to do (I'm constantly bafffled at how awful installing software on Windows is. On Linux, you install software by picking from a categorized list and then clicking a "go" button, not by spending half an hour trawling the Internet for software that looks like it does what you need and praying it's not spyware, adware, annoying, or impossible to uninstall. The vast majority of problems people have with Linux involve hardware which is less-than-ideally supported or trying to run Windows software (The second is the reason I dual-boot - With a legal OEM copy, if you're going to baselessly accuse me).

I seriously doubt that Vista's security is substantially or noticeably better than XP's... It's certainly a lot chattier, but it looks that the only thing stopping the horde of worms and viruses is a lack of widespread adoption (Vista's market share right now is laughable - So small as to be comparable to Linux or OS X. It's obviously a niche, geeky OS. )

The forums automatically mangle any use of the J-word, "######".