Windows is just not ready for the desktop

[stash]

Set a 'clear-list' of basically harmless common actions, and have the PC connect to Microsoft for the current 'clear-list', so the user isn't pestered for doing something like moving a start-menu item to a different location.

Think about this for a second: UAC is designed to fire when you run an app that by definition can do harmful things. IOW, UAC fires when it needs admin creds. If you need admin creds for something, it is no longer "basically harmless".

If that app really is harmless, and it requires admin rights to run, it needs to be written correctly to run as a standard user. That's really what UAC is all about.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Smilin
You are a repair shop after all, right? Do people with perfectly functional computers that require no upgrades, maintenance or repair really come to your shop?

I run a general Computer shop, I do networking, custom builds, repairs, and I sell for an ISP. So I'm a bit of a generalist, so much as I can keep my customers happy. And yes, one of the most common requests that I receive lately is 'Vista to XP' installation, and about half of these want docs/favorites/email transferred as well. 90% of the time, the Vista unit has no technical problems, it's just the user preferring XP I guess. Whatever, it's profit for me. I have a little 5-minute speech down where I explain Vista's more advanced features and future-proofing, but I'm not here to dictate to a customer what they want.


What he's saying is your views don't really match reality as a whole. If you are hearing NO positive comments regarding Vista then people with the positive comments aren't coming in your door... or are you really saying that there isn't a person on the face of the planet that likes Vista?

What reality is that? All I can do is deal with my clients as they come. I realize and agree that people are out there having positive experiences with Vista, and I'm happy for them. I have sold a few Vista boxes out of my shop, and haven't had many complaints (but nothing very positive, either :'( ) If you took by my post that I thought that no one on earth likes Vista, then I'm sorry for being unclear. I shall re-state somewhat :

Anecdotally, and FWIW : word-of-mouth and direct customer feedback on Vista around my area has been dismal at best. This is a low-tech area, but with a lot of oil and gas contractors running brand-new hardware with not a lot of computer experience. It seems the less-experienced the user, the less likely they are to adapt easily to Vista. I am willing to accept and even assume that the more savvy local users who are using Vista are having no major problems with it (hence no need to contact local computer support).

Maybe he sounds condescending because he thinks what you're saying is ridiculous. Dunno. Ask him in a less condescending tone and he might tell you. :thumbsup:

I don't care if anyone thinks what I'm saying is ridiculous, I'm just relating and being honest. I am personally not a big Vista fan, but I did plunk down the $$ and install it on my work and home systems, and I'm gathering lots of good info here (thanks Stash!) on how to help my customers with common issues. If you don't like hearing that Vista isn't perfect or universally accepted, it's not my problem

 

[Smilin]

Don't put words into my mouth. I said nothing about it being universally accepted. I just disagree with this:

Originally posted by: Arkaign
..of all of the people who have come through my door over the past few months, I have YET to hear a positive comment about Vista.

I wouldn't expect anything to be universally accepted. You could give out free boobies and someone would turn em down. I just don't agree that Vista is universally disliked. If for some reason everyone you are exposed to hates it then the sampling of people you are exposed to is small, atypical, or biased (or you are full of it and the above statement isn't accurate).

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: stash

Set a 'clear-list' of basically harmless common actions, and have the PC connect to Microsoft for the current 'clear-list', so the user isn't pestered for doing something like moving a start-menu item to a different location.

Think about this for a second: UAC is designed to fire when you run an app that by definition can do harmful things. IOW, UAC fires when it needs admin creds. If you need admin creds for something, it is no longer "basically harmless".

If that app really is harmless, and it requires admin rights to run, it needs to be written correctly to run as a standard user. That's really what UAC is all about.

Stash, I'll disagree with you on this one. What he's suggesting is reasonable, so much so that we've already talked publically around some of our plans in this area. Basically, if we know what the app is and know that while written badly it's 'ok', we can manage some of the prompting and leave it for the truely unknown...

Edit: Link to Rowan discussing some of our plans...

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Don't put words into my mouth. I said nothing about it being universally accepted. I just disagree with this:

Originally posted by: Arkaign
..of all of the people who have come through my door over the past few months, I have YET to hear a positive comment about Vista.

I wouldn't expect anything to be universally accepted. You could give out free boobies and someone would turn em down. I just don't agree that Vista is universally disliked. If for some reason everyone you are exposed to hates it then the sampling of people you are exposed to is small, atypical, or biased (or you are full of it and the above statement isn't accurate).

Clarity : notice that my example is anecdotal, and applies purely to local customer traffic FWIW/YMMV/etc

I think you personally just want to flame whenever there's even the perception of a negative comment towards Vista. Whatever.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Yeah, you were getting punked without my help.

Maybe just by the people who didn't understand what the post was about. How could I be punked when the only things I had trouble with were windows crapping out on me due to viruses and a few failed activation attempts because of a terrible phone connection?

I see now. You were trolling. Not sure if you noticed or not but when the "linux isn't ready" threads pop up, none of the knowledgable Windows users from this forum really participate. We tout the strengths of our OS. We don't need to point out the shortcomings of yours.

No trolling. I've been here for quite some time now and I bet you'd be hard pressed to find any examples of me trolling. The "linux isn't ready" threads are started by people who use the OS for a short time, find out they can't "download and double click", then say it's hard and reformat. I used XP for a short time over the past few weeks, was reminded that some things didn't work as easily as in linux, and made a post about it.

Where are the knowledgeable linux users in this thread? n0cmonkey came around but didn't say much, and Nothinman was just clarifying the purpose of the OP because I apparently didn't make it clear enough.

You sure? You thought you were smart enough to use Windows too.

Meh, I'll just email her a virus or something

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: stash

Set a 'clear-list' of basically harmless common actions, and have the PC connect to Microsoft for the current 'clear-list', so the user isn't pestered for doing something like moving a start-menu item to a different location.

Think about this for a second: UAC is designed to fire when you run an app that by definition can do harmful things. IOW, UAC fires when it needs admin creds. If you need admin creds for something, it is no longer "basically harmless".

If that app really is harmless, and it requires admin rights to run, it needs to be written correctly to run as a standard user. That's really what UAC is all about.

Stash, I'll disagree with you on this one. What he's suggesting is reasonable, so much so that we've already talked publically around some of our plans in this area. Basically, if we know what the app is and know that while written badly it's 'ok', we can manage some of the prompting and leave it for the truely unknown...

Edit: Link to Rowan discussing some of our plans...

Cool link Bsobel, this is exactly the kind of dialogue I was looking for! Thanks!

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: stash

Set a 'clear-list' of basically harmless common actions, and have the PC connect to Microsoft for the current 'clear-list', so the user isn't pestered for doing something like moving a start-menu item to a different location.

Think about this for a second: UAC is designed to fire when you run an app that by definition can do harmful things. IOW, UAC fires when it needs admin creds. If you need admin creds for something, it is no longer "basically harmless".

If that app really is harmless, and it requires admin rights to run, it needs to be written correctly to run as a standard user. That's really what UAC is all about.

I finally turned of UAC after it asked me if it was ok to rename my desktop icons over and over again. I like to have my icons with as few words as possible under them, so I'll rename them all to make them shorter. I guess malware could rename my files for some reason, but c'mon, my desktop icons? It was just aggravating as hell. I figure I didn't get virus' with XP, so I shouldn't get them with Vista. I keep a pretty close eye on my box, check out network traffic and other things. If by some chance I do get a virus, I think I'll notice it soon enough.

 

[bsobel]

I finally turned of UAC after it asked me if it was ok to rename my desktop icons over and over again. I like to have my icons with as few words as possible under them, so I'll rename them all to make them shorter. I guess malware could rename my files for some reason, but c'mon, my desktop icons?

Was this perhaps with a beta? I'm running release and can't reproduce this for the life of me. Can you possibly point out the steps (I just renamed my recycle bin, a folder, and a normal shortcut, none of which caused a UAC prompt)....

If by some chance I do get a virus, I think I'll notice it soon enough.

A lot of the new malware is designed for stealth to steal credentials, they aren't noisy like nimda and others. You'd be surprised how many machines that are 'fine' wind up infected (not saying this is your case, but relying on the box to act different is no longer a real tip-off to infection)

Bill

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I finally turned of UAC after it asked me if it was ok to rename my desktop icons over and over again. I like to have my icons with as few words as possible under them, so I'll rename them all to make them shorter. I guess malware could rename my files for some reason, but c'mon, my desktop icons?

Was this perhaps with a beta? I'm running release and can't reproduce this for the life of me. Can you possibly point out the steps (I just renamed my recycle bin, a folder, and a normal shortcut, none of which caused a UAC prompt)....

If by some chance I do get a virus, I think I'll notice it soon enough.

A lot of the new malware is designed for stealth to steal credentials, they aren't noisy like nimda and others. You'd be surprised how many machines that are 'fine' wind up infected (not saying this is your case, but relying on the box to act different is no longer a real tip-off to infection)

Bill

I'm using an application launcher gadget for the Sidebar now, so I don't really have proper icons anymore. I'll try it again over the next couple of days and get back to you. The icons I was renaming weren't anything special. Just normal programs and things. Every time I'd try to rename one UAC would pop up and ask me if it was ok. The first time I didn't mind, but after I got to about number 4 with a popup every time, I turned UAC off. This was in the released version Vista Business. I really like the concept of UAC, but I think the application of it could use a little tweaking.

 

[quikah]

I work with Linux and Windows on a daily basis, both can be kind of irritating. But there is one point about Linux which really chaps my hide. Drivers are tied to the kernel version. This, as an end user, is just mind bogglingly stupid. On windows, I apply a Service Pack and reboot, all my hardware still works. On Linux, I update the kernel and have to spend xx minutes recompiling drivers or downloading new version (if it even works, god help you if you try installing your poorly supported hardware on a new distro with a new userland tools version which are incompatible with the old stuff). Pisses me off enough to not bother with Linux on my personal system.

 

[bsobel]

I'm using an application launcher gadget for the Sidebar now, so I don't really have proper icons anymore. I'll try it again over the next couple of days and get back to you. The icons I was renaming weren't anything special. Just normal programs and things. Every time I'd try to rename one UAC would pop up and ask me if it was ok. The first time I didn't mind, but after I got to about number 4 with a popup every time, I turned UAC off. This was in the released version Vista Business. I really like the concept of UAC, but I think the application of it could use a little tweaking.

Thinking this over I'm willing to bet (I will have to test this later) that those icons where actually on the 'All Users' desktop and as such merged with yours. Renaming icons on the all users desktop can be a security risk (e.g. might trick another user into running app b when he thinks its app a).

I see the threat MS is trying to manage, need to think thru if I agree with it for home use or not (putting thinking cap on and heading out to grab a drink with my wife)...

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: quikah
I work with Linux and Windows on a daily basis, both can be kind of irritating. But there is one point about Linux which really chaps my hide. Drivers are tied to the kernel version. This, as an end user, is just mind bogglingly stupid. On windows, I apply a Service Pack and reboot, all my hardware still works. On Linux, I update the kernel and have to spend xx minutes recompiling drivers or downloading new version (if it even works, god help you if you try installing your poorly supported hardware on a new distro with a new userland tools version which are incompatible with the old stuff). Pisses me off enough to not bother with Linux on my personal system.

Let me guess, graphics drivers right?

If the drivers are tied to the kernel, then a kernel update will update the drivers, which is good. The problems people usually get with this is when there is a kernel module associated with a binary driver (which is not updated with the kernel.

 

[quikah]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: quikah
I work with Linux and Windows on a daily basis, both can be kind of irritating. But there is one point about Linux which really chaps my hide. Drivers are tied to the kernel version. This, as an end user, is just mind bogglingly stupid. On windows, I apply a Service Pack and reboot, all my hardware still works. On Linux, I update the kernel and have to spend xx minutes recompiling drivers or downloading new version (if it even works, god help you if you try installing your poorly supported hardware on a new distro with a new userland tools version which are incompatible with the old stuff). Pisses me off enough to not bother with Linux on my personal system.

Let me guess, graphics drivers right?

If the drivers are tied to the kernel, then a kernel update will update the drivers, which is good. The problems people usually get with this is when there is a kernel module associated with a binary driver (which is not updated with the kernel.

Yes and No, but it shouldn't matter, Linux has a braindead kernel interface. All the junk I have read is that it is this way to force people to opensource their drivers and put them in the kernel source. But the thing is, I DON'T CARE, I just want my hardware to work. (That is another aspect of Linux I can't stand, the whole OSS ideology. I just want to use my computer, not sign up to a new religion...)

The sick part? The last time I encountered this was for a NIC driver which my company wrote, so I have the source. But it was an old part which is not produced anymore. But the kernel interface is not stable, they change it every other version it seems, so I cannot compile the driver or maybe it was the userland version changes, I don't know, I didn't care. I gave up on trying to get it to work in SuSE 10 and just ran it in SuSE 9. Meanwhile the old Windows 2003 driver worked fine even after updating with the latest patches...

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Where are the knowledgeable linux users in this thread? n0cmonkey came around but didn't say much, and Nothinman was just clarifying the purpose of the OP because I apparently didn't make it clear enough.

Don't call Noc a knowledgable linux user, he might smack you....


The knowledgable Linux folks won't defend you when you troll....it's not their style. Just like when folks flame saying linux sucks, they will come out and correct the person.

Most of them prefer Linux because we feel its
1. Easier to use....it's like that infomercial, "Set it, and forget it"
2. Agree with GNU/Free Software ideals
3. Don't feel like we should pay for Windows (hence we don't use it)
4. Just plain are more comfortable/prefer it.


Most of them won't make outragous claims like "Linux is more [Stable/Secure/Fluffy] then windows because it might not be to all people.

your OS is the gateway to yoru tools, if you use Linux based tools, use Linux...if you game, or use Windows tools, use windows. /shrug, in the end, they are both just tools.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: quikah

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: quikah
I work with Linux and Windows on a daily basis, both can be kind of irritating. But there is one point about Linux which really chaps my hide. Drivers are tied to the kernel version. This, as an end user, is just mind bogglingly stupid. On windows, I apply a Service Pack and reboot, all my hardware still works. On Linux, I update the kernel and have to spend xx minutes recompiling drivers or downloading new version (if it even works, god help you if you try installing your poorly supported hardware on a new distro with a new userland tools version which are incompatible with the old stuff). Pisses me off enough to not bother with Linux on my personal system.

Let me guess, graphics drivers right?

If the drivers are tied to the kernel, then a kernel update will update the drivers, which is good. The problems people usually get with this is when there is a kernel module associated with a binary driver (which is not updated with the kernel.

Yes and No, but it shouldn't matter, Linux has a braindead kernel interface. All the junk I have read is that it is this way to force people to opensource their drivers and put them in the kernel source. But the thing is, I DON'T CARE, I just want my hardware to work. (That is another aspect of Linux I can't stand, the whole OSS ideology. I just want to use my computer, not sign up to a new religion...)

The sick part? The last time I encountered this was for a NIC driver which my company wrote, so I have the source. But it was an old part which is not produced anymore. But the kernel interface is not stable, they change it every other version it seems, so I cannot compile the driver or maybe it was the userland version changes, I don't know, I didn't care. I gave up on trying to get it to work in SuSE 10 and just ran it in SuSE 9. Meanwhile the old Windows 2003 driver worked fine even after updating with the latest patches...

That is your companies fault for writing crappy drivers. I use Linux and update several boxes whenever there are patches I feel need applied. I have only had a problem with one kernel update, and that was because I was remote, and running a compiled module because Intel hadn't pushed the driver to support their newer hardware into the older kernels.

Linux doesn't require you to open source your driver, but it's a hell of a lot easier to make decent hardwere, document the hardware API's and ship a few cards out and let the community do it for you....

Blaming Linux/the Kernel for your companies driver is like blaming windows for crappy drivers....it's your job to write drivers.

 

[quikah]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: quikah

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: quikah
I work with Linux and Windows on a daily basis, both can be kind of irritating. But there is one point about Linux which really chaps my hide. Drivers are tied to the kernel version. This, as an end user, is just mind bogglingly stupid. On windows, I apply a Service Pack and reboot, all my hardware still works. On Linux, I update the kernel and have to spend xx minutes recompiling drivers or downloading new version (if it even works, god help you if you try installing your poorly supported hardware on a new distro with a new userland tools version which are incompatible with the old stuff). Pisses me off enough to not bother with Linux on my personal system.

Let me guess, graphics drivers right?

If the drivers are tied to the kernel, then a kernel update will update the drivers, which is good. The problems people usually get with this is when there is a kernel module associated with a binary driver (which is not updated with the kernel.

Yes and No, but it shouldn't matter, Linux has a braindead kernel interface. All the junk I have read is that it is this way to force people to opensource their drivers and put them in the kernel source. But the thing is, I DON'T CARE, I just want my hardware to work. (That is another aspect of Linux I can't stand, the whole OSS ideology. I just want to use my computer, not sign up to a new religion...)

The sick part? The last time I encountered this was for a NIC driver which my company wrote, so I have the source. But it was an old part which is not produced anymore. But the kernel interface is not stable, they change it every other version it seems, so I cannot compile the driver or maybe it was the userland version changes, I don't know, I didn't care. I gave up on trying to get it to work in SuSE 10 and just ran it in SuSE 9. Meanwhile the old Windows 2003 driver worked fine even after updating with the latest patches...

That is your companies fault for writing crappy drivers. I use Linux and update several boxes whenever there are patches I feel need applied. I have only had a problem with one kernel update, and that was because I was remote, and running a compiled module because Intel hadn't pushed the driver to support their newer hardware into the older kernels.

Linux doesn't require you to open source your driver, but it's a hell of a lot easier to make decent hardwere, document the hardware API's and ship a few cards out and let the community do it for you....

Blaming Linux/the Kernel for your companies driver is like blaming windows for crappy drivers....it's your job to write drivers.

No, it is not a crappy driver, the kernel interface changed between SuSE 9 kernel and SuSE 10 (I am guessing, could have been one of the many other userland changes). So all the kernel changes between the two releases would need to be backported to update the driver. This is stupid in my mind, but it is what the Linux kernel developers wants because it makes it a pain for anyone to support a driver outside the kernel source.

http://lwn.net/Articles/159313/

I understand the reasoning, and honestly I think it was a good idea when Linux was a lot less mature, a rapidly changing kernel was good to bring everything up to snuff. I just find it to be incompatible with how I want to use my system now.

Truthfully I don't care how it all works, I am not a developer just an end-user. I just find Windows update process a lot smoother for me.

 

[drag]

There is NO KERNEL INTERFACE FOR LINUX DRIVERS.
NONE.

People talk about stable ABI or API for kernel drivers, there is no such thing. Between Suse 9 and Suse 10 they changed _kernels_. If you want to use old kernel modules the only real way is to use old kernels.

There is NO ABI, there is no stable API.

Kernel module files are mearly bits of kernel code. They can be compiled into the kernel or not. They do not have to be all compiled at the same time, but the kernel modules are only ment for one specific version of kernels. Even if your using the same kernel source code and same versions there is no garrentee that a recompile by one person can be compatable with a recompile from another person. It can be as simple as changing kernel parameters or using a different version of GCC.

It's simply not designed to work that way.

The only things you have are interfaces exposed to userspace like system calls, and files in the /dev, /proc, and /sys directories.

Truthfully I don't care how it all works, I am not a developer just an end-user. I just find Windows update process a lot smoother for me.

You mean Windows lack-of-updates.

When Windows is using the same kernel for 5 years it's easy to talk about easy updates, because there _isn't_any_. You using pretty much the same kernel as when Windows XP was released in 2001.

When going from Windows XP to Windows 2003, or between Windows XP and Windows XP-64 and Vista 32bit and Vista 64bit then drivers are a very hit-and-miss thing for Windows. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, sometimes they have random small bugs causing things like BSOD when you try to do certain operation.

And this is Windows being designed specificly for this stuff. You have the Windows HAL and different personalities and stable driver interfaces and such. All in all this makes the NT kernel a order of magnitude larger and more complex then Linux and it still doesn't mean that you can trust that your XP drivers are going to work in Vista.

If you want a similar experiance in Linux then don't use stuff like OpenSuse, Fedora, or Ubuntu. You want to stick with long-term stuff like Redhat, CentOS, or Debian Stable. That way you only have to deal with kernel upgrades every 3 years or so.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
...
and do work for the city (mayor/chamber of commerce/sheriff's dept)
...

I would expect someone who does work for the city to at least know that the sheriff department is not a city service.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: stash

Set a 'clear-list' of basically harmless common actions, and have the PC connect to Microsoft for the current 'clear-list', so the user isn't pestered for doing something like moving a start-menu item to a different location.

Think about this for a second: UAC is designed to fire when you run an app that by definition can do harmful things. IOW, UAC fires when it needs admin creds. If you need admin creds for something, it is no longer "basically harmless".

If that app really is harmless, and it requires admin rights to run, it needs to be written correctly to run as a standard user. That's really what UAC is all about.

Stash, I'll disagree with you on this one. What he's suggesting is reasonable, so much so that we've already talked publically around some of our plans in this area. Basically, if we know what the app is and know that while written badly it's 'ok', we can manage some of the prompting and leave it for the truely unknown...

Edit: Link to Rowan discussing some of our plans...

The fact that an app is "written badly" and won't run correctly as a limited user is probably a good sign that the app should NOT be given unrestricted access to the system.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: stash

Set a 'clear-list' of basically harmless common actions, and have the PC connect to Microsoft for the current 'clear-list', so the user isn't pestered for doing something like moving a start-menu item to a different location.

Think about this for a second: UAC is designed to fire when you run an app that by definition can do harmful things. IOW, UAC fires when it needs admin creds. If you need admin creds for something, it is no longer "basically harmless".

If that app really is harmless, and it requires admin rights to run, it needs to be written correctly to run as a standard user. That's really what UAC is all about.

I finally turned of UAC after it asked me if it was ok to rename my desktop icons over and over again. I like to have my icons with as few words as possible under them, so I'll rename them all to make them shorter. I guess malware could rename my files for some reason, but c'mon, my desktop icons? It was just aggravating as hell. I figure I didn't get virus' with XP, so I shouldn't get them with Vista. I keep a pretty close eye on my box, check out network traffic and other things. If by some chance I do get a virus, I think I'll notice it soon enough.

I'm guessing these were icons put on your desktop by an application install right? The reason it is prompting you is because those icons are not actually on YOUR desktop. but on the the "All Users" desktop. That doesn't really change the end effect it has on you, but just FYI.

edit: oops, I see bsobel beat me to this.

 

[Nothinman]

No, it is not a crappy driver, the kernel interface changed between SuSE 9 kernel and SuSE 10 (I am guessing, could have been one of the many other userland changes). So all the kernel changes between the two releases would need to be backported to update the driver. This is stupid in my mind, but it is what the Linux kernel developers wants because it makes it a pain for anyone to support a driver outside the kernel source.

Which is why Ubuntu has the restricted-modules package for each kernel they release, they compile all of that crap against the new kernel so that you don't have to. The same even goes for Debian, they've got an nvidia-kernel package for each kernel release. Well minus the current 2.6.20 because the VT crap inadvertantly marked some symbol as EXPORT_GPL but that's a rare occurance and doesn't affect an official release.

 

[juktar]

Alot of UAC is all about user rights. I would actually recommend something like this:

*** If you are comfortable with this ONLY

If the icons are in the all user folder and you really are constantly renaming them (for whatever reason, I don't know, people do weird stuff). Give yourself permission to the all user folder. Or better yet, move the icons to your own user folder after installation of the program.

For other things:

Instead of letting everything install into Program Files, the applications that you know you need to change all the time, make a folder somewhere and install it in there and give yourself permission to the folder.

A better idea, is to install it under your user. I have a folder called Programs under my user directory that I install things to that I know I can trust and I know I will be changing things in the folder alot.

I think this is a much better solution than turning off the UAC. Just take the time to figure out what is needed and do it. I read this all the time about how UAC is popping up all over the place. Either use good programs, or the ones you know have a problem, put them someplace outside of Program Files (where by default, a regular user does not have full access to)

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Smilin
Don't put words into my mouth. I said nothing about it being universally accepted. I just disagree with this:

Originally posted by: Arkaign
..of all of the people who have come through my door over the past few months, I have YET to hear a positive comment about Vista.

I wouldn't expect anything to be universally accepted. You could give out free boobies and someone would turn em down. I just don't agree that Vista is universally disliked. If for some reason everyone you are exposed to hates it then the sampling of people you are exposed to is small, atypical, or biased (or you are full of it and the above statement isn't accurate).

Clarity : notice that my example is anecdotal, and applies purely to local customer traffic FWIW/YMMV/etc

I think you personally just want to flame whenever there's even the perception of a negative comment towards Vista. Whatever.

Yet another thing that you "think" that isn't true.

You want to throw out your "Well my customers don't like Vista." opinion whenever you get the chance. You do it thread after thread at every opportunity despite the fact it gets shown thread after thread that your view is distorted. You then pick a fight with anyone who pokes holes in your observation (me and bsobel in this case). Heck the OP here wasn't even about Vista at all and yet here you are somehow ensuring you poke that opinion of yours in here.

As for me supporting Vista: you won't find me sticking up for it unless someone is trying to pass off BS as fact. I won't challenge a pure opinion. This isn't P&N, facts matter here.

So back at ya: Whatever. :roll:

 

[bsobel]

When Windows is using the same kernel for 5 years it's easy to talk about easy updates, because there _isn't_any_. You using pretty much the same kernel as when Windows XP was released in 2001.

Drag, you know this isn't true. SP1 and SP2 add signifigant kernel changes.