Welcome, Digg visitors! If I may be so bold as to suggest that you actually might want to click the links and read the FULL posts before commenting? Just sayin’. (Oh, and thanks to commenter Nick for some excellent design suggestions, which I have incorporated.)
Over at ZDNet, I’ve been publishing a series called Vista Mythbusters. The goal is to debunk some of the nonsense (both from Microsoft and from its many detractors) that has been written about Windows Vista in the past few months. Here’s a summary of what I’ve published so far. Be sure to follow the links to read the full story behind each myth.
Vista Mythbusters #1: It’s not a hardware hog
Lo and behold, Vista really does run on older hardware, with some relatively minor upgrades. And if you want to buy a Vista Premium Ready machine, you can get it for less than you might think.
Vista Mythbusters #2: Dual-core and 64-bit support
Once a week I read something from someone who is shocked, shocked to discover that the Vista Home Basic license prohibits its use on dual-CPU machines. They think that means they can’t use a dual-core machine. They’re confused. Click the link and read the full story. (Yes, every edition of Vista runs great on a dual-core machine.)
Vista Mythbusters #3: Will Microsoft dump XP to push Vista?
Eventually. But probably not until after April 14, 2009.
Vista Mythbusters #4: Yes, Microsoft really is price-gouging
I explain why the price of Windows Vista Ultimate doesn’t make sense.
Vista Mythbusters #5: Aero isn’t rocket science
Your old video card might choke on the fancy Aero interface, but you’ll be shocked at how cheap the upgrade is and how even low-end new PCs support it.
Vista Mythbusters #6: Is Vista really more secure?
Everything you always wanted to know about UAC and IE7 Protected Mode.
Vista Mythbusters #7: How much DRM is too much?
Vista contains a form of DRM that has never before been in Windows.
Vista Mythbusters #8: That license isn’t so bad, after all
The Windows Vista license is written in plain English. But you wouldn’t know it to hear some of the practically paranoid interpretations of it. Here’s some counter-balance.
I’ve got two more installments in the pipeline and will probably hold off on the last one until just before launch day, January 30, 2007.
I think you’re confused. Vista Basic is nothing like XP Home. Vista Basic doesn’t have Aero so there are going to be a lot of upset people!
YAy… another idiot blogger spreading nonsense!!
Dual-CPU != Dual-Core! .. Vista Home single cpu license will support a multi core cpu. idiot.
Um, bbob? Who are you talking to? That is exactly what I wrote.
Next time, click the links and try reading.
You mention upgrades (GPU), and even cheap replacements. But forget how many people use laptops which don’t upgrade easily, and can be expensive to replace, even on the low end. Laptops with Intel Integrated chipsets (which either barely, or don’t handle Aero) were sold just recently, so they are still very new machines.
To be honest, they don’t look like links. They look like headings. This illusion is because they are emboldened, differently colored, and positioned like headings, as if this were a definition list. I would have never noticed them had my mouse not stopped on one and changed the text color as I scrolled down the page.
Try putting the underline back. Try removing the underline from the disclaimer since it isn’t actually a link.
See usability note at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040510.html; make the changes, then berate your users.
why in the world would anyone still trust microsoft? it’s time to move on.
Nick, you think that’s berating? Man… But thanks for the design comments. I redesigned the site last month and got a lot of feedback, but no one mentioned the points you did. I’ve changed the design to incorporate your suggestions. Hope you like it.
Robert, point taken, and one I’ve written about before. The good news is that the very popular Intel GMA 950 graphics do support Aero. But older laptops will have the most problems with the visuals.
Not berating, really–I should learn not to comment when I’m in a crabby mood. =)
Thanks for considering the changes! You’ve got an interesting blog, and a new regular reader.
All pro-Vista stuff aside, Vista is still going to be cracked wide open for people to download. It doesn’t matter what Microsoft does about it. Honestly, how long did it take for hackers to crack Windows XP Pro? Not long at all. And it won’t take all that long for hackers to crack Vista. Am I trying to encourage people to not pay for their own copies of Vista? Of course I’m not. All I’m stating is the inevitable. Honestly, I really don’t care too much for Vista. Why? Because I know that it’s going to have all kinds
of security holes that Microsoft will have to inevitably patch in order for Vista to be the “secure” OS that it’s supposed to be right out of the box. Also, I really don’t care if the new version of Internet Explorer is supposedly more “secure”. I’m sticking with Firefox. Why? Because I’m tired of Microsoft talking all their stuff about “the new version of Internet Explorer will be better than the previous version”, only to be let down tremendously. Just my thoughts on this whole Vista thing.
graphicartist2k5, Windows XP Pro (you’re speaking of the Volume License Key version) didn’t need cracking; it didn’t have any activation.
I’m not all exited about Vista. They lost me when they canceled the new file system.
I’d love to find some of the “sky is falling” myths that people were saying about XP when it came out.
Nice group of articles. I particularly liked the article on price gouging. Its also nice to know that my XP won’t be absolete for a least another couple of years.
Vista is a resource hog, in my opinion. Linux can give you the same graphics with much less demands in terms of hardware. Just try out XGL, I can use it on even old computers.
To me, there is actually nothing worth upgrading for Vista from my Windows XP Pro machine. The only thing i like is the new gui and the support for 64-bit dual processors.