Vista the offical pronouncement?

[zizdodrian]

It just wants confirmation for everything, as though an attacker would want to cause harm to you by changing your desktop background. (although I'm sure there are ways, it isn't a terribly critical one.)

Besides the annoyance, it doesn't even ask you for a password! What use is it?

Yeah, so if you want to, say, select 15 files from your desktop and delete them all, it brings up a separate confirmation dialog for each and every file, with no "Apply to All" option, one dialog at a time. It's so goddamn annoying and useless.

Speaking of which, Apple makes fun of this annoyance in their latest ad!

link

That seemed to only affect RC1.

I've got Vista Business loaded on my machine, and the only times it asks me to confirm are when I install a program, try to open an unknown .exe file, change a system level preference, or uninstall a piece of software.

Moving files doesn't provoke UAC confirmation, nor does changing your wallpaper.

Well, I've seen this behaviour on Vista Home Premium and Ultimate Edition, so I assume they probably scaled it back for business customers in order to keep them happy.

Believe me, it is there, and it is very, very annoying.

[victor_c26]

This is pretty interesting.

It's looking like Vista Business (Essentially Vista Pro) is turning out to be the Version to buy this time around again.

[zizdodrian]

This is pretty interesting.

It's looking like Vista Business (Essentially Vista Pro) is turning out to be the Version to buy this time around again.

I'd say thats because Business customers hold a lot of weight and power with Microsoft, and they won't take the crap that consumers will.

[victor_c26]

True. PC enthusiasts, and PC gamers bought XP Pro because of this very reason. It was the less half assed version of XP.

[Liquidmark]

True. PC enthusiasts, and PC gamers bought XP Pro because of this very reason. It was the less half assed version of XP.

Less crippled.

Microsoft could have given Home some more standard features, it's software. in fact, their whole different versions system is corrupt. When I buy software, I want a complete package. Not a snip here or there.

[zizdodrian]

True. PC enthusiasts, and PC gamers bought XP Pro because of this very reason. It was the less half assed version of XP.

Less crippled.

Microsoft could have given Home some more standard features, it's software. in fact, their whole different versions system is corrupt. When I buy software, I want a complete package. Not a snip here or there.

What were the omissions in XP Home edition? I never owned or extensively used a copy.

[Liquidmark]

True. PC enthusiasts, and PC gamers bought XP Pro because of this very reason. It was the less half assed version of XP.

Less crippled.

Microsoft could have given Home some more standard features, it's software. in fact, their whole different versions system is corrupt. When I buy software, I want a complete package. Not a snip here or there.

What were the omissions in XP Home edition? I never owned or extensively used a copy.

Well, I believe that there was a system backup utility that was in 2000 Home/Pro and XP Pro, but was omitted from XP Home.

XP Pro also has support for Dual Processors. Home doesn't. There are a few other obscure differences.

But that's what bugs me. It's software, why have a bajillion versions? Why not have one version that has all of the same features as the one sitting next to it on the shelf? Plus, the omitted features, aren't really that profound to the point that they need to cost so much more.

Microsoft is crippling it's software so that they can say that Pro or Ultimate, is worth what they charge.

[SteveD]

True. PC enthusiasts, and PC gamers bought XP Pro because of this very reason. It was the less half assed version of XP.

Less crippled.

Microsoft could have given Home some more standard features, it's software. in fact, their whole different versions system is corrupt. When I buy software, I want a complete package. Not a snip here or there.

What were the omissions in XP Home edition? I never owned or extensively used a copy.

Well, I believe that there was a system backup utility that was in 2000 Home/Pro and XP Pro, but was omitted from XP Home.

XP Pro also has support for Dual Processors. Home doesn't. There are a few other obscure differences.

But that's what bugs me. It's software, why have a bajillion versions? Why not have one version that has all of the same features as the one sitting next to it on the shelf? Plus, the omitted features, aren't really that profound to the point that they need to cost so much more.

Microsoft is crippling it's software so that they can say that Pro or Ultimate, is worth what they charge.

Its not 'crippling software', its giving consumers choice.

You may want the 'Ultimate whatever' version with all the bells and whistles, but that isn't to say the average PC user is going to want to pay £XXX for a load of stuff they won’t ever use.

Besides, when XP was released how many domestic users had dual cores? 

[µ]

Its not 'crippling software', its giving consumers choice.

You may want the 'Ultimate whatever' version with all the bells and whistles, but that isn't to say the average PC user is going to want to pay £XXX for a load of stuff they won’t ever use.

The assertion here is that said load of stuff is not, in fact, worth the price they're charging for it.  Compare the fully-loaded, $129 (US) Tiger to the fully loaded, $400 (US) Vista Ultimate*.  Clearly the bells and whistles are being overpriced, yes?

I think that the average PC user would want to get more (dis)functionality for their money.


*32-bit version.

[SteveD]

When did this become a comparison of OS X and Vista pricing schemes?

Liquid was talking about different versions of the same OS.

The 'value for money' of Apple and Microsofts opperating systems is another discussion entirely.

[haunted_i]

So Vista has its own proprietary form of picture metadata, or something. Photographers, or anyone who seriously deals with photos, is recommended to wait before upgrading.

[victor_c26]

I agree with the different version complaints. It was fine how it was done with XP.

With Vista though, it's a bit much. Ultimate should have been the standard version, with Business and Enterprise being the business counterparts with the fat cut out (ie UNO!-less, etc)

[Liquidmark]

Its not 'crippling software', its giving consumers choice.

You may want the 'Ultimate whatever' version with all the bells and whistles, but that isn't to say the average PC user is going to want to pay £XXX for a load of stuff they won’t ever use.

Besides, when XP was released how many domestic users had dual cores? 

No, it's crippling the software to make more $.

It's software it doesn't COST them more money to include those features. It does cost more profit, but that's a different story. They already developed the technology. They are going to sell buttloads of units anyway.

Theoretically, it won't hurt their bottom line if they made Vista Ultimate with tablet functionality, the standard unit. If they want to make any other versions, they should make a try out version for users to try out for free.

What I'm talking about is giving every user equal functionality. You know, Equality? The rallying cry of windows users?

It doesn't matter how many users can use those features "right now". That's what custom configuration installers are for. You never know what feature could be helpful until you need it.

Plus, I wouldn't call it "choice" either. The only choice involved is the choice to spend $400 for a 100% complete OS or spend less, minus key features and a lower Memory Cap.

I agree with the different version complaints. It was fine how it was done with XP.

With Vista though, it's a bit much. Ultimate should have been the standard version, with Business and Enterprise being the business counterparts with the fat cut out (ie UNO!-less, etc)

Exactly. Give the users equal functionality. But in special cases, cut out unneeded things or add in truly special features.

[zizdodrian]

I don't think any of the Vista versions are worth what is charged. If I had to equalise the prices, I'd put the Home Basic version at $25, and the Vista Ultimate edition at $150 - and everything else in between.

Yes, the pricing is very low. But the fact that Microsoft is competing with free operating systems which can offer a lot more is a bit telling, isn't it?

It is obvious Microsoft has inflated the prices ridiculously. $400 is far too much to pay for an operating system full stop.

[Liquidmark]

I don't think any of the Vista versions are worth what is charged. If I had to equalise the prices, I'd put the Home Basic version at $25, and the Vista Ultimate edition at $150 - and everything else in between.

Yes, the pricing is very low. But the fact that Microsoft is competing with free operating systems which can offer a lot more is a bit telling, isn't it?

It is obvious Microsoft has inflated the prices ridiculously. $400 is far too much to pay for an operating system full stop.

Hey, if home basic would only cost $25, then even I'd buy a copy, and I hate Microsoft.

Microsoft would much rather distract from other OSes than compete.