Reasons not to migrate to Windows Vista

[sluzbenik]

The two worst things are the new reliance on NTFS permissions for more than everything and the license scheme if it holds. Otherwise I actually like the look, and the set-up is clear.

I am not a permissions expert and I don't want to be. Most people will figure out how to turn off UAC and will run as system administrator (the hidden account) and security will be no better than in XP.

Despite having set all access permissions for all users on my machine I still can't acces Vista's "documents and settings" folder from my XP build (I'm dual-booting using separate hard drives). I mean, WTF, you're going to lock me out of my system on a local disc and not tell me how to fix it?

I don't see Microsoft addressing any of these issues. When I see some simple tutorials or mechanisms in Vista that tell you how to get modify/write access to "My Documents" or god forbid, Program Files, on an XP machine (network or local drive) then I might consider upgrading. Right now it is too much of a pain. Trying to set up streaming on home networks, printers, file sharing, will be a total nightmare for most people.

 

[SuperFly03]

Despite having set all access permissions for all users on my machine I still can't acces Vista's "documents and settings" folder from my XP build (I'm dual-booting using separate hard drives). I mean, WTF, you're going to lock me out of my system on a local disc and not tell me how to fix it?

I am not sure if you missed the changes but here is how the situation presents itself to me: M$ seperated the settings in documents in settings and the my documents generic crap from each other and then locked the actual settings folder while retaining access to the documents and other crap. Under XP you can access the "Vista Local Disk\Users" (whatever drive letter that is for you) folder and bingo.... your listing of users, pick one, and then inside there is all the usual documents, desktop, pictures, music and other folders you would expect. Again, I suspect M$ seperated them out so they could secure some inherent user account settings inside a hidden folder inaccessable outside vista. Of course, this is my interpretation of M$'s actions, but given that I still have access to every document on my Vista hard drive in my XP boot, I am content, for now.

 

[bga]

Why do you think different rules apply for business and home users? Don't you work for a business? Aren't they damaged?

Because business:
1) Sees software costs as being part of doing business. Home users tend to think about them as money spend.
There are SO many things which you do for free in a home setting that businesses rutinely spends money on, as it is seen as a natural part of being in business. Examples: Accounting, cleaning (most private persons clean their own house), food (at home you cook, in a business setting you go to a restaurant), consulting (a have practicalliy no private clients. They will rather fiddle with Windows a whole weekend, than pay me 1 hour. Not so with business).

2) As I mentioned earlier: Business are vulnerable to disgruntled employees who report them.

3) Law is soooo much harder on businesses pirating than private users.

4) Business income depends on having software. Not so with home users. You will get your salary - it does not depend on you having Far Cry installed at home.

Of course, you don't see what piracy does for small developers. That's because they've failed and gone under.
Some developers stop / go under. People bemoan the loss of choice and blame the bigger developers and concentrate on pirating them instead. These bigger developers survive because some people still buy their software and pay a price high enough to compensate for all the thieves.

I have worked for several small developers my self (and been one my self). Some have gone under, but none due to piracy. Some of the reasons for failure I have seen: Bad project management, getting crushed by Microsoft, cost of Windows development, getting competed out by the public sector which poured millions of tax money into a "free" alternative.
Small developers are vulnerable, because one error can cost them their busniness. Big business can accept some errors because of multiple products and established cashflow. Contrary to what you say, bigger developers also sell the software much cheaper than smaller developers can do.
As you say, smaller developers come and go, but piracy has nothing to do with it.

People won't pay what they perceive as higher prices / too high prices for things so they pirate. Either that or they pirate just because they can.Prices and costs increase as a result, as does more prohibitive copy protection systems (which I don't like more than anyone)

Piracy is rampant in some countries and many home users, which is a problem if you depend on those markets. But for most software there is no problem. During the 1990's a successful consumer and business anti-copyprotection campaign created an environment where practically no copy protection was in place. During that period there was the biggest market increase and biggest drop in software prices in software history, even though there probably was more copying as well.
Even today smaller developers sees an advantage of doing without copyprotection/activation. Why is it that WordPerfect with a 3% market share is not protected, but MS Office with a 95% market share is?

As I said: Copy protection does not make sense for small developers - it is for monopolist.

Piracy exists, and it is a vicious circle. When 'free' runs out, don't come moaning.

Even without copy protection, the software industry will thrive. And I would even say, it thrives because there is no protection. What it can't do without is legal protection, and people who earns money on other peoples work makes me angry. Either by earning money on their job by using pirated software or even worse by selling counterfeit software. But copy protection won't stop any of those - the russian mob will crack Vista - trust me.

 

[bga]

Now I haven't played around with Vista more than an hour, so I really don't know for sure (thats why I read/participate in this thread).
But at one of my Vista courses, I remember MS saying something about a way of creating compatability with programs which insist on administrator rights to run (not only during install). They are creating a "shadow" "program files" directory which the offending program are getting write permission to, while the real "program files" directory is read only. At the same time they are decreasing administrator rights as most people are using administrators as users (BAD habit - use an administrator only while installing, and let your normal daily user be just user).
My quesion is, have they created some form of "hyper administrator" to get access to those directories, or do the operating system use some other protection mechanism (which would be really bad) ?

Can any of you which have Vista installed, tell me what kind of NTFS permissions there is on these "locked" directories? (Try "cacls ." from the command prompt for example, if it is still in vista)

 

[qukza]

So is changing a motherboard going to be another device or how is microsoft defining a one time change of devices. Is this the same as XP or is this new legal jargon?

They are very vague. But I think a new mobo alone or possibly upgrading several other components at the same time. Ina Vista FAQ Microsoft say that upgrading HD and memory at the same time may require reactiviation.

They are also making this change out to be a clarification of what was implicit or what they intended to be the case for XP. I saw someone call that revisionist. I don't think it would stand up legally as that's not what it says in the XP EULA, retail or OEM. Whether it is practical for them to enforce the new Vista EULA is interesting question.

More discussion in Software>XP>General forum
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/software/license-quot-fit-customers-quot-ftopict232538.html

 

[pkellmey]

An MS rep was pushing the product at my corp. recently. Basically, he stated that for corp. licensing minor mods (memory upgrade, CPU, graphic cards) are not an issue if changed at a single time - he was not completely sure how many components equaled a new device. Motherboard changes and hard disk changeouts (because it has the key) will be considered "new devices" and require a new license purchase, but they expect it will be lower than the initial Vista license price for corps. The re-activation option for anything that was considered a "new device" was not possible - yet. He expected that they would change this when enough companies yelled by mid-December. However, he also stated that Vista for non-corporate licensing would allow 3 "new device" installations per license (3 PCs, 3 MBs, etc.) before it would require a new purchase to allow user upgrades. This all sounds like a muddled plan on MS part and I believe it will streamline before the 1st of the year.

 

[The_Abyss]

Why do you think different rules apply for business and home users? Don't you work for a business? Aren't they damaged?

Because business:
1) Sees software costs as being part of doing business. Home users tend to think about them as money spend.
There are SO many things which you do for free in a home setting that businesses rutinely spends money on, as it is seen as a natural part of being in business. Examples: Accounting, cleaning (most private persons clean their own house), food (at home you cook, in a business setting you go to a restaurant), consulting (a have practicalliy no private clients. They will rather fiddle with Windows a whole weekend, than pay me 1 hour. Not so with business).

2) As I mentioned earlier: Business are vulnerable to disgruntled employees who report them.

3) Law is soooo much harder on businesses pirating than private users.

4) Business income depends on having software. Not so with home users. You will get your salary - it does not depend on you having Far Cry installed at home.

Of course, you don't see what piracy does for small developers. That's because they've failed and gone under.
Some developers stop / go under. People bemoan the loss of choice and blame the bigger developers and concentrate on pirating them instead. These bigger developers survive because some people still buy their software and pay a price high enough to compensate for all the thieves.

I have worked for several small developers my self (and been one my self). Some have gone under, but none due to piracy. Some of the reasons for failure I have seen: Bad project management, getting crushed by Microsoft, cost of Windows development, getting competed out by the public sector which poured millions of tax money into a "free" alternative.
Small developers are vulnerable, because one error can cost them their busniness. Big business can accept some errors because of multiple products and established cashflow. Contrary to what you say, bigger developers also sell the software much cheaper than smaller developers can do.
As you say, smaller developers come and go, but piracy has nothing to do with it.

People won't pay what they perceive as higher prices / too high prices for things so they pirate. Either that or they pirate just because they can.Prices and costs increase as a result, as does more prohibitive copy protection systems (which I don't like more than anyone)

Piracy is rampant in some countries and many home users, which is a problem if you depend on those markets. But for most software there is no problem. During the 1990's a successful consumer and business anti-copyprotection campaign created an environment where practically no copy protection was in place. During that period there was the biggest market increase and biggest drop in software prices in software history, even though there probably was more copying as well.
Even today smaller developers sees an advantage of doing without copyprotection/activation. Why is it that WordPerfect with a 3% market share is not protected, but MS Office with a 95% market share is?

As I said: Copy protection does not make sense for small developers - it is for monopolist.

Piracy exists, and it is a vicious circle. When 'free' runs out, don't come moaning.

Even without copy protection, the software industry will thrive. And I would even say, it thrives because there is no protection. What it can't do without is legal protection, and people who earns money on other peoples work makes me angry. Either by earning money on their job by using pirated software or even worse by selling counterfeit software. But copy protection won't stop any of those - the russian mob will crack Vista - trust me.

You can try an justify theft as long and as often as you want. But that's all it is.

Theft.

One user with this attitude = no real problem.

Lots of them = a problem.

When you next moan about copy protection but suddenly there's no alternative think about why.

If you had nothing but $5,000 in your house and 500 people took $10 each, how would you feel? At what level does it become acceptable to you? When you come home and there is $4,000 left? You'll be saying that it is acceptable next to break another law and steal your neighbour's stuff to make up for your own loss....

Of course the software industry will continue to thrive. But saying that it will thrive because of theft is just stupid on so many levels.

 

[spud]

Why do you think different rules apply for business and home users? Don't you work for a business? Aren't they damaged?

Because business:
1) Sees software costs as being part of doing business. Home users tend to think about them as money spend.
There are SO many things which you do for free in a home setting that businesses rutinely spends money on, as it is seen as a natural part of being in business. Examples: Accounting, cleaning (most private persons clean their own house), food (at home you cook, in a business setting you go to a restaurant), consulting (a have practicalliy no private clients. They will rather fiddle with Windows a whole weekend, than pay me 1 hour. Not so with business).

2) As I mentioned earlier: Business are vulnerable to disgruntled employees who report them.

3) Law is soooo much harder on businesses pirating than private users.

4) Business income depends on having software. Not so with home users. You will get your salary - it does not depend on you having Far Cry installed at home.

Of course, you don't see what piracy does for small developers. That's because they've failed and gone under.
Some developers stop / go under. People bemoan the loss of choice and blame the bigger developers and concentrate on pirating them instead. These bigger developers survive because some people still buy their software and pay a price high enough to compensate for all the thieves.

I have worked for several small developers my self (and been one my self). Some have gone under, but none due to piracy. Some of the reasons for failure I have seen: Bad project management, getting crushed by Microsoft, cost of Windows development, getting competed out by the public sector which poured millions of tax money into a "free" alternative.
Small developers are vulnerable, because one error can cost them their busniness. Big business can accept some errors because of multiple products and established cashflow. Contrary to what you say, bigger developers also sell the software much cheaper than smaller developers can do.
As you say, smaller developers come and go, but piracy has nothing to do with it.

People won't pay what they perceive as higher prices / too high prices for things so they pirate. Either that or they pirate just because they can.Prices and costs increase as a result, as does more prohibitive copy protection systems (which I don't like more than anyone)

Piracy is rampant in some countries and many home users, which is a problem if you depend on those markets. But for most software there is no problem. During the 1990's a successful consumer and business anti-copyprotection campaign created an environment where practically no copy protection was in place. During that period there was the biggest market increase and biggest drop in software prices in software history, even though there probably was more copying as well.
Even today smaller developers sees an advantage of doing without copyprotection/activation. Why is it that WordPerfect with a 3% market share is not protected, but MS Office with a 95% market share is?

As I said: Copy protection does not make sense for small developers - it is for monopolist.

Piracy exists, and it is a vicious circle. When 'free' runs out, don't come moaning.

Even without copy protection, the software industry will thrive. And I would even say, it thrives because there is no protection. What it can't do without is legal protection, and people who earns money on other peoples work makes me angry. Either by earning money on their job by using pirated software or even worse by selling counterfeit software. But copy protection won't stop any of those - the russian mob will crack Vista - trust me.

You can try an justify theft as long and as often as you want. But that's all it is.

Theft.

One user with this attitude = no real problem.

Lots of them = a problem.

When you next moan about copy protection but suddenly there's no alternative think about why.

If you had nothing but $5,000 in your house and 500 people took $10 each, how would you feel? At what level does it become acceptable to you? When you come home and there is $4,000 left? You'll be saying that it is acceptable next to break another law and steal your neighbour's stuff to make up for your own loss....

Of course the software industry will continue to thrive. But saying that it will thrive because of theft is just stupid on so many levels.

Word, Playa.
Thieves Don't See Themselves As Thief, But Victims.

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

Do you ever say anything else?

 

[spud]

Do you ever say anything else?

If the occasion calls for it.

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

BRILLIANT! Now onto the whole topic of this forum...

Now I'm going to be doing a lot of restating here. Ok... this is to everyone...

You do all realize that this is beta software correct? Therefore why are you expecting it to be perfect? I'm not gonna lie, I've got a promise raid card that isn't supported right now under vista 32-bit but hey, I can live without it... Now let's see... overall though... I do understand why businesses wouldn't want to switch over to it and that's fine. I mean think about it, is the time and money worth it? Maybe, but I'm not the one to make that judment. Anyways, just more input for me. Now on the desktop/personal market I think it's very practical but I'll let everyone choose what they want but I'm getting the ultimate DVD hehe.

 

[bga]

You can try an justify theft as long and as often as you want. But that's all it is. If you had nothing but $5,000 in your house and 500 people took $10 each, how would you feel?

Absolutely nonsense :roll: . Copyright infringements are not theft, because you take nothing away from the owner. In your example above, I would be poorer when people take my money. When people copy my program, I don't lose anything. When the software industry, calculates piracy as lost sales, I think they are dishonest. Few people who copy would buy.
I will give you another analogy: If somebody gives you a lottery ticket to enter into a million dollar draw, and you don't win. How much have you lost?

 

[starwhite]

I was trying to convince my self I should upgrade to VISTA anyway....then I discovered a rather disturbing fact: Get this:

* you can upgrade your hardware twice without having to buy the whole OS again ( you can only change the HW once before your vista licence wont ever authenticate again....so, I decide to put in a new Board, harddrive. I guarantee it will authenticate once. What if I fry my MB, build a new PC? (which I've done no less that 7-8 times since Xp came out). Gee, I guess I'll have to shell out $$$ to M$. Not me. XP Forever.
Read this artice from Paul Thurrott's web. We are all basically screwed.
If you like to upgrade, say the latest Video card, memory, ETC...forget it!
Go on...check it out.

 

[rubiocesar83]

Good point Starwhite.....

I think even Bill Gates is tired of this never end game of upgrades...
that's why he is spending his time (time is money) elsewhere....

I will do the same.

 

[fattony]

eh...i like how this article sums up why vista is not going to do so well in the market place

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061010-7954.html

 

[starwhite]

Vista's Wanna be Mac look is silly. The overstuffed graphics are a real memory hog.

 

[Zoron]

One word sums this thread up nicely:



WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

(Thank you, Howard Stern)

 

[starwhite]

If the Corporate Monsters who run Microsoft are going to fill Vista full
Of spyware we should not support this as a whole. The so called EULA is disturbing. I will not support it. My family will not as well. We are real people. Not a soulless, corporate entity that does not think or feel like Microsoft. The Eula essentially means if I 'purchase a license' I can only install it twice. So, if my PC dies twice, this means I have to purchase a new copy of vista? Not happening. I will go to Linux I swear. What the pinheads at Microsoft are not getting, is that anyone who purchases a Vista License should only be able to use it on one PC at a time. A unique hardware key is assigned. If it is installed on a new PC the old ID should be cancelled in the system. Why not make people login to a site and actually activate the new key themselves, with their unique login. There is a program called Alcohol 120% that does this. The install is only good for one PC.
If I choose to reinstall 100 times, as long as it is one PC it should be
My decision. As of this writing I am urging everyone to not buy or support Windows vista. Let Microsoft know how we feel about their unfriendly, unwholesome, Anti American business practices.
Hey, I support the economy. I recently shelled out $1,500 for parts when I built my new server. Motherboard, Dual Xeons 3.4 GHz, 512 MB video card, 500 GB Sata HardDrive, 2 Gigs of DDr2 Ram. Microsoft does not care about the Upgraders, Gamers, and Geeks. We are on the leading edge. I hope Microshaft is sued.

 

[dasickninja]

.......... :roll:

 

[fattony]

i don't know if anyone has realized lately, but whether it's beta or not, the consumers are beta testers, ms is always behind scheduled so they release whatever they got, customers pay for it, find the bugs and call in to report them, then ms gets around to resolving them with hotfixes...we're just guiney pigs

 

[forpalmsonly]

Whiiiine. If you hate Vista so much why are you so obsesed about it?

 

[starwhite]

Listen- I have officially alpha and beta tested this product since it was called 'longhorn'. Ok??? I never expexted Microsoft to pull a fast one with the EULA thing. This one thing precludes me from using it. I LOVE to upgrade. Its not possible with Vista.

 

[starwhite]

Quotes from ‘The Matrix’ 1999

Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy, and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realise? Ignorance is bliss.

Microsoft is telling us according to the EULA that we do not own the software. We have very few rights.

I want everyone to check out this link: in detail it outlines the EULA.

Fair Warning:
you are a slave Neo, like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you can not smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see what it is for yourself. This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill the story ends. You wake up in bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I'm offering is the truth, nothing more."

http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/19/forbidding_vistas_windows_licensing_disserves_the_user.html

 

[forpalmsonly]

Okaaay.... you sound as bad as Mad Mod Mike and his entire "intel is the evil empire" Bs.

 

[rubiocesar83]

Starwhite:

I agree with you.

I've read all about this in Maximum PC...they're NOT happy either!

Nor should we.....