Ten Reasons to buy Windows Vista

[ink]

Wasn't that P2P feature enabled by default in the Beta? which won't be enabled by default in the release?
I never said their disk encryption didn't exist, just that the way it was worded is misleading. That is presuming you're right.

[Warrior]

Microsoft doesn't care about Linux. It shuts itself out from it's development. It could care less. When they make something not previously  seen in Windows, then it's revolutionary and new. It's revolutionary and new to Windows.

I strongly disagree.  If they didn't care at all about Linux, why would they implement compatible and similar features?  Revolutionary should only be used in a global frame of reference.  How is it useful to say something's revolutionary when you're only referring to it in a local scale?  It just doesn't make any sense.

They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.

As moving as that was, if Linux were in it for the "Greater good" they wouldn't try to compete for the desktop scene nor would they be so cocky torwards Windows users, they'd just develop and release. Since it is not the case I'll see that as just something they say between each other to make themselves feel better.

How are they not coding for the greater good?  They put amazing amounts of work into projects they're never going to see a dime for.  Then, they release the source code so others can dissect it and understand how it works.  That sounds like the greater good to me.

It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.

That's sorta the point..if the feature is there, then there is nothing wrong with marketing it. I'd be more worried if it wasn't there and they tried to market it.

He didn't say it was wrong to market a feature, he said it was wrong to exaggerate or over-emphasize a feature, which is exactly what Microsoft does.

Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?

And to respond to Warrior's assertion that Windows Vista is going to kill Linux -- Haha!  I can't think of any Linux user that would leave his OS for something as bloated and expensive as Windows Vista.  They don't start using Linux for fun, they start using it because they believe in the ideals that Linux represents. 

It's simple, Linux is going to get so pushed back from the Desktop market any small presence they have by it's developers is going to be insignificant. People were considering Linux as a practical OS for the desktop with Distros such as ubuntu striving to make Linux easy to use. I see bad news for them in the future, sorry.

The difference between Microsoft and Linux is, one OS is moving into the future and the other is stuck in 1992.
Microsoft does things others don't do, they actually make things easy to use for their wide range of customers. You can have all the power you want but if it isn't delivered correctly, it's of no use.

Linux is made for the power-computer user, not a simple one who only uses it to check e-mail and watch porn (that's about 30% of computer users, I'd say).  As iago said, people who use Linux use it for a reason.  Not because it has the ability to look pretty like Windows.  Your prophecy relies too heavily on people wanting a flashy GUI.

Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.

[Warrior]

Wasn't that P2P feature enabled by default in the Beta? which won't be enabled by default in the release?
I never said their disk encryption didn't exist, just that the way it was worded is misleading. That is presuming you're right.

It's a P2P feature not a security issue....

[ink]

Never claimed it to be a security issue, was just giving an example of how you cannot base your judgement off your Beta experience.

[Warrior]

I was comparing it to the Disk encryption..which is of a higher importance to Vista thus it will be most definitely enabled. Otherwise you're just making a judgement on something you're not sure of.

[ink]

You'll notice the importance of their Disk Encryption on their website
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/security.mspx#more
where it's not mentioned directly at all.

Also, they state near the top of the page that

The improvements are designed to help you have:

   1. A PC protected from viruses, worms, spyware, and other potentially unwanted software

Where as at the end of the page it says

Together, these tools can help you protect your PC from malicious software.

So is the PC protected from virus's? Or only provided -help- against virus's with their tools
Note:

In addition to using these built-in Windows Vista features, you should help keep your computer healthy by using antivirus software such as Windows OneCare or an antivirus solution from one of Microsoft's partners.

So antivirus doesn't come standard? You're right, they are serious about security!

[Warrior]

A lot of things arn't mentioned on their website. That site is not set in stone nor is it guaranteed to be the source of absolutely all security features. I'd look deeper into developer portions of the website.

[iago]

They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.

Yes, obvious things that other OSes have done.  Then they call it "revolutionary".  Like Sidoh said, "revolutionary" only works on a global context, not local.  Their use of it is misleading. 

It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.

Uhh, how so, exactly?  They've done more work and contributed more to the world than most people could ever hope to.  And they don't get a dime for it.  I think that they deserve to be proud. 

Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?

By using misleading words like "revolutionary".  See above. 

Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.

I don't understand what your problem is.  Linux and Windows both make desktop environments.  Some prefer one, some prefer the other.  See my previous post about why I disagree with Windows. 

[Warrior]

They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.

Yes, obvious things that other OSes have done.  Then they call it "revolutionary".  Like Sidoh said, "revolutionary" only works on a global context, not local.  Their use of it is misleading. 

It's revolutionary because it hadn't been seen in Windows OSes before. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend.
Windows users (most) have almost never even heard of Linux. Saying it's revolutionary is pretty appropriate there.

It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.

Uhh, how so, exactly?  They've done more work and contributed more to the world than most people could ever hope to.  And they don't get a dime for it.  I think that they deserve to be proud. 

Read what I said then read what you wrote, then you'll know. When they write an OS which is used globaly, in many different languages, can actually get support from hardware vendors, has a market share, and makes some money off of it then I'll be impressed, else they are just talking out of their ass about Windows withought knowing.

Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?

By using misleading words like "revolutionary".  See above. 

No they arn't. See above.

Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.

I don't understand what your problem is.  Linux and Windows both make desktop environments.  Some prefer one, some prefer the other.  See my previous post about why I disagree with Windows. 

Simple, one bashes the other about how they go about things yet they cannot even begin to compete.

[Sidoh]

They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.

They have implemented features that were exclusive to Linux until they implemented them.

It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.

You're generalizing again.  But still, even the snobby, stuck-up "Windows users suck at life" type people that contribute to a Linux distribution project are coding for the greater good.  They don't see a dime for any of their code.

Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?

I consider marketing over-exaggeration (which is a negative thing; it's generally used to draw attention from what they are lacking) when you fill the an entire feature list with useless or old ideas.  This is generally what Windows does.

Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.

Again: we're talking about OS' on a wide scale.  People use Linux because of it's functionality, not because of its usability.  No one that uses Linux cares that a Windows desktop looks nicer when they consider the functionality Linux has.  Secondly, Linux isn't necessarily competing for the desktop scene.  They want to add a functional, usable GUI.  People code things like KDE and Gnome.  What's wrong with that?  You're saying that KDE should cease to exist because Microsoft made the desktop environment pretty first?

It's revolutionary because it hadn't been seen in Windows OSes before. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend.
Windows users (most) have almost never even heard of Linux. Saying it's revolutionary is pretty appropriate there.

We're not talking about just the UI, for the last time!  We don't care about it!  Windows claims several of its "features" are "revolutionary."  They're not.  To reiterate: saying something is revolutionary is useless when only considered on a local scale.

Read what I said then read what you wrote, then you'll know. When they write an OS which is used globaly, in many different languages, can actually get support from hardware vendors, has a market share, and makes some money off of it then I'll be impressed, else they are just talking out of their ass about Windows withought knowing.

The people who work on Linux don't want to be a corporate organization with their prime intent set to profit.  Linux is used globally.  It is written in many different languages.  You can get support for it all over the internet.  Linux does get support from hardware vendors.  Sure, not as many as Windows, but that's because the companies aren't going to make any profit by providing Linux support.  There are 3rd party drivers for almost every device I've ever ran into.  Frankly, I'm glad Linux isn't a corporate organization.  They're against coding for money.  Why would you argue that they'll be useless until they do make money?

No they arn't. See above.

They're completely misleading.

Simple, one bashes the other about how they go about things yet they cannot even begin to compete.

Who said that the Linux desktop environment is better than Windows?  Some say Linux is better than Windows, but I haven't heard anyone argue that the desktop environment is superior.  Your arguments for Windows rely really heavily on it's GUI, do you realize this?

[Chavo]

This thread makes me happy I'm not a zealot for any OS 

I do wish I had the time to actually read all the posts though.

[Sidoh]

This thread makes me happy I'm not a zealot for any OS 

I do wish I had the time to actually read all the posts though.

Just to make sure this issue is clear: I'm no sort of zealot for any OS.  I mainly use Windows on my computer.  I recognize that it has its flaws, but I find that they're bearable enough to use over Linux on my main computer.  Windows is what I grew up with; it's what I'm used to.  For this reason, I'm more comfortable using Windows on my main computer than Linux.  However, I have a remarkable level of respect for Linux and what it can do.  For this reason, my server (and my other hard drive on my main computer) has Linux on it.

[Warrior]

They implement...obvious features..none exclusive to Linux itself.

They have implemented features that were exclusive to Linux until they implemented them.

That would be believable if Linux wasn't a total rip off Unix.

It may have originally been that, now they are just full of themselves.

You're generalizing again.  But still, even the snobby, stuck-up "Windows users suck at life" type people that contribute to a Linux distribution project are coding for the greater good.  They don't see a dime for any of their code.

No, those people are coding for themselves. No one sensible uses Linux, so the "Greater" good isn't as "Great" as most may think.
I'd call it coding for the "Select few individuals too poor to buy Windows"

Marketing is all about putting your product out, they over emphasize it because it has been done by them.
How the HELL are they exaggerating having a new UI? What is the glass less glassy then what they say it is?

I consider marketing over-exaggeration (which is a negative thing; it's generally used to draw attention from what they are lacking) when you fill the an entire feature list with useless or old ideas.  This is generally what Windows does.

I've explained this multiple times, I'm starting to think you either have a reading problem or just chose to completely ignore me.

Then don't try to compete for the desktop scene and bash Windows for doing something they could never do. Plain and simple.

Again: we're talking about OS' on a wide scale.  People use Linux because of it's functionality, not because of its usability.  No one that uses Linux cares that a Windows desktop looks nicer when they consider the functionality Linux has.  Secondly, Linux isn't necessarily competing for the desktop scene.  They want to add a functional, usable GUI.  People code things like KDE and Gnome.  What's wrong with that?  You're saying that KDE should cease to exist because Microsoft made the desktop environment pretty first?

I'm not talking about UI. I'm talking about DESKTOP useability which is not limited to the UI, but functionality driving the UI.
You're saying I'm talking about the UI..seems to me you're  doing most of that here.

It's revolutionary because it hadn't been seen in Windows OSes before. I don't get what's so hard to comprehend.
Windows users (most) have almost never even heard of Linux. Saying it's revolutionary is pretty appropriate there.

We're not talking about just the UI, for the last time!  We don't care about it!  Windows claims several of its "features" are "revolutionary."  They're not.  To reiterate: saying something is revolutionary is useless when only considered on a local scale.

Neither am I, Windows has multiple things which are more stable than Linux could ever want. Windows supports more drivers and knows more trade secrets than Linux will ever have. That makes them the superior OS, that makes them more powerful, that is what seperates the good OS from the shitty ancient OS.

Read what I said then read what you wrote, then you'll know. When they write an OS which is used globaly, in many different languages, can actually get support from hardware vendors, has a market share, and makes some money off of it then I'll be impressed, else they are just talking out of their ass about Windows withought knowing.

The people who work on Linux don't want to be a corporate organization with their prime intent set to profit.  Linux is used globally.  It is written in many different languages.  You can get support for it all over the internet.  Linux does get support from hardware vendors.  Sure, not as many as Windows, but that's because the companies aren't going to make any profit by providing Linux support.  There are 3rd party drivers for almost every device I've ever ran into.  Frankly, I'm glad Linux isn't a corporate organization.  They're against coding for money.  Why would you argue that they'll be useless until they do make money?

Then they have no room to insult how Windows goes about doing things when them as an OS couldnt' do the same.

No they arn't. See above.

They're completely misleading.
[/quote[

No.

Simple, one bashes the other about how they go about things yet they cannot even begin to compete.

Who said that the Linux desktop environment is better than Windows?  Some say Linux is better than Windows, but I haven't heard anyone argue that the desktop environment is superior.  Your arguments for Windows rely really heavily on it's GUI, do you realize this?

No they don't, you just think they do thus yours rely heavily on the UI, not mine. I'm not talking about the desktop enviroment, I'm talking about the desktop EXPERIENCE which means functionality, support for drivers, ease of use, etc..
Something Linux in it's unstable state cannot provide.

[Sidoh]

That would be believable if Linux wasn't a total rip off Unix.

What's wrong with that?  Linux has expanded UNIX.  Think of UNIX as Windows 98 and Linux as Windows Vista.  They're both under the GPL license; what's wrong with expanding on a brother project?  That's the point of open source development.  Open source developers want their code to be used.

No, those people are coding for themselves. No one sensible uses Linux, so the "Greater" good isn't as "Great" as most may think.
I'd call it coding for the "Select few individuals too poor to buy Windows"

Bullshit!  Do you even understand what the "Greater good" we're referring to is?  When programming first became popular, everyone shared code.  They all publicly provided their work so that it could be used to accelerate the programming community's advancement pace.  It worked extremely well.  If every piece of software was corporate, people would continually have to "re-invent the wheel," so to speak.  Obviously, this is not the case.  There are tons of open source projects.  If you're starting a project and you want to implement a specific feature that's already been created, you can simply learn from the source that's been provided for you.  That's a damned awesome "Greater good."

I've explained this multiple times, I'm starting to think you either have a reading problem or just chose to completely ignore me.

I'm starting to think the same about you.  I've explained why I believe what I do.  I've continually rejected your rationale, so you conclude that I'm not understanding what you're saying?  For some odd reason, this brings on a strange sense of deja vou.

I'm not talking about UI. I'm talking about DESKTOP usability which is not limited to the UI, but functionality driving the UI.
You're saying I'm talking about the UI..seems to me you're  doing most of that here.

You need to be more clear then.  Even in your rationalization, you're confusing functionality with usability.

Neither am I, Windows has multiple things which are more stable than Linux could ever want. Windows supports more drivers and knows more trade secrets than Linux will ever have. That makes them the superior OS, that makes them more powerful, that is what seperates the good OS from the shitty ancient OS.

Name a few, please.  Windows has "auto-detecting" driver engines, which are pretty useless.  The device works crappily until you install the correct drivers.  Linux doesn't provide that short time of limited functionality, but I have little doubt that with a bit of searching, you'll find a comparable driver.  What kind of "trade secrets" are you talking about?  Riddle me this, Warrior: why do the most world renowned physicists, theorists and scientists publish their work?  So that the world can understand their findings.  So that humanity can progress.  So people don't have to discover what they've found after it's already been done.  This is the idea behind open source.  I think it's a phenomenal idea.

Then they have no room to insult how Windows goes about doing things when them as an OS couldnt' do the same.

Sure they do.  There are lots of things I wish Windows did differently.  These issues can be discussed if needed, but I'm pretty sure they're intuitively obvious given Window's history on security and stability issues.

No.

I have to do this again?   *sigh*

www.m-w.com :

Main Entry: 1rev·o·lu·tion·ary
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ner-E
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or constituting a revolution <revolutionary war> b : tending to or promoting revolution <a revolutionary party> c : constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change <revolutionary styling> <a revolutionary new product>

Note the bolded definition.  This is the one that Windows is referring to when it claims that one of its features is "revolutionary."  How can something be revolutionary if it's already been done?  It can't be.

No they don't, you just think they do thus yours rely heavily on the UI, not mine. I'm not talking about the desktop enviroment, I'm talking about the desktop EXPERIENCE which means functionality, support for drivers, ease of use, etc..
Something Linux in it's unstable state cannot provide.

That seems pretty synonymous with UI features to me (other than the driver functionality).  Ease of use is irrelevant in a functionality argument, if you ask me.  If some feature can be learned through means of experience, then ease of use isn't very important.  I've already argued a rational point on Linux and drivers.  Linux is not unstable:

[xx@walden xx]$ uptime
 21:34:17  up 369 days, 12:09,  6 users,  load average: 0.63, 0.94, 1.33


(actual username replaced with xx for privacy reasons).

[iago]

That would be believable if Linux wasn't a total rip off Unix.

Linux wasn't ripped off of Unix, it's a re-implementation.  They don't try to hide that, and I have never heard of people refer to Linux features as revolutionary.  Thanks for flaunting the weakness of your arguments. 

No, those people are coding for themselves. No one sensible uses Linux, so the "Greater" good isn't as "Great" as most may think.
I'd call it coding for the "Select few individuals too poor to buy Windows"

I use Linux.  I'm sensible.  Sidoh uses Linux.  He's sensible.  Your argument is invalid. 

I've explained this multiple times, I'm starting to think you either have a reading problem or just chose to completely ignore me.

No, because you keep mis-using words like revolutionary.  Something can't be "revolutionary to Windows", that doesn't make sense!  Either it's revolutionary to the entire world or it's not.  If I program a Tetris clone, it's not revolutionary.  I've never done it before, but that STILL doesn't make it revolutionary.  Either it's revolutionary for everybody or it's not revolutionary.  The fact that you keep ignoring that doesn't bode well for what you're saying.

I'm not talking about UI. I'm talking about DESKTOP useability which is not limited to the UI, but functionality driving the UI.
You're saying I'm talking about the UI..seems to me you're  doing most of that here.

I can do more on Linux than I can on Windows.  So it makes a better desktop environment.  I'm glad you cleared up that we're not talking about the UI.  So according to what you're saying, Windows probably isn't the superior OS in this category. 

Neither am I, Windows has multiple things which are more stable than Linux could ever want. Windows supports more drivers and knows more trade secrets than Linux will ever have. That makes them the superior OS, that makes them more powerful, that is what seperates the good OS from the shitty ancient OS.

Don't forget that Linux has multiple things that are more stable than Windows.  Linux has close to the same number of drivers and Linux doesn't feel the need for trade secrets.  Why would an OS need secrets?  A real OS shouldn't be hiding anything.  Your arguments are totally hollow. 

No they don't, you just think they do thus yours rely heavily on the UI, not mine. I'm not talking about the desktop enviroment, I'm talking about the desktop EXPERIENCE which means functionality, support for drivers, ease of use, etc..

Why doesn't your "EXPERIENCE" contain things like power, control, and ease of extension?  Are you just listing the criteria that you like and basing everything on that?  Yet again, your argument is hollow. 

Something Linux in it's unstable state cannot provide.

Huh?