What are your thoughts on Vista?

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:53:45 -0500, Cynicor wrote:

mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.

Amen. I find that they work quite well for me on Linux.

In article ,
mark_digital© wrote:

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Do yourself a favor and buy a Mac.

mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.



_If_ I upgrade to a new desktop and it has Vista, then I'll be using
Vista. In the mean time, my Sony desktop with all my software (lots of
software) and peripheral attachments work fine using XP.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:48:37 -0500
Cynicor wrote:

Christopher Campbell wrote:
In fact, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting that a lot of
systems managers are switching everybody over to Google office
applications instead of upgrading to Office 2007. Those run on
Macs, too.

Is there a particular reason to trust Google with corporate data?

Well, we already know that Windows can't be trusted with corporate
data without the addition of costly third-party bandaids. But the
point is moot since one needs neither Windows nor Google's web-based
offering in order to run OpenOffice. That's what corporate and
government users are switching to in order to escape from proprietary
lock-in.

Paul Allen

Cynicor wrote:
Christopher Campbell wrote:
In fact, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting that a lot of
systems managers are switching everybody over to Google office
applications instead of upgrading to Office 2007. Those run on Macs, too.

Is there a particular reason to trust Google with corporate data?



Uh... no.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

J. Clarke wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:20:57 -0800, Christopher Campbell wrote:

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:07:47 -0800, Celcius wrote
(in article ):

"Cynicor" wrote in message
t...
mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself
will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.
Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.
I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista might be
the first OS that may require in a great many instances, complete revamping
of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer with a Pentium 4 CPU,
3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack 2, but my understanding is
that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista properly as well as Photoshop CS2
on it. What do you say?
Thanks,
Marcel


Interesting. Parallels Software says Vista will run on a MacBook Pro with 2Gb
RAM. The thing is, any PC application that you would run on a MacBook would
probably not be very demanding. Photoshop, Aperture, and most games would
probably be run under OS X (well, Aperture will not run under anything else).
Personally, the only thing I would run under Vista would be Jeppesen's flight
planning software. Nothing else requires a PC. And even there, it might be
just cheaper and easier to switch to some web-based software like AirNav. If
I was still preparing corporate tax returns I probably would use a web-based
application there, too.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting that a lot of systems
managers are switching everybody over to Google office applications instead
of upgrading to Office 2007. Those run on Macs, too.

If Google Office is sufficient to their needs then they should be fired
for wasting the company's money by upgrading to Office '97.



Did Google Office exist when these people were making that upgrade decision?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:31:27 -0500
ASAAR wrote:

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:50:04 -0500, mark_digital© wrote:

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our
computers for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much
Microsoft itself will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

It's interesting that virtually everyone seems to think that your
concern about Vista becoming a "tenant landlord" has to do with
software bloat and the need for more hardware.

Yup. Most people can relate to software bloat, but have a hard time
paying attention to DRM, "trusted computing", and the growing unholy
alliance between Microsoft and the big media companies.

Maybe you should
hire the PR team that did so much to make WMD a household "word".

I didn't realize George Bush and Dick Cheney were for sale. But,
what am I thinking? Of course they are! :-)

Paul Allen

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:50:04 -0500, "mark_digital©" wrote:

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

I have learned the hard way not to upgrade to a new operating system until after the first service
pack has been released.

In article ,
wrote:

I have learned the hard way not to upgrade to a new operating system until
after the first service
pack has been released.

With Vista's general release at the end of January, the first security
update should be hitting before Valentine's Day.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:39:37 -0600, Jer wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:20:57 -0800, Christopher Campbell wrote:

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:07:47 -0800, Celcius wrote
(in article ):

"Cynicor" wrote in message
t...
mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself
will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.
Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.
I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista might be
the first OS that may require in a great many instances, complete revamping
of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer with a Pentium 4 CPU,
3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack 2, but my understanding is
that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista properly as well as Photoshop CS2
on it. What do you say?
Thanks,
Marcel


Interesting. Parallels Software says Vista will run on a MacBook Pro with 2Gb
RAM. The thing is, any PC application that you would run on a MacBook would
probably not be very demanding. Photoshop, Aperture, and most games would
probably be run under OS X (well, Aperture will not run under anything else).
Personally, the only thing I would run under Vista would be Jeppesen's flight
planning software. Nothing else requires a PC. And even there, it might be
just cheaper and easier to switch to some web-based software like AirNav. If
I was still preparing corporate tax returns I probably would use a web-based
application there, too.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting that a lot of systems
managers are switching everybody over to Google office applications instead
of upgrading to Office 2007. Those run on Macs, too.

If Google Office is sufficient to their needs then they should be fired
for wasting the company's money by upgrading to Office '97.



Did Google Office exist when these people were making that upgrade
decision?

Hint--what does Google Office do that Office 95 does not do?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)