Coincidentally, your last part of comments is exactly what I’ve said in my previous post.

PS: Your comment was flagged as spam, which is why it didn’t appear immediately, which is why I didn’t reply immediately. Oh well…..

@Ricky: Security features should not be in-your-face, and UAC can work right once lazy app developers get off their ass and start writing apps that do not require admin rights. However, MS has been pretty lame themselves in not widely publicizing this aspect. Which is one more reason why I hope they get it right with Win7. Like I said, I’m not a plain MS hater, just a Vista hater (in many but not all aspects).

And yeah, I do turn off my AV at times, and I haven’t had a virus or vulnerability in Windows XP. Come to think of it, I’ll be writing a post on how I do it. And yes, you can do it.

Well if people are going to run off security features then it probably won’t be secure…

While they are at it why not just turn off the firewall because its annoying having to open ports for programs?

Why not just turn off A/V as well because scanning really takes up some time?

Lets just go crazy and leave our front doors open because its so annoying unlocking the door and opening it!

And then we can complain when our home security isn’t up to much!

#1: “7″ won’t be out till early 2010, and the system requirements for “7″ will be the recommended requirements for Vista (Microsoft is saying they’re trying to achieve this, but we are not arguing Microsoft’s ability to deliver on their word).

Any institution upgrading to Vista now will *not* need to upgrade for 7, hence the question of extra costs is a one time. Either they do it now, or they do it later. All that “Personal Training” doesn’t make sense to me (see my tweets), so I can’t talk about that. But if a company is holding out because of costs for Windows 7, they’re not really thinking.

#2: This is the *one* argument against Vista. The hardware requirements are really high. But if you compare an equivalent Mac, you’ll see that you’re as restricted to high end hardware (at high costs) as your are with Vista. If you’re willing to change to a Mac, good for you. But don’t talk about high costs in that case.

#3: Millions (not thousands) downgraded because they had driver issues. Microsoft tried to break the driver API to implement a better (in their view, again subjective to *actually* better) system. They messed up. Companies had to write their drivers all over again, which in the Microsoft world is virtually unheard of because they’ve maintained backward compatibility above everything else. This is partly Microsoft’s fault (for spoiling the industry) and partly the companies’ fault (for being lulled into a comfort zone). Ultimately, it’s the users who suffered. Putting all the blame on Vista is wrong.

#4: Vista might be a ghost of what Longhorn was supposed to be, but a shiny new XP it is not. The simple case of sandboxed applications that connect to the Internet is the best one. XP doesn’t do that. Microsoft has tried to duplicate Unix’s user level access and (though they’ve taken a shortcut by putting the responsibility on the end user) have succeeded to a certain extent.

If Microsoft had waited any longer to get Vista out, they’d have been hard pressed to actually get any proper adoption after all the hype they created. I’ll agree they have to learn this art all over again from Apple and Jobs.

(You have #4 twice)

#5: See first part of #4

#6: Vista’s main problem is the price tag that comes with it. I don’t know what Microsoft was thinking when they priced it so. People had to upgrade hardware because they were using *very* outdated specifications. We (Mac users) always have the highest bracket of hardware for the time we buy our computers. That (by principle) lasts us for 3-4 years. You can keep pushing it for 5-6, but eventually something like “Snow Leopard” will turn up which will require the hardware upgrade.

If you buy a 512MB RAM in 2007-08, you’re a douche. If you’re a douche, you might as well run Home Basic and not crib about having an inferior OS. Yes, Tiger and Leopard run perfectly (at full steam) on the same 512MB, but I’m staying clear of comparing OS X and Vista, otherwise this will become a longer comment, and more of a catfight.

——–

All I’m saying is take nothing away from Vista. It is an amazing OS *in itself*. It just falls short of innovation when you begin comparing it to what’s out there, and starts to look like a transition rather than a stable release. Your arguments are futile both from a common consumer as well as an engineering point of view.

Microsoft should have upped the hardware ante with the service packs, so that when people had to upgrade for Vista, it wouldn’t seem like such a big jump, and they could have just upgraded the required parts rather than dump their whole machine altogether. They should have also used the extra time they took to redo the architecture and fix their OS design. Windows’ biggest enemy is the buttload of weight that is dragging behind it with every successive release. Microsoft has to take the stand Apple did 8 years ago when they released OS X. Start with a clean slate, and don’t care about breaking previous applications if it is all for the greater good.

Hope this puts things into some perspective.