Apparently, government agencies have figured out a way to make Vista run smoothly (many of them will be upgrading to Windows 7 from that OS, rather than XP). Fred figured out how to do it, too:
I made sure the notebook I could only get with Vista -- and not XP Pro which I'd have preferred -- came with a good 3GB of RAM (to minimize swapping), and disabled UAC (only way I could get write access to my HOSTS file).
-Fred
After Microsoft's release of Windows Mobile 6.5, Doug asked readers to share their favorite mobile OS. The answers so far aren't in Microsoft's favor:
This is a surprising question because the answer is obvious (and sorry, but being a Microsoft puppet, you are not going to like it). It is the iPhone.
Microsoft is lucky to have a franchise called Windows; it is the de facto choice even if it is not good. We make money because off of it but we do not like the company. We especially do not like the CEO. There is no innovation from the company.
-Dhiren
My favorite phone is the iPhone. As soon as 2.0 was released, it became a useful corporate (i.e., MS Exchange) tool. It works reliably, unlike the Treo, and it doesn't require me to maintain a server, like the BlackBerry. The interface is as intuitive as TiVo. And unlike TiVo, features get added regularly!
Most importantly, it features an intuitive UI that just makes sense, unlike the Office 2007 ribbon and so many other things out of Redmond.
-Todd
And Walt gives his Bing feedback -- and it's not very good:
I was looking for some information on installing the VS.NET 2008 Remote Debugger a couple of weeks ago, and for some reason, when I asked for Google from IE, it threw me over to Bing. I searched for "vs.net 2008 remote debugger." The mish-mash of stuff that came up there was very unhelpful.
I then re-requested Google and got it. Bingo -- found what I wanted with the same exact search within the first two items returned! How can Microsoft not even deeply index their own sites as well as Google does?
-Walt
Share your thoughts by writing a comment here or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/12/2009 at 1:17 PM0 comments
I've been doing this work so long that I've seen first-hand the move from 16 to 32 to 64 bits (and used my fair share of tortoise-like 8-bit machines, as well). More recently, I've witnessed the rise of multicore processors, which are slowly being exploited by new software.
But like drag racing, the quest for computing speed is never-ending, and the next generation is clearly 128 bits -- with multiple cores, to boot!
Now rumors are flying that Windows 8, likely a few years out, will exploit all 128 bits in a 128-bit processor. And with Microsoft developing tools for multicore, Windows 8 could be one smokin' OS.
But just to warn you, there's only an infinitesimal basis for this rumor. In fact, it comes from a LinkedIn posting from a Microsoft insider apparently working on the project. Microsoft won't even admit this person exists!
What would you do with a 128-bit multicore computer? Crunch the numbers and shoot your findings to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/09/2009 at 1:17 PM8 comments
Some patches are good. When I was a teenaged hippie, I had nearly a hundred patches hand-sewn on my jeans. The pants were so frayed, my Swedish grandmother replaced the whole backside, which also soon got patched.
Other patches aren't so good -- patches on inner tubes that fall off faster than a 4-year-old on a two-wheeler, and "Patch Adams" are examples of that.
Microsoft patches are almost always good, so I'm optimistic that next Tuesday there will be another fine batch. And what a big batch it will be. Eight fixes are deemed critical (often, that term is scarier than need be).
These are equal-opportunity patches hitting everything from databases to productivity software to dev tools like Silverlight. And, of course, there's Windows. Windows needs so many patches I'm starting to worry about moths!
Most of these tools are beset by the same old beast: remote code execution exploits. Darn them! But the reliable denial-of-service and spoofing attacks also made a comeback. Give the hackers points for bringing back a couple of classics.
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/09/2009 at 1:17 PM0 comments
Doug asked recently whether readers saw a serious advantage in getting a higher-end version of Windows 7 instead of a low-end version. Here are some of your thoughts:
For most consumers, the short answer is "eye candy." Otherwise, no! Most consumers would find Windows 7 Starter to be just fine on hardware with under 4GB of RAM. (Windows 7 needs no more than 2GB for most consumers.) That's why Microsoft has severely restricted the hardware on which it can be sold. And there is NO retail channel for Windows 7 Starter. Windows 7 starter will not allow any customization of the wallpaper and it won't run AERO. I don't recall if Starter will do back ups or not but that would be the only BIG issue for most consumers.
Microsoft has good reasons for offering three editions in the U.S., though they should be named simply Home, Professional and Ultimate/Enterprise. But by making Starter available anywhere in the industrialized world (and even talking about Home Basic), Microsoft is just giving itself a black eye in terms of public perception.
-Marc
I would prefer to use Windows 2000 Pro over the featureless versions of Windows 7 Starter.
-Anonymous
From a price standpoint, Ultimate makes no sense. My clients, all small businesses, have not moved to Vista but they are looking at Windows 7. But for them, I cannot justify spending the additional amount for the Ultimate version.
Microsoft needs to simplify the options. Take us back to the days of Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 Server. I can almost justify one version of Home version, but why two? What Microsoft fails to understand is the cost to maintain these different versions, let alone explain them. And I cannot believe that their transaction costs are higher with all these versions. I would love to see a breakdown of the market share of all the XP and Vista versions.
-Thomas
And more readers share their Windows 7 adoption plans, while others explain why they'll stick with the older OSes:
I have been running Windows 7 since the beta, and I loved the RC. I have already transitioned all of my personal consulting systems to Windows 7, and have VMs to run XP for testing. I have also already started to advise my clients who have Software Assurance to make plans to transition off Vista within the next four to six months if they have the budget to pay for my consulting time. And for customers who don't have SA but are running Vista, I have already started a migration plan for them to transition away from Vista as quickly as they can.
While I thought XP was a great OS, and I was never a Vista hater, I can't see why places with active SAs in place wouldn't be diving to get 7 in place after they complete their application portfolio testing and validation. This is even more important for sites that made the Vista plunge; I enjoyed my laptop much better after moving away from Vista. As far as performance goes, Windows 7 is hands-down better than either XP or Vista on older equipment. The first platform I installed 7 on was a 3 year-old Dell 6000. Other than running Linux, I never got better performance from the system.
-Jeff
I appreciate functional enhancements, but I do not like Windows 7's (and Vista's) Disneyland look and feel. For example, what is the deal with green folders? Are we at the Haunted Mansion? And why do I have a pile of junk visibly spilling out of all my folders? We do not need to see snippets of files spilling out into Windows Explorer! Lastly, everything is in a different place with a monologue next to a link. I do not want to read 'War and Peace' just to change my desktop settings! Who thought of this mess?
XP is great -- easy on the eyes, you can find everything, the folders look like folders. Windows 7 works great but XP looks better and does not have all the boring text links that explain things to tears.
-Steven
I am building a new screaming-fast machine for Windows 7, but I also have nine other machines that run on different operating systems. Four use Windows 2000, two use XP, two use Windows 98 and one uses DOS. Why so many different operating systems? Software compatibility. Contrary to the hype, most software only seems to function on the operating system it was designed for, and I need to use some of that old software. Using different operating systems actually saves me time, money and headaches. Enough said.
-Alan
On my home network, Windows 2000 Pro and Server still carry the majority of the load. Only two machines out of seven have XP, and that is because they came with it. At work, we are currently 100 percent XP on the desktop, but plans are to move to Windows 7 in the middle of next year.
Windows 7 is pretty but that is not a compelling reason to spend a bunch of money on it.
-Anonymous
As a self-employed MCP, I support smaller busnesses -- generally well under 100 employees and less than 50 computers. These people don't what the OS is; as long as the computer runs their applications with reasonable speed, they are not going to run out and buy a new PC. If forced to upgrade to Windows 7, they will do so on a case-by-case basis in order to run newer applications. I advise my clients to advance only when it is absolutely necessary.
Personally, I will wait at least until SP1 comes out. I have avoided many pitfalls by choosing OSes carefully.
-Lyle
I've been using Windows 7 since the beta and have sent in many reports with recommended fixes or improvements. I was pleased to see Microsoft actually respond and fix these (most likely because many beta testers also sent in responses). The final product is a very stable and very good OS. I really like having virtualization built in.
Windows 7 is the future, so there is no sense ignoring it or burying your head in the sand and pretending otherwise. I give Microsoft kudos -- although next time, it needs to make sure marketing isn't driving the bus to push out a product before it's ready.
-John
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/09/2009 at 1:17 PM0 comments
Some reports are suggesting that a higher-than-expected percentage of users will stick with XP rather than move to Windows 7. But that doesn't apply to these readers:
I'd start deploying Windows 7 at work tomorrow if there was budget for it (sigh). I plan to buy a new laptop with Windows 7 on Oct. 22 for home. I've used Windows 7 at work personally since it was available through MVL. It is far superior to Vista with no real issues to keep XP around.
-Jim
I am sick of XP, to tell you the truth, though I got my money's worth out of it. I received a free upgrade to Vista when I bought my Dell a few years ago and never installed it, mostly because of the bad press. Now, I can upgrade to Windows 7 for $200 (Ultimate), but I have to do a clean install from XP which is a drag. I'm looking to "upgrade" to Vista for a couple weeks, then go to Windows 7 to take advantage of the upgrade pricing and hopefully not have to re-install 50 applications (go ahead and say it).
XP is just not taking advantage of newer machines. Since i/o prioritizations was introduced in Vista, Windows has the architecture of a "mature" OS, but most people just don't realize the difference it will make. It will take all day Saturday to do the upgrades, but it will be worth it in the long haul.
-Bill
Windows 7 does everything that XP does and more (at least, everything that I have tried to run). I have been running 7 since the beta and now RC1 (on a MacBook, no less). Pre-ordered 7 for 50 bucks back in late June -- can't wait until the 22nd!
-Mike
At home, I've already moved to Windows 7. As for work, all new laptops issued to my employees will have Windows 7 on them. I see no reason to move to Vista, and then to Windows 7.
-Steve
Microsoft released its free anti-virus solution last week, but Jeff already has one of those -- and he's not switching:
I'm very happy with Avast anti-virus from Alwil Software. It's free, for home, personal use! No more paying Norton et al. for annual updates, or being swayed into buying a whole new package instead of the virus updates. Runs way faster than Norton, too, which was slow when downloading large files like pictures. I haven't been aware of having any virus problems that Avast missed. Not sure how Microsoft could be better if they're both free.
-Jeff
And finally, readers share their thoughts on Steve Ballmer's recent unfavorable assessment of IBM's business moves:
Ballmer's analysis is correct as to why IBM got out of these businesses, but their service model is dramatically different than Microsoft's. IBM has ALWAYS been a service company. They sell and lease computer hardware in order to lease software. There is far less profit in hardware than there is in software. IBM cannot afford to sell commodity hardware; there is just too little profit in it to pay for their sales force, which can make a lot more money for IBM by selling proprietary solutions and the services needed to keep them running.
Whether the IBM model can survive in the future is hard to say, but IBM is still the largest computer services company in the world. Microsoft is merely the largest SOFTWARE company in the world. Ballmer is just trying to poke IBM in the eye. It is a waste of his time and ours.
-Marc
IBM is old, slow and out of gas!
-Anonymous
Check in on Friday for more letters, including thoughts on Windows 7 editions and more. Meanwhile, leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/07/2009 at 1:17 PM0 comments
The U.S. federal government may not always make the best choices (have you looked at our tax code lately?), but in the case of operating systems, it mimics the best thinking of many of you Redmond Report readers. The feds have largely skipped over Vista and are now gung ho for Windows 7.
Other areas of the government, however, are on Vista, and for them the move to Windows 7 will be a tad easier. Apparently, Vista government shops tend to be more disciplined, patch and update their software frequently, and are careful in application choices and configuration. And that's precisely why Vista works so well in these well-run environments.
What did you do to make Vista run smooth? Share your secrets at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/07/2009 at 1:17 PM2 comments
For those who care about market size, SMB means small to medium-size businesses. For Windows IT mavens, it means Server Message Block, which is a way of sharing files.
Anything that shares is a vector for intrusion, and security gurus believe that Microsoft's SMBv2 is ripe for attack. In fact, code to do nasty things to SMB has already been written. But Microsoft appears nonplussed and may or not patch SMB during this month's Patch Tuesday.
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/07/2009 at 1:17 PM0 comments
While the PC market is dominated by Windows (with Apple getting a small slice and Linux a sliver), the mobile phone space has more competitors than "Dancing with the Stars." There's Palm, Apple, Google, BlackBerry, Microsoft and more. Microsoft has been in this market for years and must be dumbfounded that it doesn't rule.
But Microsoft barely ever says "uncle." It just released Windows Mobile 6.5, which has a full QWERTY keyboard (not full-size, of course) that can either work through a touch screen or keypad.
While proud of its product, Microsoft isn't overselling 6.5. Steve Ballmer admits that 6.5 doesn't have a full set of enterprise features, but that Windows Mobile 7.0 sure will. Meanwhile, the reviewers are pulling out their knives, slashing and stabbing the poor, defenseless Windows Mobile 6.5.
What's your favorite phone OS? Call in your votes to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/07/2009 at 1:17 PM1 comments
Doug asked last week whether Microsoft should've been made to pay that $388 million Uniloc fine (now overturned) just for making product activation a pain. These readers think not:
"Activation pain and suffering"? I don't know about you but I haven't gotten a false negative on WGA since the first time I used it under XP. I ignored the error and within a week, Microsoft had fixed it. I haven't had a problem with WGA since then, and I have upgraded my system to Vista and now to Windows 7. Once, I did move a legal copy of Vista Ultimate from one machine to another and a very courteous Microsoft representative manually registered my hardware for me. No questions asked.
In the end, Microsoft has a right to do what it can to make sure that Windows is being used legally. Whether WGA is effective enough to be worth the bad PR Microsoft has gotten over it is a different question. Frankly, I don't think that WGA is an effective deterrent against the real pirates -- those selling copies of Windows on the streets of Beijing. The very idea of it upsets a lot of honest, upstanding customers. But again, if Microsoft doesn't mind being bad-mouthed over WGA, they have every right to employ it to protect their intellectual property. It's certainly no skin off my back.
-Marc
No, they should not have to pay the consumer. In the first place, what inconvenience did the consumer suffer? The inability to steal a software product from the manufacturer? The product activation process is painless.
If people were honest, Microsoft would not be forced into product activation-type tactics. I am amazed at how many people pirate software. Does anyone realize the number of coding hours these products require? From that standpoint, the price Microsoft asks is extremely reasonable. As the owner of a company that does software programming for a living, I understand the need to protect your product. Stealing is wrong, and copying software to multiple machines without a valid (paid-for) license is stealing. Microsoft and any other company has the right to protect their investment.
-Arlene
Are you a Binger or a Googler? Readers share their search engine of choice:
I won't leave Google until there's plenty of talk about something else being better. So far there's not.
-Jeff
Bing and Google are on par, though I like Bing better for most searches. Bing gets me where I want to go quicker than Google.
-Anonymous
Bing is cool but I haven't found a compelling reason to switch from Google. A side-by-side search on each with the term "deploy Windows 7" produced twice as many hits on Google with links to the TechNet deployment site at the top. Bing had one TechNet blog link more than halfway down the first page but no other direct links to MS info.
It may take a while for Bing to provide more relevant hits but I'm afraid I have work to do, so I'll stick with Google.
-J.C.
And finally, if wishes were horses...
My first thought for a dream IT job is tech support for point-of-sale terminals in tropical beachside bars -- money being no object.
-Anonymous
Stay tuned for more letters on Wednesday! Meanwhile, tell us your thoughts by commenting below or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/05/2009 at 1:17 PM0 comments
It's official. The starter version of Windows 7 for netbooks will no longer be crippled.
Windows 7 Starter isn't the beefiest Windows ever, to begin with. It's 32-bit only, can't play DVDs and doesn't have the XP compatibility mode. But originally, someone in Redmond had the brain-dead idea of letting it run only three apps at a time. I'm currently running four apps, and I've just booted my machine!
Do you see a true advantage in higher-end editions of Windows, like Ultimate, versus low-end versions? Give me the hows and wherefores at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/05/2009 at 1:17 PM5 comments
IT expert and author Brian Posey thinks that despite all the love for Windows 7, many will in fact stick with good old XP. Why? He offers 10 good reasons.
Many fear that XP product support will vanish, but Posey points out that official support will be around for five more years. XP also doesn't need a lot of PC horsepower, which is a huge advantage over Vista. (But Redmond Report readers have told me that Windows 7 runs great on low-end machines, so I'm not sure I side with Posey on this one.)
Brian also touts XP's compatibility, but I think Windows 7's XP Mode squashes that advantage.
However, recent research backs up Posey's claims, showing that many of you will drag your Windows 7 feet. What are your Windows 7 plans? Send details to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/05/2009 at 1:17 PM9 comments
If it seems that I've been writing a lot about Steve Ballmer, it's because he's been on a whirlwind tour of speeches and interviews. Let's face it -- the man has a lot to say.
In a recent interview, Ballmer explained why I have yet to buy myself a Mac laptop (even though my three kids old enough to compute all have them). Macs are simply too expensive.
Given that PC laptops and netbook prices are falling faster than Steven Seagal box office receipts, it's no wonder that Apple sales are suddenly flat. Now that Windows 7 offers a faster, slicker, more stable PC platform, Apple really should respond.
Meanwhile, where I used to dream of a Mac lapper, I'm now jonesin' for a Windows 7 netbook. Three hundred bucks ought to get me that dream!
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/05/2009 at 1:17 PM5 comments