OSNews

Absolutely. For now, but the crux will probably be DirectX-10. A pitfall of propriatary (sp) software, as always. Atleast if you game. Certainly, you can feel the gentle squeeze against us 2K users? (the finest of the Windows OS's, I believe, perhaps barring 2K3-server). MSN 7.5/Live/etc. all don't work now, it's only going to get worse... and the worst, it's an arbitrary lock-out. grr.

no idea ;-)

i can tell you, tough, why you might wanna try other stuff - linux respects your freedom, Mac OS X is easier to use. both need less maintenance, are easier to setup and new versions DO enhance your experience with them...

ok, you'll have to sacrifice some stuff. you're used to windows, you know your way. so it might not be worth it, sure. well, maybe it's worth a try, right? i'm sure you'll find the basics are pretty much better than XP, both in the modern linux desktop and Mac. you'll like it, really, even tough there are imperfections.

Ok, let's say that's true for you (don't really know why, but that's your opinion). What are you going to do when you need to buy a new PC? Install the wonderful Windows 2000 on it? Doesn't work. Install the great Windows XP on it? Won't probably work either - simply because there won't be enough drivers. What are you going to do then? I'll tell you what you are going to do: Start up the PC with Vista and use it for the nest 3 - 4 years.

That's how it has always worked for MS - people are lazy in general and therefore cannot grasp that there are enough alternatives around. But it's funny to listen to all these people condemning Vista and hailing the wonderful 2000 or XP ...

[/] That's how it has always worked for MS - people are lazy in general and therefore cannot grasp that there are enough alternatives around. [/i]

In which case either NOT buying a new PC or installing Linux instead is the solution? That sounds pretty "lazy" to me, but also common sense, if your PC still works.

But it's funny to listen to all these people condemning Vista and hailing the wonderful 2000 or XP ...

Well maybe that's because Vista doesn't really feel like an OS that's been in development for five years? I doubt many of the people who were using Linux/BSD/BeOS when XP came out now think that XP is somehow a suitable replacement for Linux - indeed, the reverse is probably more true now than ever.

Think about it: five years and still there's no drivers or software or anything. I thought Microsoft were supposed to work closely with vendors or something (not least on Firefox, as reported by this very site some time ago, which according to the present article still has problems with Vista despite Microsoft's "help"). Although if their "help" writing apps is as good as the "Help" they put in their programs, I'd advise any old grannies needing to cross One Microsoft Way* not to accept their "help".

Honestly, with the number of apps needing an update to work with Vista and yet not coming out with one, you could be forgiven for thinking they' been spending the last five years converting them to work on Linux.

*Notice how they named it that without irony?

Edited 2007-01-21 23:41

What are you going to do when you need to buy a new PC?

Well considering that I think the OS was already far too bloated when XP came out, I will probably junk Vista for Linux anyway. So yes they will get £15-25 of my money - if I can't find a desktop PC with Linux on it.

But actually the last time I "bought a desktop PC" I built it myself, entirely dispensing with a Windows CD licence which I've found little reason to miss in three or so years. And the next PC I buy will probably be a laptop - with Linux preinstalled.

That's because it's going to come on every new PC after January 30th.

It doesn't have to "not sell" to be a flop. Just as long the number of people and companies switching away from Microsoft technologies continues to increase, then all is well. Microsoft's dominance is not going to go away in the forseable future, and Vista's success is nothing more than the success of eggs on a chicken farm, but as long as people are discovering better alternatives, the consumer (and end user) benefits.

Sorry to say this. I'm hardly a fan of Vista, and completely agree with the 10 reasons stated in the article. Bu I definitely don't agree with you.

This sentence "despite the availability of (better) alternatives..."

Assuming XP is not sold anymore and OSX isn't available for any normal PC, I can't really see this "alternative" that is supposed to be better. Alternatives maybe, but hardly real alternatives for a whole lot of people. Some groups that come to mind are "gamers", "Officeusers" (which actually have tried and partially use OOo (such as myself) and realize it lacks a tremendous amount of features), "Designers" (which need Photoshop/Flash etc etc because photoshop is defacto standard like it or not) and say about anyone in need of specific software not available on other systems (Gee, that's quite a few).

It's getting better, it really is with web based apps and some alternatives getting more software every day.

But at the end of the day, what is "better" is what gets your job done! That means Vista will be THE alternative for say 60%+ of the computer using world. What I'm saying is there is LACK of ANY real alternative for a whole bunch of us

Edited 2007-01-21 20:29

i beg to differ. i agree many people are locked in to Windows pretty well, microsoft has succeeded there. but for many users, an average Kubuntu desktop can do what they need, and better than Windows XP (or Vista). linux' biggest drawback is that it's different, not that it lacks features.

Sure, the linux desktop isn't beter at everything. but for everything it does worse than Windows, there are three things it does better. and not just the maintenability, stability & security things you often here. The basic desktop stuff is better too. compare the KDE or Gnome menu to windows. if you are looking for an image editing app, where would you look? i'd say "graphics", not "Adobe"...

also plug'n'play is working better on linux in many cases. yesterday i gave a presentation, and my (very old) laptop had never seen an external screen. man, was that boring. i had already opened Kubuntu's screen config tool, and was prepared for some VI fun. but when i plugged the beamer's cable in, the screen just showed my desktop. no configuration at all, just working. well, i've worked at an helpdesk, and we got several ppl each day asking how to get windows to show their presentations...

really, i know it's hard to switch to another operating system, even if it's better than what you have. i have gone through that as well. but don't say just because it's different, it's worse...

sure, the linux desktop can't provide for everyone. but why should it? why not give ppl a choice? let the adobe photoshop lovers use a mac (it's superior in that area anyway). let game lovers use Vista and let everybody who wants to work on a pc use linux...

it's very hard to install any apps in linux. It should be as simple as going to a website, download app.exe and it appears on the desktop. Doubleclick and it installs.

But you know this won't happen and to me that is the 'fatal' flaw that prevents widespread linux adoption. There's also very little incentive to develop commercial software because most distros come with lots of free full fledged apps.

Why bother trying to invest in developing an app when the free version is 'good enough' and bundled with the OS and your app is hard to install? And if it's a kde app, people will want it for gnome and vice versa

http://autopackage.org/

Done.

it's very hard to install any apps in linux. It should be as simple as going to a website, download app.exe and it appears on the desktop. Doubleclick and it installs.

With most distros this is exactly what happens. The only hard part is knowing which file to download - .RPM for redhat-derived and .DEB for debian based (most apps provide both). However, this is rarely needed, as most apps can just be added with that distros add/remove menu (I love mine on Ubuntu). The advantage of using the version with the distro is it will automatically be updated. My Ubuntu laptop always has the latest version of all apps. Try that on Windows. Lastly, there are tools like InstallAnywhere for neutral distribution of applications. Many popular 3rd party apps do that. I'm tired of that "it's too hard to install apps" argument. That was 10 years ago!!

[/i]it's very hard to install any apps in linux. It should be as simple as going to a website, download app.exe and it appears on the desktop. Doubleclick and it installs. [/i]

You seriously expect me to believe that typing in the name of some app into a google toolbar, clicking on the link, burrowing down to "products" or "downloads", clicking on "save as...", minimizing the browser, finding the place the app was saved in, clicking on that, clicking next...next...next...finish, and loading the program is easier than "go to synaptic on the menu, go to the application category, go to the app, click install"?

"sure, the linux desktop can't provide for everyone. but why should it? why not give ppl a choice? let the adobe photoshop lovers use a mac (it's superior in that area anyway). let game lovers use Vista and let everybody who wants to work on a pc use linux..."

Funny... i like to think i get work done on my pc's and yet i don't have linux on any of them. And none of them will be running it in the future either.

sure you can game on a linux pc, do graphics on windows and get office work done on a mac. but windows is often just better at games, linux is better (more efficient) for the basic office work and mac is better for graphics.

"let game lovers use Vista"

While I agree with your post, I have to disagree with that sentence. I have a whole bunch of Chess games and they other don't work in Vista or work poorly.
I suppose the same is true for many other games.
I believe the best OS for gamers will remain XP for quite a while.

Why? That's not what happened with XP. I believe it took more than 3 years to overtake the 50% mark, but I could be remembering things a bit exaggerated. I do know that the uptake, especially in business, was slow even though "new computers ship with it."

Some people, businesses, install their old OS over the one that came with new computers.

You mean WPF is a huge reason to upgrade... when there's something out there that actually uses it to its full potential.

Right now, all the power of WPF is producing a fancy skin with severe usability issues. There is no reason to upgrade to that, other than to sit and hope.

You obviously know nothing about WPF. Stop being superficial and actually take the time to read about what it is/does and how it works.

This is probably the same for the rest of your criticisms of Vista.

I was using WPF in .net back when it was called Avalon, thanks. Just because I've used something, doesn't mean I'm forced to shower it with praise. WPF /is/ a great technology, but it's barely used at the moment, and I'm not going to pay $400 for an OS that does not a jot more than what my Mac is already doing.

Vista is not even released to the public yet... take a look at the Yahoo messenger for Vista video's on the net. It is so easy to create WPF UIs developers will use it. I've been playing with Expression Blend and Visual Basic.net and I have managed to create some really cool stuff in less then 15min.

Edited 2007-01-21 21:44

"It probably wont take you longer than 30 min to update all your software. BIG DEAL."

I think that it's you who should actually try Vista. A lot of software is wholly incompatible with Vista. Nero, most Anti-Viruses, almost all the major Windows software I own wouldn't work at all, or only partially.

I think that it's you who should actually try Vista. A lot of software is wholly incompatible with Vista. Nero, most Anti-Viruses, almost all the major Windows software I own wouldn't work at all, or only partially.

There is an update out for Nero that makes it work.

The best two free AV (in my opinion), AVG and Avast both have working versions.

If you are overly concerned with application compatibility, wait for SP1. ISVs will have updates out by then and MS will have supplied a bunch of application compatibility updates by then.

If you want full use of any new 3d technology in any OS, you need a upgrade if your computer already struggels with XP. If you want the latest features, be prepared to pay for the hardware (You can get a Vista Premium ready PC dirt cheap).
Not necessarily true. I am running Xubuntu with all the 3D desktop goodness on a PIII-550 with a GeFo2MX videocard. Try that with Vista...
I agree on the point that if you want to *fully* use an operating system of 2007, you need a PC from 2007.

Upgrading to Vista takes 2 hours+ (setting up included). It probably wont take you longer than 30 min to update all your software. BIG DEAL.

Depends on how much you value your time. Plus, what if all the software you are going to upgrade requires you to buy a new license? I can already see it: Crapware 8.0, now Vista compatible. Only 299$!

Maybe the author should actually try Vista?

I got the same impression. I might be writing an article to counter his points, but for now, I'm busy on another OSNews project which will be 'unveiled' next week.

Feel free to email me if you want to know more .

Absolutely right.

Most of his arguments are simply ridicolous. "You don't need it", "overpriced", "you need new hardware", "license", "old application won't work". Ridicolous.

Writing hundreds of articles to state "don't buy it" is ridicolous. Using false assertions or, worst, not even "facts" but just miconception is, frankly, pathetic.

Ignoring facts won't help them. Producing innovative products would but I concede it's much easier not to do that and write that "you don't need that other product".

ridiculous

Most of his arguments are simply ridicolous. "You don't need it",

Why is that ridiculous? If most games don't use DX10, most apps don't run on Vista, and most devices STILL don't have Vista-compatible drivers, why do you need it? To help the RIAA restrict your freedom by buying HD-DVD players and discs (which almost no-one is, by the way) to play on crippled hardware? Yummy.

"overpriced",

When most Linux distributions cost around the same (in figures) as MS-DrOSs did 17 years ago (which because of inflation turns out to be a lot less), when even OSX plus a non-crippled copy of Quicktime costs less than Windows, exactly HOW is it not overpriced?

"license",

Well, if you want do even less, legally, than you could with XP - more fool you.

"old application won't work".

Well, in the past MS have bent over backwards (excuse the pun) to ensure backward compatibility; but I guess since the Lord Gates now decrees it isn't necessary, it must be so, huh? Puh-lease.

Using false assertions or, worst, not even "facts" but just miconception is, frankly, pathetic.

And what word would you use for the (admittedly much less than in previous years) amount of articles and comments like this stating that all these things (which microsoft have previously traded on NOT doing) are "irrelevant". Personally I'd call THEM pathetic - if not downright hypocritical.

Producing innovative products would but I concede it's much easier not to do that and write that "you don't need that other product".

I don't know if you've noticed but that guy is a "journalist". You may not know that journalists write articles not software.

As for writing "innovative" software, would you mind telling Microsoft that as they have now been claiming to have written "innovative" software for, ooh, 20 ? years, it might now actually be time to um, do it. Thanks.

Why is that ridiculous? If most games don't use DX10, most apps don't run on Vista, and most devices STILL don't have Vista-compatible drivers, why do you need it? To help the RIAA restrict your freedom by buying HD-DVD players and discs (which almost no-one is, by the way) to play on crippled hardware? Yummy.
That happens to ALL frameworks, platforms and OSes when they got released. I don't know where have you been lately, but when you release a new Linux (or KDE or Gnome) version which allows new functionalities, there are NO software initially running on that.

"most apps don't run on Vista" that's just not true.
"and most devices STILL don't have Vista-compatible drivers" that just not true. In most cases, you can use XP drivers for them.

Maybe these people should actually try running Vista, not copying&pasting sentences by people who didn't try Vista either.

As for DRM, as other people explained in this thread, put pressure on content makers: OSes has nothing to do with that. It's simple: you want to hurt them? Don't buy their protected contents. That's the way wise people fight what they don't like. Of course, you can't look at their movies and fight them at the same time...

When most Linux distributions cost around the same (in figures) as MS-DrOSs did 17 years ago (which because of inflation turns out to be a lot less), when even OSX plus a non-crippled copy of Quicktime costs less than Windows, exactly HOW is it not overpriced?
People will decide if that's overpriced for them or not. If it is so overpriced, you will see a boost of Linux sales, as that happens in EVERY field when a product is overpriced. Of course, you know very well that won't happen. Ah yes: of course because of Microsoft PR dept. Sure.

Well, if you want do even less, legally, than you could with XP - more fool you.
This has been covered very well in other posts.

Well, in the past MS have bent over backwards (excuse the pun) to ensure backward compatibility; but I guess since the Lord Gates now decrees it isn't necessary, it must be so, huh? Puh-lease.
That's simply not true. You should get better information instead of reading blog posts of people who didn't try Vista and just write copying&pasting what they read on other (misinformed) blogs.

(ironically enough, that statement probably comes from a Linux or OS X user, systems on which backward-compatibility is assured... [pun intended])

As for writing "innovative" software, would you mind telling Microsoft that as they have now been claiming to have written "innovative" software for, ooh, 20 ? years, it might now actually be time to um, do it. Thanks.
Vista includes features no other OS has. You would know if you cared to check that.

But anyway, I agree to a point: people should not buy Vista unless needed and if their XP is doing its job, just keep it.

However, please notice that statement could apply to your car or dishwasher as well. Urging people not to buy Vista unless they need is like telling them to "remember to drink water, once in a while"...

One of the Major differences with Projects like KDE and Gnome, is development is so open you can see what changes are taking places currently, and can submit your own code to these projects. Evolution is at a different level.

The reality is most developers *should* and *do* code for the lowest level of OS available...and with backward compatibly why do otherwise. A developer of any application will work with the largest Market share which will be XP for the next couple of years. Its one of the Major Disadvantages of the Microsoft model and why they want to move to a subscription based one. I have pointed out *some* of the disadvantages, but I'm sure you are aware of the advantages, advantages that add up to Billions in cash.

Vista is not 100% compatible with XP or 95 or DOS. This is of concern to companies that use often a mixture of these applications. To the home user...Not all programs will work, or as well on Vista. The choice is that the advantages of Vista outweigh this, and Microsoft will have made sure most most common applications work. It is their bread and butter.

Microsoft implemented DRM on Vista not the content makers, although they are one. If you want such schemes not to be implemented on other devices on your home. Inform people about Vista and what Microsoft stops you doing.

Understand the issues with FLOSS vs Binary platforms the issues of binary compatibility are completely different, by the very nature that the source-code is avilable. The same is also true of FLOSS applications on XP.

Vista *does* include features that no other OS has I would love you to list them, as they are so few, and are not *killer* features, and are only of interest to a tiny proportion of users.

That happens to ALL frameworks, platforms and OSes when they got released. I don't know where have you been lately, but when you release a new Linux (or KDE or Gnome) version which allows new functionalities, there are NO software initially running on that.

I don't know where you have been lately, but software is not usually "intentionally crippled" whether it's new or not. Also, there is a vast library of software for Linux that mostly merely needs to be recompiled for it to work on a new distribution or version. It may be true that all software makers only have to recompile apps for Vista too, but if so, they've had five years since XP came out and about 1 since Vista was RC'd. Where the hell are the apps?

"most apps don't run on Vista" that's just not true.
"and most devices STILL don't have Vista-compatible drivers" that just not true. In most cases, you can use XP drivers for them.

OK, so why are people complaining about how their hardware doesn't work, then? Oh, I suppose the people who make their livelihoods reporting on Windows actually have a secret wish to see it fail, and therefore are just lying.

Maybe these people should actually try running Vista, not copying&pasting sentences by people who didn't try Vista either.

Newsflash: Ashton whatshisname wrote his two posts on the subject IN Vista. Is that a sufficiently large value of "run Vista" for you?

As for DRM, as other people explained in this thread, put pressure on content makers: OSes has nothing to do with that. It's simple: you want to hurt them? Don't buy their protected contents. That's the way wise people fight what they don't like. Of course, you can't look at their movies and fight them at the same time...

I don't intend to buy any DRM-crippled content. That doesn't mean that I won't be saddled with DRM-crippled hardware if I buy a new computer, or that Microsoft are not collaborators. If Linux distributors have the balls to stand up to the content providers, why doesn't Microsoft?

People will decide if that's overpriced for them or not. If it is so overpriced, you will see a boost of Linux sales, as that happens in EVERY field when a product is overpriced. Of course, you know very well that won't happen. Ah yes: of course because of Microsoft PR dept. Sure.

Are you actually implying that Microsoft make good products, outside of Office? Good grief.

Well, if you want do even less, legally, than you could with XP - more fool you.
This has been covered very well in other posts.

Well, in the past MS have bent over backwards (excuse the pun) to ensure backward compatibility; but I guess since the Lord Gates now decrees it isn't necessary, it must be so, huh? Puh-lease.
That's simply not true. You should get better information instead of reading blog posts of people who didn't try Vista and just write copying&pasting what they read on other (misinformed) blogs.

As my earlier comment.

(ironically enough, that statement probably comes from a Linux or OS X user, systems on which backward-compatibility is assured... [pun intended])

MacOS X has (or had) the Classic environment for running old apps; I can recompile stuff like xkeycaps (which looks like it hasn't even been updated in the time Linux has been out) on Linux no problem. Despite protestations to the contrary, or to the effect that you have to put one hand in an oven and the other in an alligator's mouth whilst singing backwards and standing on your head, compiling an app on which the compile goes well is not hard.

Vista includes features no other OS has. You would know if you cared to check that.

Like what? Viruses? Colour me orgasmic (/sarcasm).

But anyway, I agree to a point: people should not buy Vista unless needed and if their XP is doing its job, just keep it.

However, please notice that statement could apply to your car or dishwasher as well. Urging people not to buy Vista unless they need is like telling them to "remember to drink water, once in a while"...

Except not. A great many intelligent people lose their heads when it comes to computers, and Microsoft rely on that fact.

It was the same story with DX9. Now i cant think of a game that dont use it.

I haven't followed this very closely, but I think all earlier versions of DirectX are available for more than just the latest Windows version, while DirectX10 will not be available on anything older than Vista.

If this information is correct so far, it will be a huge difference for game developers, since they either have to code for two DirectX versions or miss out on all the people who keep running XP (or even older versions)

Exactly.

I also cannot see any game developer ignoring the installed base of XP users for a handful of Vista people.

True gamers will not be switching to Vista because;

Gamers need every CPU cycle to be used on the game, not wasted on the OS.
Gamers need excellent working drivers for sound and video. Vista has not got these.
Gamers need their memory to be used on the game, not the OS.

DirectX has lots of life left in it, as does XP.

Edited 2007-01-21 23:34

Lukicly wine is apparently planning to make a Windows XP port of its DirectX 10 implementation (which will work on top of OpenGL).

I have this very day installed Vista Business Ultimate on a system that also runs Server 2003 very well (3.6Ghz Xeon, 4Mb Ram).

After 10 hours and no less than 19 (yes I counted them) reboots I gave up.

This system is a bog standard HP DL360. I have had similar problems with a Dell SC1420. There are still several key device drivers not available. I was trying to replicate the Server 2003 installation but the documented shortcomings eg Signed Video drivers, no sound etc.

In the words of a prominent UK Politician(The Home Secretary), "Vista is not fit for service". When Server 2003 came out it was just the opposite to this heap of cow dung. It worked yet Vista is suppoed to be built on the same codebase and it does not. Would someone please explain how this is progress?

My conclusions
No doubt that things will improve over time but at the moment, put the DVD in the trash and get a life. Wait until SP1 and try again.
Note to MS, I hope the Vista Server is NOT like this or whatever % of the Server market you have will go down the plughole. Server 2003 is a nice O/S but so far my experience of Vista leaves me to seriously consider switching Server O/S.

OK, I'll bite. Why are you trying to install Vista (a client operating system) on a server. Checking with HP's web site there are no drivers for Vista for the DL360. In fact for all generations of the DL360 there are no drivers for Vista or XP on the HP site.

The vast majority of client PC's are not going to have built in RAID controllers (SmartArray 5.x or 6.x on the DL360), lights out management, etc. So its no wonder the system didn't work because Microsoft is not going to ship even basic drivers for server grade RAID controllers. And I seriously doubt that businesses are going to install Vista (any version) on a server. So what was the point of this again?

OK, I'll bite. Why are you trying to install Vista (a client operating system) on a server.

Good question. I also can't understand why anyone would install Windows on a server.

They should just concentrate on the desktop, that's what they are good in.

And no, 2007 won't be the year of the Window server.

@anda_skoa

And no, 2007 won't be the year of the Window server.

Yeah, Windows won that long ago. Right after Novell handed them their own share of the market to MS.

If you read what I said, I was installing Vista Business. This is (At the moment) the closest to Vista Server we can get.
The DL360 was used because it just works with Server 2003 and Vista is built on the Server 2003 code base.
The Dl360 was used because it was available. The Raid controller is configured for JBOD. Every other O/S picke them up without problem. Actually, Vista picks up the Raid controllers without problem It was other devices eg Sound that Vista failed miserably.
For an O/S that is aimed at media centre work to fail to detect a standard soundblaster card then sorry, Microsoft, you have failed miserably.
I can understand they aims it restricting 64bit drivers to signed ones but surely if they had got their act together then they would have had LOT and I mean LOTS of signed drivers available at Release? Is this not a simple question to ask?
If not then please explain why not.
This is also why I say leave it until SP1 before making any serious attempt to deploy or use Vista in any serious way at all.

"If you read what I said, I was installing Vista Business. This is (At the moment) the closest to Vista Server we can get."

Actually the closest you can get to Server would be Vista Ultimate. They are a desktop OS, and NOT a server OS in design.

In the words of a prominent UK Politician(The Home Secretary), "Vista is not fit for service".

Are you saying Microsoft are going to split Windows into Vista: Justice Edition and Vista: Anti-Terrorism Edition?

Oh, wait, that would be two MORE Editions!

It was the same story with DX9. Now i cant think of a game that dont use it.

Don't let the facts *, get in the way of a bad argument.

Upgrading to Vista takes 2 hours+ (setting up included). It probably wont take you longer than 30 min to update all your software. BIG DEAL.

Let me spell it out of you.
SLOOOWLY. (Cause you seem to having problem reading)
He was talking about compatibility issues. Not about upgrade/installation time.

Don't get us started on DRM. DRM was not a choice for Microsoft, and its not a choice for any OS that _legally_ wants to include the possibility to play HD-DVD or Blueray.

Project Palladium [2] came long before RIAA/MPAA and rest of the vultures even thought about DCMA and DRM.
Heck, rumors about this project even preceded Windows XP RTM.
Yet again, don't let the facts get in your way.

- Gilboa
[1] Doom3, Quake4, UT2K4, X2, Farcry... and I can continue.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base

It was the same story with DX9. Now i cant think of a game that dont use it.

I think the original argument was pretty bad to begin with; it sounded more like an excuse not to upgrade straight away in favour of waiting.

As for the original author, sure, Vista has sort comings, but why doesn't he let the 'informed consumer' make that decision as to whether its a good upgrade rather than taking the paternalistic view of "I know whats best for you".

but why doesn't he let the 'informed consumer' make that decision as to whether its a good upgrade rather than taking the paternalistic view of "I know whats best for you".

When it comes to computers (whether you think anyone should put this right or not), consumers patently are NOT "informed" and probably don't want to be - if they were then MS wouldn't be able to tell people how great their software is (other Windows software is great, but Microsoft software itself? Blah) or how "innovative" their products are.

And there is anything wrong with that? I mean, this is the same people who voted for a party because their daddy did, and their daddy's daddy did; make decisions based on emotional atteachment and 'coolness' rather than whether it does the job or not.

I'm quite happy to sit smuggly here with my Linux installation - as far away from the havoc that engulfs the end user; and heck, if I can make some money off the pain and missery of the average sucker, then its all good.

And there is anything wrong with that? I mean, this is the same people who voted for a party because their daddy did, and their daddy's daddy did; make decisions based on emotional atteachment and 'coolness' rather than whether it does the job or not.

I thought the point you were trying to make was that users are NOT morons?

I'm quite happy to sit smuggly here with my Linux installation - as far away from the havoc that engulfs the end user; and heck, if I can make some money off the pain and missery of the average sucker, then its all good.

Yes, it's always struck me that the people who most love Windows and work in "IT support" on the systems are ignorant amoral assholes.