Recently in Vista Category

ITWire is one of those mildly cheeky tech news sites that I enjoy reading very much, despite its annoying habit of breaking longer items into as many as six different screens.

Lately its writers have been waging a good-humored battle on why you might want to use Windows Vista or Linux, giving numbered reasons for one position or the other.

Actually, numbered lists are somewhat pandemic in the blog world, and I usually take little note of them. But these from iTWire are worth taking a look at:

• 40 reasons to lose Linux and vote Vista! by Alex Zaharov-Reutt
• 20 reasons to shed the Microsoft yoke and use Linux by Sam Varghese
• 10 reasons to stick with Vista and forget Linux by Alex Zaharov-Reutt
• 5 reasons to upgrade from Windows Vista to Linux by David M Williams

I predicted that Dell would cling to Windows XP as long as possible, with the sole reason being that customers want it.

But now you'll have to pay between $20 and $50 extra for the privilege on the low-cost Vostro line of desktop and laptop PCs, as I read at ZDNet, via Computerworld.

Yes, you heard right. To "downgrade" to XP from Vista, it'll cost you. And the downgrade is only available for Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. If the machine you choose ships Vista Home, you're out of luck.

But if you're like some of my readers, who really, really want XP, that might not be too much to ask.

The good news: Other Dell business computers, specifically those in the Latitude, OptiPlex and Precision lines, will have an XP option at no additional charge.

And the consumer-aimed Inspiron? No XP for you.

After all the heat Psystar took in the blogosphere for its erstwhile Macintosh clone -- a commodity box that can run OS X -- many said the company was either a sham or about to fade quickly away.

Well, in recent days, the company has begun offering its own updates to Psystar Macs' operating system, pledges more surprises in the future, and is also offering a pretty nice $299 computer called the OpenLite that runs many versions of Linux and has pretty nice specs for the price. While the page just linked to says they preinstall Ubuntu, the most recent announcement has them also willing to install CentOS and Fedora for those who want them.

Pretty nice, I think.

Here are those specs:

Base Configuration

* Ubuntu Linux 8.04 included (note: now you can get CentOS or Fedora, too).
* no keyboard, mouse, or monitor included
* 1.8GHz Intel Celeron 430 1.8 GHz
* 1GB of DDR2 667 memory
* Integrated Intel GMA 950
* 20x DVD+/-RW SATA drive
* Gigabit Ethernet
* 4 rear USB Ports
* Integrated 5 Channel Audio

I'd be better with a dual-core processor (add $40). There are other options, but that's all I'd need.

This is the first computer at this price, I believe, that comes with a choice of Ubuntu, CentOS or Fedora.

If you really want it, they'll throw Windows XP, Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate on there for an extra $125 to $200. But you can get that anywhere, right?

Even though the driver situation and the need for 2 GB+ of RAM in order to run Windows Vista and not want to kill yourself is getting to be old news, most of the bloggers out there are writing about what the next Windows OS — now called the very-catchy "Windows 7" — has in store for us.

Expert Microsoft-watcher Mary Jo Foley opens up her rumor bag and spills it, with the following catching my eye:

• Windows 7 is being designed around five pillars (The five, as reported by AeroXP: specialized for laptops; designed for services; personalized for everyone; optimized for entertainment; engineered for "ease of ownership")
• Windows 7 will be more modularized and componentized than Vista or other previous Windows releases. Microsoft hasn't said whether it will allow users/PC makers to opt into (and out of) installing subsystems, the same way that Windows Server 2008 users can choose specific "roles," but hints that Microsoft is considering this approach for Windows 7 abound. Microsoft officials have discussed their work on "MinWin," a streamlined version of the Windows core. But MinWin may or may not be won't be part of Windows 7. (Update: Months after bloggers and reporters first discussed MinWin, Microsoft finally said MinWin won't be part of Windows 7, via the Sinofsky Q&A on News.com on May 27.)
• Windows 7 will be a minor update to Vista -- with "minor," here, meaning as less disruptive as possible to users and their applications. Microsoft has said Windows 7 will use the same driver model that Vista did.
• Windows 7 will allow users to run legacy applications in virtualized mode to minimize backward compatibility problems. Whether Microsoft will deliver this virtualization via an application-virtualization solution like SoftGrid, the new Kidaro enterprise virtualization product or in some other way is not yet known.
• Windows 7 will add native support for Virtual Hard Disks (VHDs) -- a feature Microsoft already provides in Vista, in the form of Complete PC Backup (in the Business version of Vista).

In other words, not too exciting. Oh, and it's scheduled for release in 2010. So expect another couple of years of ... not much out of Microsoft.

I think the problem for MS has been the growing length of time between major releases (with thanks to Wikipedia for the info):

Windows 95 Released Aug. 1995
Windows 98 Released June 1998
Windows 98se Released May 1999
Windows 2000 Released Feb. 2000
Windows Me Released Sept. 2000
Windows XP Released Oct. 2001
Windows Vista Released Nov. 2006

So the five years between Windows XP -- after the leap from 98 to 2000 took less than two years -- had the effect of a) making XP more established than any previous incarnation of Windows, engendering "just works" or "works as well as can be expected" loyalty and building up a volume of compatible applications unequaled previously and b) not making people happy about upgrading hardware for the diminishing returns of a new, unproven, buggy and driver-poor OS.

And we all know that Windows and its success is about one thing -- and one thing only: drivers and the hardware compatibility they bring to the system.

So after a five-year drought in new OS releases, Microsoft had to hit one out of the damn ballpark, not a feeble grounder up the first-base line.

Just look at what Apple adds to OS X every year and then some. Hell, look at the leap from the "Classic" Mac OS to the Unix-based OS X. And look at how far Linux has come on the desktop in the past three or so years. If all you do with your PC is browse the Web and churn out a few documents and spreadsheets, you don't need Microsoft, or Windows or Office.

It's easy to catch your competition if they're standing still.

People need passion, excitement, new (ahem) vistas -- in short, compelling reasons to upgrade. And I don't see anything like that. "Touch functionality" is intriguing, but that's not a game-winner, and greater interoperability with mobile devices is a given, no more.

The increasing importance of OS integration with computing in the cloud is something that MS is no doubt working on, but any move to the cloud makes traditional applications and operating systems less relevant, so I can't see MS going wholeheartedly in that direction.

So where's the passion? Where's the compulsion to stick with Microsoft? If anybody knows, please tell me.

Linus Torvalds, father of the open-source Linux operating system, says that in some ways Apple's OS X is "actually worse than Windows. He saved the phrase "utter crap" for OS X's filesystem. He says:

"An operating system should be completely invisible," he said. "To Microsoft and Apple (it is) a way to control the whole environment ... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware."

I'm no Linus, but that seems a bit harsh. Even so, there's a new OS X filesystem on the horizon, I've heard.

Back in the Linux realm, Torvalds says he admires the One Laptop Per Child initiative as well as the low-cost -power and -size ASUS eee-PC laptop.

Whether Windows Vista is a success, failure, bump in the road or GUI revolution -- and the answer varies depending on who you talk to -- those who keep an eye on Microsoft are already abuzz about the next Windows OS release, which is now going by the name Windows 7.

As the link above might already be telling you, I think ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley does very well when it comes to reporting on Microsoft, and she has this to say:

Because Microsoft won’t talk about Windows 7, I can’t quote any Microsoft representatives on what they are planning, thinking and hoping regarding Windows 7.

My opinion? The Softies want Windows 7 to be the anti-Vista. That is not a put-down of Vista, which may not be selling at two times the rate XP did — but which still is selling strongly enough to boost Microsoft’s Q2 FY 2008 client-division revenues by more almost 70 percent.

But Microsoft’s brass do want to avoid a lot of the pitfalls that it encountered with Windows Vista — and who can blame them? They want Windows 7 to be on-time, not polluted by feature-bloat and not overly ambitious. They want the Windows 7 betas to be near-feature-complete the first time that the majority of testers get builds. And most of all, they want Windows 7 to be a predictable, familiar, relatively minor upgrade. Should that take four years (counting from the fall 2006 Vista release-to-manufacturing date) to Microsoft’s stated 2010 Windows 7 ship target to deliver? Probably not; Windows 7 in 2009 looks like a realistic possibility.

So if you love or hate Vista ... a 2009 release of a whole new version of Windows will make today's edition of the OS seem pretty bump-in-the-roadish. ... and a full year from now the hardware will be that much better (quad-core everything, 3 GB standard in laptops, more in desktops ... ) that a release from Microsoft that doesn't further task computing resources would be mighty welcome by Windows users, both home and corporate.

More from Mary Jo:

... Microsoft is in a tricky spot. Apple can put consumers front and center when it designs a new operating system. But Microsoft needs to strike a balance between creating an operating system that appeals to both business users and consumers. If Microsoft only had to appease business users with Windows 7, a minor, no frills point-release update would be perfect. But it also has to fend off Mac OS X with Windows 7 on the retail front.

Another writer I respect, Microsoft-Watch's Joe Wilcox, things all this Windows 7 talk is too much hype:

Microsoft hasn't yet released Windows Vista Service Pack 1, and there are so-called leaks galore about Vista successor Windows Seven. There have been supposed screenshots of Milestone 1 and even a pirated movie-like video. I won't link to any of the stuff, as it would only feed the frenzy.

But he does offer this:

The real work on Windows Seven isn't the shell but the kernel. It's my understanding that the primary Windows Seven development focus, at least for now, is the operating system's plumbing. That's absolutely the right priority, and it is a huge departure from Windows XP and Vista development. Seven's predecessors got wish-listed to death. Previously, the early process was more about compiling huge lists of features the people inside and outside Microsoft wanted in the operating system.

And Wilcox provides a link to his own story about the Shipping Seven blog, presumably by an anonymous Microsoftie, which can be found here.

Having taken a look, Shipping Seven is a pretty good blog, with tips on using Windows now, plus a good bit of opinion. Wilcox smells guerrilla marketing from Microsoft, and I'm inclined to agree.

A release candidate for Windows Vista SP1 is out there, Ars Technica reports.

Traditionally, major vendors wait until Microsoft releases the first Service Pack before adopting a new version of Windows.

I dont' recommend doing it, but if you have a noncritical box and want to try Vista SP1, get it here and here. Ars also recommends reading the FAQ before doing anything.

The writer of the item, Paul Mah, has already dumped Vista:

Unfortunately, to try this I needed a laptop that actually worked more than 50 percent of the time and have already zapped the Vista Business from my Vaio in favor of Windows XP.

And one of the best Windows sources, Microsoft-Watch, has its own take on the blizzard of Service Packs coming out of Redmond.

Ed Bott of ZDnet has been measuring his PC power consumption.

Not surprisingly, you save a whole lot of power by using S3 sleep mode to dramatically reduce power draw during times when the PC is turned on but not being used. Bott seems to suggest that S3 is something that Windows Vista offers and XP doesn't. I'm not an expert in this realm, other than to report that sleep or "suspend," as it's often called, rarely works in most Linux distributions, and that these days a lot of effort is being expended to get suspend working in laptops under Linux.

But here's Bott on S3 in his experience:

I ... attached a Kill A Watt meter to the Dell C521 PC that I’ve been using for my ongoing Media Center experiments. At rest, it uses about 64 watts, and its power consumption is roughly equivalent to the HP server over time. However, it’s dramatically more power-efficient, thanks to Windows Vista’s sleep mode. In the past 24 hours, it has used less than 0.5 kWh. Over the course of a month, that’s about $1.20 in electricity. The secret of its power-saving success is S3 sleep mode. When this system kicks into S3 mode, it uses a mere 3 watts, according to the Kill A Watt device. That 0.5 kWh equals 8 hours a day of full-power usage, coupled with 16 hours in sleep mode. If I were to leave it on with sleep disabled, energy usage would triple. Using the default Balanced power settings for the three PCs in this house will save more than 1000 kWh over the course of a year, or $82.

He promises more on S3 mode in a future entry. I'll be looking for it.

Suspend works great on our iBook G4, but with Apple and OS X, you expect stuff like that to work -- and you usually get what you expect.

When Dell runs its glossy ad in the newspaper (and this newspaper among them) on Sunday, systems are offered with Windows Vista Home Premium (or, in cases of poor features, Vista Home Basic).

But on what seems to be a weekly basis, Dell has been buying ads inside the front sections of major newspapers and offering a choice of Windows XP or Vista Home Basic, with the unwritten hint being to choose XP.

In fact, Dell -- actually Dell's corporate customers who don't want anything to do with Vista at this point -- has been the prime mover in Microsoft's decision to extend the life of XP.

(Going slightly off-track... ) For those comparing Windows Vista with the new Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, here's some interesting reading from Microsoft-Watch:

Why Leopard Isn't Better than Vista
Why Leopard Is Better than Vista

Back to XP. It would be nice, wouldn't it, to try both XP and Vista on your new PC to see which one is a better "fit"? But since Microsoft isn't about that (unless you fork over the cash for both), I'd give the PC you're planning to buy a test run, if at all possible. In the case of Dell, you can go to those mall kiosks. And many HP/Compaq systems are carried by the major office-tech stores (Office Depot, Staples, Best Buy, etc.).

Rules of thumb: XP runs well in 512 MB of memory. Vista needs 1 GB but wants 2 GB -- or at least that's what geeks are saying. If you have an Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD dual-core processor, you'll be happier with Vista than if you have a Intel Pentium/Celeron or single-core AMD processor. And in all cases, a good video card or graphics chipset with its own memory will make your experience better with any operating system.

Eventually the XP vs. Vista battle will be over. And Vista will stand alone. That's Microsoft's plan -- and these sort of things always go according to plan where Redmond is concerned.

Unless you've been under a computerless rock, you know by now that the corporate world in particular, and the rest of the world in general, has been avoiding Windows Vista like the plague and opting to stick with the tried, true and driver-rich Windows XP until Redmond's people pry the install disc from their cold, dead hands.

And now those XP stalwarts are about to be rewarded. According to ArsTechnica, Windows XP Service Pack 3 -- release date uncertain -- will backport a number of Vista features into the XP system.

Among them:

-- Network Access Protection, which enhances the security of corporate networks

-- The New Product Activation Module, which allows Windows installs without entering a product code

-- "Black Hole" Router Detection, which I don't understand and for which I will quote Ars:

A black hole router is a router that drops packets without returning the specified Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) response. This feature aids in detecting and protecting the end user from such a problem. Previously, according to Microsoft documents, reliable detection of a black hole router involved use of an appropriately configured "ping" command, followed by further manual commands for working around the problem.

-- Microsoft Kernel Cryptographic Module, which, judging from its name, enables the use of cryptography within the OS kernel.

It's all about security, people ... and for Microsoft, it's about admitting that customers don't want to run Vista until it's really, really ready.

And I understand that Windows users are reluctant to relearn the programs such as Office that they've been using for years. I tried out a Vista-equipped PC at the Dell kiosk the other day, and I couldn't even figure out how to save a Word document. I'm sure it's not that hard, but who wants to relearn how to use something as old and moldy as MS Word?

Microsoft doesn't want you to think this way, but for the majority of us -- at least those of us who don't want to tinker, fiddle and break stuff, it's not usually a good idea to do a major upgrade of the operating system on an older computer.

My rule: Never upgrade Windows to a wholly new version unless things are broken in your current Windows environment and you know that the new version will fix them.

Good examples: Windows 98 had better networking than Windows 95 -- and way, way better USB support. Windows 2000 made both networking and peripheral support even better and gave the OS a stability it didn't previously have. I'm not quite sure what Windows XP added to the mix, but it has become one of Microsoft's longest-lasting OSes, according to my hazy memory.

Basically, keep the OS that brung you ... until it stops working.

Warning: If your new PC comes with Windows Vista Home Basic instead of Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Ultimate or Windows Vista Business, your new PC is underpowered for the Vista experience, and you'd be better off with XP. Remember, the word "Basic" means "hobbled."

At least Dell acknowledges this (and the general Vista skittishness) by offering XP on many systems. In fact, a recent national newspaper ad exclusively featured XP-equipped systems.

... and many are doing just that. As Adrian Kingsley-Hughes writes for ZDNet, there's not much in Vista that's compelling enough to make one want to stick with it. The other complaint: Vista doesn't mean business:

Yeah, sure, it’s nice to be able to view digital photos in a slide show or add clocks on the desktop that show multiple time zones, these things really are nothing more than decoration, and I can live without decoration. I’m not even sold on the warm fuzzy feeling of enhanced security. I can (and regularly do) slip effortlessly between Vista and XP and the features that I miss are the compact Start Menu and the bigger, better icons that Vista has. Wow. There’s very little in Vista that makes it “stickable” and nothing proves this more than people who get Vista bundled on a new PC specifically designed to run it wanting to downgrade to XP. For business users, the advantages of going with Vista over XP are even vaguer than they are for the consumer. Back when I was testing early beta builds I was worried that Vista felt too much like a consumer OS and that feeling hasn’t gone away. No wonder businesses are waiting for SP1. Why rush?

Also from ZDNet: Microsoft makes it easier to go from Vista back to XP.

While Ed Bott at ZDNet had to wait for Dell to come and replace a fried motherboard (said frying happening during an unsuccessful BIOS upgrade), once he got the box running, it just flew on Windows Vista -- and he says all reports of slowness about the new Microsoft OS are, in this case, unfounded:

I’ve read several complaints about Vista taking too long to display menus or open Explorer windows. Everything’s downright snappy here. Menus show up instantly, and with the exception of Windows Mail, which takes five seconds or so to start, I experience nothing that makes me feel I’m having to wait even a little.

and:

Over a network using the C521’s Fast Ethernet (not Gigabit Ethernet) adapter, it takes me 16:51 to copy 6.3GB of files. On a nearly identical system running Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 and plugged into the same Ethernet switch, copying the same batch of files from the same source takes 16:56, a statistical dead heat. I plug in a 500GB USB drive and copy more than 80GB of music files to the Music folder, and the file transfer moves just as quickly as it does on Windows XP.

Shoulda popped for the gigabit Ethernet, I think ... but it's good to see a happy Dell/Vista customer.

Huh? What? Why?

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, what you've all been waiting for (or perhaps not), the Safari browser that Apple bundles with each and every Macintosh computer sold is now coming to a Windows desktop near you. (Stories here, here and here).

No longer content with Microsoft orphaning its IE browser (no doubt because of the initial development of Safari at Apple), the folks in Cupertino are bringing Safari to the masses -- the Windows-using masses.

You might inquire as to what Steve Jobs is smoking? But he's Steve Jobs ... so whatever it is he in fact is smoking, he's using $100 bills as rolling papers.

Again, why?

But Jobs and Co. have a plan: You will use Safari, O Windows user, because it will be the only way to run Web-compatible apps with the soon-to-debut iPhone. And you will also use Safari, you Windows XP and Vista users, you, because it will be distributed with the wildly popular, culture-changing content-pushing engine known as iTunes.

Jobs cites a 5 percent share of the browser market for Safari, 78 percent for IE, and 15 percent for Firefox.

As for the iTunes connection:

(Jobs) noted that there are a million downloads of iTunes a day, with 500 million of those going to Windows machines.

“We know how to reach these (Windows) customers,” Jobs said.

And Jobs says Safari is faster than Firefox and IE. Want to find out for yourself? Download the beta.

My 2 cents: I was initially a big fan of the Safari browser in OS X. IE on the Mac was dead, killed by Microsoft (for reasons that continue to escape me -- the development of Safari itself not being sufficient), and I thought that Firefox just took too long to load. So I got used to Safari, and it was running pretty well ... until most "sophisticated" Web apps started breaking like crazy. Blogger never worked that well, even before it had a total Googlized redo, and Google Docs and Spreadsheets wouldn't even try to work. Notice that it's Google in both cases? I don't know what that says about the whole deal, but I want to use both Blogger and Google Docs (formerly Writely), and Safari just can't do it.

So I started to use Firefox on the Mac, and I'm pretty darn happy with it. Once you load it (yep, it does take a long time on my iBook G4 1GHz), you can just leave it running and open a new Firefox window in seconds. Now if Safari for Mac "catches up" to Firefox in terms of sheer functionality, I'd be inclined to give it another try. (I'm on 10.3.9, and the Safari developers abandoned that platform long ago ... if Firefox does the same, I'll have to upgrade to 10.4, I guess. But for Mac at least, Safari is in pretty big trouble, in my opinion.)

On my Windows XP box, it's a bit different. I have Firefox loaded, but I rarely use it. I'm pretty happy with IE 6 (I haven't yet made the leap to IE 7 -- I could use the tabbed browsing, but I'm loathe to give up something that "just works.")

Safari for Windows? I'll probably try it. But as I've said before, if Steve Jobs really wants to shake this shit up, he'll release OS X -- IN IT'S FREAKIN' ENTIRETY -- for PC and knock Microsoft and the rest of the computer industry on its collective ass.

So while Safari for Windows is something, it ain't everything by one gigantic, bare-assed longshot.

If it's a laptop you want, bring money -- lots of it.

According to my new favorite Microsoft site, a $1,500 laptop won't get 'er done.

Joe Wilcox of Microsoft-Watch says you need to bring $1,999 to the bar to get adequate graphics performance for Windows Vista:

I surveyed computer after computer, even several desktop PCs, with Windows Experience Index ratings falling between 2.1 and 3.3. In every case, graphics hardware dragged down the scores. Again, I contend graphics is the wrong place to shave margins.

In my Vista testing, there is noticeable performance benefits on computers with 256MB dedicated graphics compared to those with 64MB or 128MB discreet graphics and shared memory for the remainder. More importantly, at some time in the future there will be more applications tapping into Aero and Windows Presentation Foundation—and that's when customers are going to feel the graphics pinch.

While pricey, Best Buy had one notebook that rated above 4.0—the Pavilion v9260nr, for $1,999 at the store in Bowie, Md. It was the first Vista computer I've seen for sale where the graphics accelerator wasn't the lowest-rated component. The hard drive brought the score down to 4.5 (the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7600 graphics rated a 4.6). The HP notebook, with 17-inch display, 2GB SDRM, 200GB hard drive and TV tuner, came with Vista Ultimate 64-bit. It's one really honking portable.

Consumers shouldn't have to spend two grand to get the ultimate Vista machine. But they should expect—and get—more from a $1,500 or $1,600 notebook. That Sony model, VAIO VGN-AR320E, looks loaded for bear with Best Buy advertised graphics of 335MB. But how many consumers or small business owners are going to know to look—as I did—and see that only 64MB is dedicated graphics?

Wow. And I'm complaining that $400 laptops are too pricey.

For another interesting perspective from Joe Wilcox, check out Is Vista One Step Ahead? In this article, Wilcox looks at Bill Gates view of Microsoft being "ahead" of the curve, and how that generally means software that won't run on current hardware. He cites Gates' 2003 unveiling of Longhorn (which would become Vista), which would need the following:

4-6GHz processor

2GB+ memory

1TB hard drive

Graphics processor 3X today's performance

1GB Ethernet, 54Mbps wireless networking

And while Wilcox suggests that hardware makers step up and give Vista users what they need to really experience Microsoft's new OS (and give application developers the incentive to produce software that goes beyond what XP can do), I wonder if its a case of the tail wagging the dog ... albeit profitably for Microsoft and the PC industry throughout the years.

In Gates' (and Wilcox's) defense, most of these hardware benchmarks are here -- especially with the latest Intel and AMD CPUs, the unveiling of the first consumer-oriented TB hard drive, the proliferation of 1 GB Ethernet hardware (even if corporate America's existing cabling won't support it) and the rise of 802.11n.

Here's Wilcox's assessment:

In my experience, most Vista problems are a result of insufficient computing power or incompatible software applications or drivers. I resolved the former by moving to the lovely Lenovo ThinkPad T60p. Vista still is a dog getting out of the gate, meaning slow bootup or wakeup, but she's a gallant race horse once moving.

Are you ready to saddle up?

I'm not, but I know that in five years, it'll all be old hat.

Where did I see a boxed version of Windows XP? At Target. Of course they have just about every version of Vista (which you have to ask for from behind the counter, lest you tuck the smallish package somewhere on your person and leave without paying). But XP is right there -- the upgrade, not a full version -- for you to purchase while you still can.

By the way, Vista goes from $199 up to $200-something. I just can't see ANYBODY going for that. If you buy a new PC and Vista is already on it, that's one thing. But paying an additional $100 to $200 to upgrade from XP? Who is doing that?

Also at Target:

A Microsoft package that includes Works and the 2002 version of Word, among other things. I think it was $99.

A competing "Office" suite from a company I'd never heard of for $20 (never mind that Open Office is free)

Nero for $99. (WHAT are they smoking?)