Well, worth reading (and don’t forget the comment section, very enlightening in it’s variety and intensity). Thanks Adam for the link.
I agree with RJ for the most part (although I think that he may be mincing words a bit where he talks about Longhorn and Windows 2003), in fact, for me, there are many reasons why Vista is just not worth it.
I do think that IF Microsoft hadn’t instituted Activation and the WGA anti-piracy spyware that is now required for Windows XP, then I would still be using it today. Instead I gave it away. I have gone back to my old Windows 2000 Pro on one computer (dual boot with Linux) and Linux on my other computer.
I really loved WinXP for it’s simplicity in doing things, particularly USB type things, and specifically, image/photo handling from camera to managing photos.
There were also things I truly disliked about it. Such as it’s tendency to do weird things with hardware that it ‘gets wrong’ as well as product activation after changing too many pieces of hardware (in it’s estimation) which led to a hardware issue that wouldn’t go away even after successfully re-activating Windows XP Pro. I ended up reinstalling the OS over it.
I have been using Linux regularly since 2000 on one computer while using Windows XP Pro on the other, at least until I gave it away recently (BTW: It was a Retail Version of Windows XP Pro. The new owner has the best WinXP they could get).
I would definitely say that Linux IS my next OS. It is the OS I do everything on these days except for a few minor programs that are not available in Linux as yet. And my scanner (Visioneer 8920) which is not supported in Linux.
From now on, I will buy scanners, printers, etc. that work well in Linux. (The only thing that doesn’t work in Linux right now is my scanner). And when the programs that I still use in Windows no longer are restricted to Windows, I will keep Win2K only as a tool so I have a working Windows OS when working remotely by phone on the computers of my clients.
I was glad to hear that Microsoft backed off on the draconian licensing for the Retail Versions of Vista, but licenses (like everything else these days) can be changed and it doesn’t stop the DRM enabling ability within Vista from doing it’s dirty work, nor do the anti-piracy ‘features’ touted do anything for the legal owners of computers. It puts their own purchased hardware at odds with you, the legal owner of your computer(s) and I absolutely refuse to go there.
Not because I would do anything wrong. Quite the opposite. I simply do not feel that owners should have to deal with that kind of invasion of their privacy on the equipment they purchased with their own money.
I may also get a Vista license (notice I don’t say OS because you don’t buy the OS from Microsoft, you buy a license to use it in the restricted way they say). But IF I do, it will only be installed on a virtual partition. I don’t care about not being able to do some things with it in that virtual realm, because I won’t be ‘living’ with Vista, I will simply be testing it out to get familiar with it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Many people will still want the newest, greatest thing, and that’s fine for them. I wish them well.
EDIT 5:46PM: Scot Finnie in his November 2006 Scot’s Newsletter wrote the following (among other things) in his section called “Turning Over an Apple Leaf?”:
My sentiment about the Software Protection Platform anti-piracy measure is that it only serves one entity: Microsoft. For users, it has no advantage, and for some individuals and enterprises, it could be a ticking time bomb waiting to unleash frustration.
Let’s not forget that the dramatic IT breakthrough that drove Wall Street last decade was a significant return on investment in the form of increased user productivity. Moreover, the last time I looked, Microsoft rose to power two and a half decades ago precisely because it helped free users from onerous restrictions on access to computer power. The rise of the PC eventually killed off the minicomputer’s dominance of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The software giant should be reading the history of the mistakes its competitors made back then, because it could be chasing down the same path.
More in the article and links at Scot’s Newsletter.
Douglas Karr on his blog “On Influence and Automation” goes further in an article posted entitled: Protecting Software and Customers from Counterfeiters?:
Quite possibly some of the worst spin that Iâ€™ve ever read on Software Piracy!
Read Article: Microsoftâ€™s Software Protection Platform. This is as bad as the Patriot Act! (AKA: We need to protect your freedom, and youâ€™ll be a patriot if you give up some of your freedoms so we can protect your freedomâ€¦. huh?). Microsoft should have simply made this an internal memo:
Microsoft Profit Protection Platform: Keeping Software Expensive and Profits through the Roof!
More in the article.
When I see things like the WGA in Vista and the Software Protection Platform (SPP), it makes me think of how long it took to bring Vista to market. Sure Microsoft has been slow in bringing new versions to market, but even by their standards Vista has been way too long in being released. Five years! A commenter to the posting noted at the Daily Techno-Babble asked this same question. Why has it taken five years to bring Vista to market. I don’t know, but I am beginning to think it wasn’t that Microsoft was all that slow at all. I am wondering if it was just that they were waiting…Waiting for the hardware DRM to catch up with them. Just think about the hardware that has been released recently. “Think about that!” (to quote the now defunct TechTV show Eye Drops).