What's Windows Vista Worth? Play Guy's Guesstimating Game.

[qukza]

Sure VMware has been around forever, so its stable, safe and well-integrated. However Xen blows it (and any other similar product) out of the water perfromance-wise. You need to consider if youre someone who needs a comfortable gui or someone who can get their 'hands dirty' with configuring a Xen-based system. I think if you're the latter, you wouldn't consider VMware unless you had a non-tehcnical or enterprise-level reason.

The eweek article you cited seems to be old and focused on Xen's enterprise product v3.0. It says it can't run windows. The current standard Xen download is currently at 3.0.2 and can run windows. The 'low hurdle' statement was in comparison to other enterprise-level products like vmware that costs about $500 per install because it comes with all the coprorate support etc. Basically VMware is a slow safe corporate product but for out-and-out techies its a pig in lipstick compared to Xen.

The audience of this board are mostly home enthusiasts and aren't probably gonna be paying $500 for any VM software for home use. The reality is that Xen works, is available for free download, and gives you about 5 times the performance of VMware if you have a VT-enabled CPU.

XenEnterprise 3 was just released and the eWeek review was from last week. I think the performance difference has to do with the virtualization strategy. Zen uses paravirtualization which involves changes to host OS (unlike VMware): better performance but a pain in the butt to install. And there is only one Linux distro that supports Xen at the moment (SLES 10 -- costs money).

I'm not sure better performance traded off against ease of installation etc. is a selling point to enterprises, who are the primary consumers of virtualization technology at the moment. They want to be able to set up, consolidate and manage servers quickly and easily. Virtualization makes sense because existing servers are only using a small fraction of CPU's potential performance.

Once a standard paravirtualization solution is baked into the Linux kernel the performance and easy of installation differences between the two will presumably become moot on Linux. See http/www.vmware.com/interfaces/techpreview.html for VMware's latest contribution to on-going Linux virtualization discussion.

Also XenEnterprise is the commercial version of the Xen community release and costs serious money. The community release may be a bit ahead in support for Windows. Also note that VMware Server is now free.

Anyway looks like all this stuff is changing very rapidly and we'll all have cheap or free, easy to use, high performance desktop virtualization solutions on Linux in the near future --probably not great news for Microsoft.

 

[mitch074]

You're so full of crap it must hurt. You are spouting nothing more than fan-boy rhetoric and will OBVIOUSLY disagree with anything negative someone points out about Apple. There's no point, in discussing the topic with you.

I will, however, point out that Vista will NOT cost $519 as you alluded to. Furthermore, as I have already stated, there is NO justification for Apple's OVERPRICED HARDWARE. Apple's hardware is >SUBPAR< to >REAL< PC's. If you REALLY think that the LOWEST end Apple iBook/desktop is better than >MOST< other PC's, you're dilusional. At the SAME price point, Apple's hardware is LOW-END while other brands are MID to HIGH end. Apple's LOW-END IS WORSE THAN $99 PC's. PERIOD. Stop fantasizing about Steve Jobs and step back into reality.

Again, argue all you want. If you really think GMA950 graphics and 256 megs of RAM is better than Geforce7900GS and 1 GIG of RAM, all at the SAME PRICE, then go ahead and buy an Apple.

Performance-wise, you're absolutely right: Macs are far from scoring as high as PCs do in that area. However, you might want to consider that RAM-wise at least, MacOS X runs pretty well with 256 Mb, while XP struggles quite a lot and Vista won't start. About the graphics card, you're entirely right.
I just want to point out that it's not the only piece of hardware you put in a PC: the motherboard and DVD drive are specifically crafted for each Mac model - this means extra costs. Then there is the design; matters of taste can be discussed ad vitam aeternam, some like, some don't.
Still, if you compare a designer-drawn laptop PC with a Mac notebook, then you'll notice that the price gap has gotten very narrow.
At the same time, a PC equivalent of the Mac mini still has to be widely found; and I must admit that for some, a computer that can be put away in a desk drawer while still retaining a real mouse and keyboard plus a screen on a stand if a very nice thing.
Sure, some Mac models just make no sense now; their laptops have very little going their way - if at all - , for example. Still, they invented the widescreen 15" notebook and PC makers said 'me too'. Should they let go of a product range they innovated in?
That's what Macs are about: innovative, not cumbersome like PCs more often than not are.
Now please note that I don't own a Mac - and probably never will - but I still see that there are good things about those.

 

[mitch074]

It's true was MacOS 8 was nothing but a big bug with a half-fancy UI, and that OS 9 was hardly better. OS X changed that quite profoundly - it's not everyday that a compete OS' codebase can be recompiled on another platform and work as is - like pirate pre-versions of OS X running on commodity PC hardware proved. Moreover, OS X's kernel is a mix of FreeBSD and Mach, arguably amongst the most stable pieces of software in existence.

No, frankly, Macs aren't the fancy pressbooks they used to be: they have actually gotten useful.

They're still too damn expensive.

 

[mitch074]

Abstraction made of the hardware, from the way it's built (Unix based, using open standards and open sourced code in several places), and considering its impact on the hardware (needs less RAM to run full tilt), I'd say Mac OS X is both sleeker and better performing than Vista - due to less code bloat. From what I could see, Apple followed the principles of KISS.

On a side note, I'd like to mention that after reading the notes from the Wine project, they think they may be able to implement DX 10 on Linux - and, in the same go, implement DX 10 under Win XP too.

If they are successful, then the only reason left to buy Vista is gone.

 

[gm0n3y]

Abstraction made of the hardware, from the way it's built (Unix based, using open standards and open sourced code in several places), and considering its impact on the hardware (needs less RAM to run full tilt), I'd say Mac OS X is both sleeker and better performing than Vista - due to less code bloat. From what I could see, Apple followed the principles of KISS.

On a side note, I'd like to mention that after reading the notes from the Wine project, they think they may be able to implement DX 10 on Linux - and, in the same go, implement DX 10 under Win XP too.

If they are successful, then the only reason left to buy Vista is gone.

If they can get DX 10 to run well on Linux, I bet many Windows users will move over to Linux (at least the more technically informed users). The only other reason to stay with Windows over Linux is just for the wider variety of programs.

 

[gm0n3y]

You know, I think that once OSX is available for non-Mac hardware, the price will go up considerably. It will just be either thrown in or sold at a discount for users who continue to buy Mac branded PCs. They would drive away too much of their own hardware business if they didn't do this.

Allow me to disagree,
Price might go up a bit, however it will be considerably cheaper than a Vista. Unless those sitting up there in Apple are truly nothing but morons, they would really like to push their OS in the market and bite a nice piece of the cake. Apple proved over the years than their innovative minds were the major reason for users buying their products, while their OS was the thing that held them back a little, due, that is, to lack of software solutions.

I think that the moment Apple moves to a more PC-form of hardware, their sales, both OS and hardware, will kick up - simple because people will assume that software (GAMES) will be more available - and I expect it to be so.

I do agree with you that OSX will likely still be cheaper than Vista (at least the more expensive versions). They are going to want to get market share and won't be able to without some sort of price incentive.

That being said, I don't believe that OSX will ever become a viable alternative to Windows (or Linux for that matter) since it is still designed for people who don't like computers. Gamers are likely to stay with Windows so most games are also likely to stay. Unless the gamer demographic changes, I think OSX will continue to be useless for gaming.

The only users that OSX has been able to get in the past have been professionals that have no computing experience but require computers for their work (musicians, film editors, etc). Once OSX moves to non-Mac PCs there will be inumerably more bugs with hardware, etc, which will tarnish its image as an easy to use (relatively) bug free OS (to some degree).

While I do agree that OSX - or more correctly MAC computers - was mainly the tool of "professionals" I think that the Apple - MAC TM is changing direction. Its all a markiting thing, as I see it, when it comes to MAC, and not a quality - MAC computers were always of a higher quality and more innovative - performance, some are better and some are not depends on how much you are willing to pay.
I didn't get your note about gamers, please expand, but please keep in mind, that simple is not a bad thing, and "no computing exprience" is also the state of exprience of many gamers.

I just mean that most gamers (at least in my experience) are pretty anti-macintosh. Therefore, they are unlikely to want to switch to OSX(I). Since gamers won't switch to mac, then video game companies won't bother making games for mac. Kind of a vicious circle of nobody using mac (for games) and nobody coding games for mac.

 

[mitch074]

'wider variety of programs' being akin to 'more easily seen on TV adverts' as it stands. Strangely, even those softwares that run under Linux are not advertised as such: see Doom 3 for example, which runs natively under Linux (ID released the source code for the engine) but being advertised as Windows/Mac only.
Now that they are actually getting nearer to a Wine 1.0 release, I will merely forget about Vista and its lackluster OpenGL support, removed features, memory hogginess and counter-intuitive interface.

 

[bobmct]

8O Would I pay $245-300 or more for a Windoze product???

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[Windaria]

I'm sorry... pay more for brand? As much as I despise the direction that Microsoft is taking Windows... you think Apple has a better brand, and even want to compare it to the BMW/Chevy thing? That is outright hilarious.

What is Apple's brand... "We make computers for people who are too stupid to use a VCR, that's why there is only one button"? or... "We make the OS that no one wants to make software for"? or maybe just "Our OS is stable because we don't let you use the hardware you want"?

Sure that last one may change, but I have heard the opposite of that so many times it drove me nuts... when they would ask what I don't like about MACs, I would say "You can't use the hardware you want, and build it yourself", to which they would respond "But that is why it is so stable!" Always trying to put a positive spin on lack of choice...

But no seriously... I can respect Linux because it is actually a technical OS, and I can respect Windows only because it is so extremely dominant and has such wide software support (not for anything about the OS itself, so much, anymore), but Macs? Let's see here... they do everything they can to hide any technical aspects of the OS, and make them absolutely frustrating if you want to REALLY configure them yourself (like Windows in some ways, only moreso), and they get NO respect in the industry (after all, no one makes software for them, except occasionally out of pity).

So no, they're just toasters. Push the button and it will be burned in a minute.

 

[darklife41]

I've been running RC1 for a couple months on my backup hard drive for testing. I did a clean install on a freshly formatted hard drive. When I saw how much it lagged, I reformatted and installed from the disc again. No difference. So my opinion is that 2 gigs of quality RAM doesn't solve the speed issues with Vista, and anyone who thinks its fast just isn't picky about speed.

Then there's the whole driver nightmare, which may be sorted out eventually, but manufacturers sure aren't in any hurry to update drivers for Vista at this time.

I turned off the stupid gadget window immediately. It took a week to figure out how to turn off the security alerts for every program. Useless eye candy IMO.

I need one of the pricier versions to support our domain. This should have been included with every edition at no extra cost.

I couldn't really care less about the the multi-media version. I have a nice TV with digital satellite for that. I suppose there are people who would want to watch a movie on their computer alone, but I much prefer my reclyner in the living room to my ergonomic work chair in the computer room. Although the desktop is pretty, its not worth paying for to me.

My system is nothing to sneeze at, although its not exactly top of the line (see signature). But Vista RC1 (Ultimate Edition) slows it considerably. It'll still out-run any MAC on the planet, but its much slower than it was on XP SP2, and nothing like I was hoping for. Both benchmarks and real world applications leave a lot to be desired.

Still, I'm sure I'll have customers who want the OS but won't understand the concept of upgrading all their hardware to make it work. Half my time will be wasted on explaining "why it's necessary". Most likely it will be out of the price range of the average home user for a system of this caliber.

MS should have started from scratch on this OS rather than just loading more into XP, which is basically all Vista is.

We build custom systems. If you think you're going to save $200 by buying Vista Ultimate in a system, you're sadly mistaken. We get the OEM OS cheaper than retail, but not anywhere close to 50% less. The cost of the hardware to run it will be double what it is now. And that alone will kill any sales of Vista to our customers. While gamers may care about having the fastest CPUs and Graphics Cards, the average user is looking for a bargain. Anyone who can sell a $2000 system to someone with $1000 in their wallet, is a better salesman than I.

I expect Vista to go down in history as the biggest failure by MS since Millenium. I think MS should be paying me to use it, rather than the other way around. $500/year seems fair to me. 🙂

 

[mitch074]

Actually, since they turned to a Unix architecture, you can compile pretty much all Unix/Linux/xBSD software and have it run natively on a Mac - on top of running native Mac applications.
As for Windows allowing you to build your own machine with the hardware you want, it's not true: what if I want to build a PowerPC-based machine? Or Alpha-based? Or less goofy, what if I want to build a system where I can use 128 processing cores?
Windows' kernel can't deal with more than 32 logical cores (if you consider a dual mobo equipped with two 4-core with Hyperthreading, you already reach 16 - and the way it's going, we'll soon see many more).
So Windows doesn't deal well with hardware; it's just that hardware makers must accomodate Windows limitations. For example, people with Ati Rage 128 chips (a bit old for sure, but still often found in servers and older laptops) can't make it work correctly under 2k or XP: video corruption, disappearing icons...
As for the iPod, some models were bad, but at least they can play back the music you bought - Zune can't play back Microsoft's own P(l)aysForSure tunes - and even the oldest models are still supported by Apple.

 

[niz]

Abstraction made of the hardware, from the way it's built (Unix based, using open standards and open sourced code in several places), and considering its impact on the hardware (needs less RAM to run full tilt), I'd say Mac OS X is both sleeker and better performing than Vista - due to less code bloat. From what I could see, Apple followed the principles of KISS.

On a side note, I'd like to mention that after reading the notes from the Wine project, they think they may be able to implement DX 10 on Linux - and, in the same go, implement DX 10 under Win XP too.

If they are successful, then the only reason left to buy Vista is gone.

Oh God, PLEASE let this come to pass.

We all know Vista is really XP plus a metric tonne of cpu/memory-hogging bloatware and minus the abilty to play your own damn media, and that Microsoft have ensured DX10 won't run on XP for marketing purposes only.

Imagine the amount of egg on Microsoft's faces if Linux runs DX10 after Microsoft said that it can't run on XP because of all the new technology in Vista it relies on...

They've done this before... when they said 'its technically impossible to remove IE from windows' then did it when the EU courts ordered it.

I can't wait to uninstall all Microsoft OSs from my box for the last time and never look back...

 

[gm0n3y]

The only problem I can see with this is that when DX10b or whatever comes out and they patch it to stop it from working on Linux. I'm sure there would be a way around it again. Either way, it would still be sweet.

 

[Jagged1]

I play games so I can see Vista will be necessary eventually, but I will hold out for as long as possible; Unless MS decides to give us more to look forward too anyways.

I can’t say I’m thrilled with some of the changes made so far… Esthetically it may be better, but face it, “the general direction of the MS OS is not positive”. More junk to hog resources, the need to upgrade hardware on most machines, more control given up with all of the DMR garbage, the pretty interface = more lag, some graphics improvements that should have been in XP anyways, and the supposedly improved security over XP just brings flashbacks of XP’s total lack of security implementation prior to its service packs so that’s not really saying much.

You just know they saved the DX10 and 500+ bug fixes for Vista so they can get people to buy it… By not fixing the previous OS they make it obsolete and leave you no choice but to upgrade.

Don’t wooorry it’s all for a good cause; just think of it as giving to Bill Gates’ charity but without us getting the tax write-off. :lol:

Seriously though, I was REALLY hoping MS would integrate a Gamer Mode of some type into the OS that would allow us to easily switch between a <Full function mode> and a low resource <Gaming mode> that minimized the background running, resource hogging junk.

Maybe they could even give the gamer the ability to control what features they want to retain in this game mode also. Top it all off more with a built in program that allows you to monitor and disable any non-essential software that tries to run while playing a game. It would allow gamers to use the auto updaters and background programs without having them try to run or update while you’re in the middle of a game!!!!!!! Nothing like having it happen on a FPS while in the thick of it and being a freebee for the opposition!!

Maybe I’m just asking too much; I guess I was looking for something that would actually make the OS better instead of a fancy bug fix with more junk hanging from its butt…

So far the hype about “more for gamers” seems to be all about the DX10 and little else. It’s too bad that they’re throwing away another opportunity to do something truly revolutionary. I guess if they can’t steal the idea from someone else it just doesn’t happen. Other companies need to have a great idea and take the risk to prove it works and is desirable before MS will use its enormous resources to copy it.

Heck if they made a (Gamer specific) OS with extras for gamers (like a gamer mode) I’d bet they would sell a ton of them. Think about it **Gamer Extreme Vista** or something along those lines… Throw in a few beneficial customizing tools for gamers and it would likely sell the OS to a lot of potential gamer holdouts.

As for the value I just don’t know where to begin… Maybe it will be worth it down the road, but quoting others “wait until they fix the inevitable bugs first”. When I do buy it, I still see myself holding onto XP if I can get it to boot from another drive. I’ve never had an OS upgrade that didn’t have compatibility issues with at least some of my software. At least that way I can still use it.

 

[niz]

For gamers there will be lots of trade-offs ugrading to Vista.

The single plus is that you get DX10

The minuses:
Games will have slower framerates under vista than XP because of all the extra layers and bloatware, just like what happened between XP and 98/ME.

You won't be able to play some or all of your own media any more because of the DRM.

You will probably have to upgrade your PC to cope with all the extra resources Vista needs.

Vista will cost about $300 for a version worth having for gamers/tech heads.


I'm hoping someone will figure out how to backport DX10 to XP.

 

[Jagged1]

I'm hoping someone will figure out how to backport DX10 to XP.

That would be the ultimate solution for most gamers...

While they're at it maybe they can rip out the DRM from Vista! 😀

Most will likely have to keep XP as a 2nd boot option for quite a while to ensure media and software compatability issues don't make everything they have now obsolete.

A very expensive upgrade just to get DX10 if you ask me... More negatives than a math class come with it!

 

[vanquishedangel]

😴 I say just use Linux, it is way more reliable, has way more functionality, is way easier on system resources, and it is free, but more important than being free, Linux has way more safety features than windows and they work better. They work better because Linux doesn't sell advertising software made for windows, or have copy rights that they sell to companies to spam, or advertise you to death with. Also many of Linux safety features are built in, so there is no need to go get another program. Ubuntu is really easy to use as well, plus you can use the command line or get a gui that isn't so much "bloatware".

Why waste time with substandard programming? windows is very old software that keeps getting crap added on top to make it look new.

 

[carpinteyroksf]

N'oubliez pas de cosh de golf lorsque vous vous inscrivez flood votre polo a partir de votre moins hydratee, ce qui peut supprimer les lignes fines a partir d'un raiment beaucoup gain unmoved finalement. Typewrite de collier en outre les manches fleshlight seraient les principaux domaines accordent davantage d'r‚clame si le repassage.
Ralph Lauren, ne Ralph Lipschitz, est un createur de mode polo ralph lauren pas cher americain ne en 1939 a New York. christian louboutin Apres des etudes de gestion au City College de New York, louboutin il sert dans l'armee americaine de 1962 a 1964 louboutin pas cher. A son retour, il travaille comme vendeur chez Brooks Brothers abercrombie avant d'ouvrir, en 1967, une boutique de cravates abercrombie and fitch. Fascine par le mode de vie de l'elite new-yorkaise abercrombie pas cher, qui s'invite aux diners mondains la semaine et s'franklin marshall enfuit le week-end dans les Hamptons, ray ban le createur fonde sa maison de creation eponyme en 1968. La meme annee lunettes ray ban, il lance la collection de supra polos a manches courtes declines en 27 coloris, supra shoes installant ainsi definitivement l'identite sportswear de sa marque cheap supra shoes. En 1978, Polo Ralph Lauren ouvre un departement parfums avant de se lancer dans la decoration et l'amenagement d'interieur en 1983. En definitive, le style Ralph Lauren est un melange de luxe et de casual qui reinterprete. En mixant les images du Grand Ouest americain,la maison Polo Ralph Lauren a invente un style qui lui est propre En 2010, Ralph Lauren ouvre son flagship dans le 6eme arrondissement de Paris, ralph lauren pas cher boulevard Saint-Germain-des-Pres.
Or, ces chemises brodees sont devenus une partie du office de l'usure ainsi. En fait, la plupart des entreprises ont un catalogue ainsi a partir de laquelle choisir le hand down du logo que vous voulez sur vos polos brodes. Polos brodes sont a la modus operandi, et ceux-ci sont tellement confortables que ils vont continuer a trouver un espace dans les armoires des hommes, des femmes, et enfants.

http/www.vincentleveque.com/spip.php?page=forum&id_article=1038
http/disneyland.paris.evous.fr/spip.php?page=forum&id_article=188
http/www.sexybeijing.tv/new/eblog/comments.asp?id=168
http/bestenemies.net/weblog/?p=4#comment-2446
http/cjc-job.net/info/entry.php


http/illinoiscountry.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?action=profile;u=578180
http/eautos.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=35612&sid=017ed186c6aa8a4a58e4269bbb69bcaa
http/eautos.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=35612&sid=017ed186c6aa8a4a58e4269bbb69bcaa
http/movie.inventforum.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=136
http/www.personalgrapevine.com/app/webroot/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=16538