+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 74
Windows Vista Thread, Vista: Is it here to stay? in Technical; While I agree there should be more of a line between Business and Home versions - Business = Home - ...
  1. #46

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    8,941
    Thank Post
    232
    Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,206 Posts
    Rep Power
    328
    While I agree there should be more of a line between Business and Home versions - Business = Home - Crap (Pretty GUI, games, etc) - and there should definatly be only two versions, I disagree that moving to WinNT was a mistake.
    I said Microsoft made the right decision moving all users onto the NT kernel with Windows XP

  2. #47

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,243
    Thank Post
    772
    Thanked 804 Times in 670 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    299
    Sorry mis-read

  3. #48
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,185
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    The office division is one of the few parts of Microsoft that make any money
    Very true, but remember that MS are like local gov everything costs a fortune and they spend allot of cash on speculative R&D this is why they appear to lose so much money but their thinking that eventually they'll pick a winner.

    The IE team just need sacking
    I'm sorry but cut these people a bit of slack they're no doubt very talented but have a framework (made up by management and the marketing dept) to work to and they demand things move faster than 'standard' do.
    Last edited by cookie_monster; 17th April 2008 at 10:50 PM.

  4. #49

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10,691
    Thank Post
    824
    Thanked 2,570 Times in 2,187 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    731
    <rant type=strong>

    I don't like their current developments for deployment of their newer software. If you want to install Office 2k7 with SP1 you can't use the MSI, you can't slipstream it. The only options are to either pay for SMS or install it in the startup scrips.

    Way to go MS, not only do I have to wait ages for the bulk of Office2k7 to install, I then have to wait for your rubbish installer to replace half of what it has just installed, way to save power, disk space and time.

    Want SP1 integrated with Vista, you'll need the new media as you can't slipstream the OS installs anymore. WTF.

    You don't realize how good a feature like slipstreaming really is until they take it away, not only that but they say they have improved it. Did they fire everyone with an ounce of common sense, were they making to much money and decided that they would unload a whole clip into their foot.

    Yes you can use their imaging stuff but why should that be the only feasible method. Office is one of their flagship products, why would they cripple the MSI options and leave in show stopping errors. I looked at deploying it as an upgrade to 2k3 via GP. Guess what, there is a bug that stops it from installing, it uninstalls 2k3, tries 2k7, errors and then reinstalls 2k3.

    If they keep this type of rubbish up I don't think that we will need to worry about Windows 7. The system admins of the world will have been driven insane with stupid platform decisions risen up and crushed Microsoft using whatever means necessary.

    </rant>

  5. #50

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,243
    Thank Post
    772
    Thanked 804 Times in 670 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    I'm sorry but cut these people a bit of slack they're no doubt very talented but have a framework (made up by management and the marketing dept) to work to and they demand things move faster than 'standard' do.
    Sorry, you are right these coders are alot more talented than I'll ever be and my comment was not ment as a slight on them.

    No, the fact is IE, for whatever reason, is a poor excuse for a web browser and the only reason it is used at all is because M$ give it away with every copy of their OS.

    Now why on earth are M$ doing this? It's not to make money else they'd sell IE. By not including a web browser with the OS they won't be losing any functionality of the actual OS itself. So why? Answer, they didn't want Netscape to make money? Why not? Could Netscape have grown to challenge M$ in either the OS or Office markets had M$ not released a sub-standard browser, I think not. If the IE7 UI was usable and the browser itself standard compliant I wouldn't have a problem.

    Hell maybe sacking the UI design team that came up with the Vista/WMP11/IE7/Office07 UI's would be a better start?

  6. #51
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,185
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    @: SYNACK yeh what the hell went on with Office deployment it seems to of regressed.

    @tmcd35: Ms will go to unhealthy lengths to undermine a competitors products rather than out manoeuvre them. What more can i say, this is why IE6 was stale for years then a competitor came along and bang
    Last edited by cookie_monster; 17th April 2008 at 11:23 PM.

  7. #52

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,243
    Thank Post
    772
    Thanked 804 Times in 670 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    299
    @tmcd35: Ms will go to unhealthy lengths to undermine a competitors products rather than out manoeuvre them. What more can i say, this is why IE6 was stale for years then a competitor came along and bang[/QUOTE]

    I know, won't stop me belly aching about it thou At least the European Court won't stand for this sort thing! (although that did lead to even more confusing versions of Windows being released).

  8. #53

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,468
    Thank Post
    524
    Thanked 1,993 Times in 932 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    575
    Now why on earth are M$ doing this? It's not to make money else they'd sell IE. By not including a web browser with the OS they won't be losing any functionality of the actual OS itself. So why? Answer, they didn't want Netscape to make money? Why not? Could Netscape have grown to challenge M$ in either the OS or Office markets had M$ not released a sub-standard browser, I think not. If the IE7 UI was usable and the browser itself standard compliant I wouldn't have a problem.
    Quite correct. What you lefty out however is that like most Microsoft product it was not initially created by them
    I'll do a quick (and lazy cut-and-paste from Wikipedia) to fill in the background).

    The first Internet Explorer was derived from Spyglass Mosaic. The original Mosaic came from NCSA, but since NCSA was a public entity it relied on Spyglass as its commercial licensing partner. Spyglass in turn delivered two versions of the Mosaic browser to Microsoft, one wholly based on the NCSA source code, and another engineered from scratch but conceptually modeled on the NCSA browser. Internet Explorer was initially built using the Spyglass, not the NCSA, source code[1] The license to Microsoft provided Spyglass (and thus NCSA) with a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft's revenues for the software.
    Note that the license said that Microsoft was to give payment for the revenues it gained from their product. What Microsoft did then was to give it away for free!!
    Spyglass saw little or nothing. If we ever get approached by Microsoft I'll spend 3 weeks going over every single page of anything they would ever want me to sign.

  9. #54

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,800
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 582 Times in 503 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    223
    If we ever get approached by Microsoft I'll spend 3 weeks going over every single page of anything they would ever want me to sign.
    Even then they'd still find some way to screw you over. :P

  10. #55

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,800
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 582 Times in 503 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    223
    If we ever get approached by Microsoft I'll spend 3 weeks going over every single page of anything they would ever want me to sign.
    Even then they'd still find some way to screw you over. :P

  11. #56
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,185
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    @Geoff: you're repeating yourself like a crazy man, "Microsoft will always get you", "Microsoft will always get you", "Microsoft will always get you" :-)


    @SYNACK: I thought the whole point of the new Vista imaging format was that you could patch it offline.

    Want SP1 integrated with Vista, you'll need the new media as you can't slipstream the OS installs anymore.

  12. #57

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,540
    Thank Post
    831
    Thanked 609 Times in 412 Posts
    Rep Power
    432
    cant vLite (Vista's nLite sibling) slipstream SP1?

  13. #58

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10,691
    Thank Post
    824
    Thanked 2,570 Times in 2,187 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    731
    @cookie_monster "I thought the whole point of the new Vista imaging format was that you could patch it offline."

    Yes that it the theory but it doesn't wash with SP1 unfortunately. It is unsupported for offline integration as it updates the built in update layer as well. They even discourage people from updating pre-sp1 deployment points and resealing them as this apparently leaves trash behind.

    @Gatt "cant vLite (Vista's nLite sibling) slipstream SP1?"

    Theoretically it can but it does not update the OS with the correct data for it to know that it has been patched so the first thing that it does is download all of the pre sp1 patches anyway which is kind of pointless. Well this was the case when I tried it. Also as it is not a supported deployment method we don't know whether it will cause any problems in future with say sp2.

  14. #59

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,540
    Thank Post
    831
    Thanked 609 Times in 412 Posts
    Rep Power
    432
    Is M$'s moto "If it ain't broke - break it good!" :|

  15. #60
    Pete10141748's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,350
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 219 Times in 129 Posts
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by synack
    Did they fire everyone with an ounce of common sense
    Yes, 4 people were let go. It was a sad day for M$

    :P

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is anyone using Vista?
    By Mr_Jones in forum Windows Vista
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11th June 2008, 12:53 PM
  2. Moodle - Course Creator won't stay put!!
    By alan-d in forum Virtual Learning Platforms
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 9th March 2007, 11:27 AM
  3. vista usb
    By alonebfg in forum Windows Vista
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 20th February 2007, 12:22 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28th September 2006, 04:29 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •