Vista - Good, bad or meh

[Camy]

Vista, the greatest new operating system since sliced silicon, has finally arrived.

What do you all think?

Is it worth upgrading?

If you're gonna upgrade, which version of Vista will you be forking out for?

As for me, well I'm going to wait and see. I'm still happy with 2000, and still use a PIII at 600mhz, and, sorry Bill, but Linux looks just as neat - and much less intrusive.

[Jay]

I run Linux on my desktop and have been since 1994 but my 4 year old XP laptop's hard drive started making odd noises back in December so I started looking into a replacement. I've never been a big fan of Microsoft but after I read this I decided that I'm done with MS. I'm typing this on a macbook.

Jay

[Camy]

I've never been a big fan of Microsoft but after I read this I decided that I'm done with MS.

That's pretty much killed MS for me too. Thanks for the link, though I wouldn't suggest reading it if you're paranoid about the future and Big Brother.

[Tanuki Racoon]

Free advice. You all know I loathe anything Microsloth.

However, regardless wait a few months. There are tons of bugs and many groups (both private companies, governmental IT departments, and even software companies) are recommending you wait until it's been out awhile because there are too many known incompatibilities.

If you use an iPod, BTW, Apple advises you wait until Microsoft makes some fixes so iTunes will work. Adobe's entire suite of products isn't properly compatible yet and so on.

[DesDownunder]

I run Linux on my desktop and have been since 1994 but my 4 year old XP laptop's hard drive started making odd noises back in December so I started looking into a replacement. I've never been a big fan of Microsoft but after I read this I decided that I'm done with MS. I'm typing this on a macbook.

Jay

Jay I have had a look at the link in your post ala *this* above, and I must say that I am dismayed but not surprised.

As a Cinema professional I have been aware for sometime that Hollywood (read major studios) have been obsessed with gaining back their lost control over distribution of movies. They lost this control when Congress made it illegal for them to own the cinemas. Now of course they see a way to get rid (or minimse the use) of the cinemas as well as TV stations, and other distribution methods, (middle-men). This would allow them to once again control the movie from decision to shoot the film through to the end user -home viewer.

This will happen when they control the transmission of the movie from their own studio direct to the home.

Piracy is a real problem for them hence it comes as no real surprise that they have enlisted control via the computer operating system to protect their product. What is astounding is that according to the linked article, Microsoft accommodated them by making Vista less than useful to the high quality that blue ray and HD promise.

Or is it that much of a surprise? If the studios want to protect their own product so much it stands to reason they would also want to stop anyone else making a movie to the same quality standards. Hence they limit the image and the audio to a poorer standard than they can provide. Microsoft Vista to their rescue again.

Hollywood has done this before. In effect they had an agreement with Kodak that only the best quality grade of film was available to only the Hollywood studios. They achieved this I believe, by making it too expensive for anyone but the major studios to afford.

With the threat of digital film processing the Kodak prices seem to be much more accessible.

If the article you link is even just somewhat accurate and I believe it is, then alternative sources for making and viewing movies could be seriously disadvantaged in terms of distribution and quality.

You can probably apply all this reasoning to the music industry as well.

I think we can expect to see a disturbance over Vista on this issue.

I have become accustomed to Microsoft giving with one hand and taking away with the other in its OS but this time they may have taken too much.

Vista needs watching but I wouldn't get it yet and probably this information would certainly act as a deterrent for me to get it.

I'm waiting.

[EleCivil]

That's pretty much killed MS for me too.

Seconded. Er...thirded? The DRM stuff is just too extreme for me. I never had a big problem with Microsoft before, but after hearing about that...well, XP (which I'm currently running) is going to be the last MS OS for me.

[DesDownunder]

There is also the insidious possibility that Microsoft will remove or limit support for XP, read: won't supply activation number, in the hope they will force the sale and use of Vista. I wouldn't expect them to do it any time soon but the possibility remains.

In the long term it would be inevitable.

Really, the more I think about it and the obvious opportunity for Linux, the more I feel that MS is looking at its feet, trying to decide which foot to shoot first.

This more than anything makes me feel I'd better investigate Linux.

Damn! another learning curve to overcome.

[The Pecman]

Hollywood has done this before. In effect they had an agreement with Kodak that only the best quality grade of film was available to only the Hollywood studios. They achieved this I believe, by making it too expensive for anyone but the major studios to afford.

With the threat of digital film processing the Kodak prices seem to be much more accessible.

I agree with some of what you say, but not this. I recently worked for Kodak for two years, and what you say is just not true.

Kodak never made a ton of money on film negative. They make a ton of money on the Prints. True, 35mm negative ain't cheap, but there were several competing firms in the 1960s and 1970s, and Fuji is still around and doing well. Fuji negative is about 15% cheaper than Kodak's, but that's not an enormous difference.

It's fair to say that professional-grade production gear is expensive mainly because it's manufactured in such small quantities. It's not a question of trying to discourage non-studio use; it's that you can't make a lot of money selling 500 cameras or X thousand feet of negative a year to a relatively small group of buyers.

Digital production has not forced Kodak to lower its prices. If anything, 35mm negative is more expensive now than it's ever been, and so is processing. Kodak has also improved its negative to the point where there's little difference in lighting requirements between HD and, say, 500 ASA film. But many TV shows have discovered that shooting digitally does not yield the gigantic cost reductions they were hoping for. The reality is that the biggest costs for TV and features are the above-the-line expenses (actors, writers, directors, producers, etc.). Film costs diddly-squat. As one example, Michael Mann shot Miami Vice on HDCam instead of film. It was a $120 million film; they saved about $700,000 on film stock, roughly .5% of the budget. The movie still bombed, big-time.

What is happening nowadays is that the studios are using a hybrid of film and digital techniques to make most big-budgeted films. Film is still the preferred format for origination, but once it's shot, everything goes digital from that point forward. You can't beat the reliability and picture quality of film.

End of soapbox.

[DesDownunder]

Sorry Pecman I may not have been clear about the Kodak -Hollywood relationship from my experiences.

In the 1960s and (before) it was impossible for Australian (and other countries) to have access to the Hollywood film standard without

1. A lot of money

and/or

2. Hollywood studio connection with the production.

Equipment availability was another variable used to lock-out undesired producers.

I should have qualified this in relation to prints.

Negatives were indeed available to all but again they were expensive.

The percentage of the budgets spent on film I was told has dropped. That may well be because the budget has increased rather than the film price dropping.

What you say about the current state of the digital and film processing is spot on, with the exception that local Kodak representatives who used our theatre for exhibiting to the local industry, the latest grades of film in comparison with HD clearly have stated that Kodak film prices have never been cheaper for the non-Hollywood market. They gave the impression also that, as you say, the savings on the shoot is not what was expected or hoped for by the producers. The saving is going to be in distribution of the hard-drives for digital exhibition in the cinemas. (If and when that happens world-wide).

There is real savings too and again as you say in the post production suites. The technical advantages of digital post production are very clear.

Film is still the preferred format for origination, but once it's shot, everything goes digital from that point forward. You can't beat the reliability and picture quality of film.

Indeed I agree with your statement here and that is certainly what is happening with major studio productions in Australia.

However there is an increasing number of low-budget movies being shot in digital formats, some HD some not, that are reaching theatrical release not just here but world-wide.

This is primarily in the "Alternative" or Art-house end of the market. Local film-makers have recently been invited to film festivals in several countries to show their digitally shot and processed movies to much acclaim.

It would also be true to say to back up your statements, that these same directors are hoping to shoot their next movie on film.

(See I am not disagreeing with you. )

The Kodak reps also claimed (two years ago) that Kodak was looking at running 35mm film at double frame rates (48 frames per second) on standard film stock for 1.85 ratios, to increase the quality of the image. Because the frame height would be 2 sprocket holes instead of four. this would be achieved without needing to increase the film length.

Since then we have seen some response in the digital quarter that film is sub-standard in some areas of stability.

Personally I doubt this from what I have seen so far.

Certainly archiving is still best done on film; and for me a much more satisfying viewing experience.

So Pecman sorry if we seem to disagree. I think we may have different information on some of this stuff as well as different experiences. In principle I think we probably agree on more than it might seem.

My apologies to the non-technical readers.

Soapbox is now vacated.

[JamesSavik]

I'm leaning towards meh myself. Not that I know exactly what meh means, if it's anything like big fat, hairy deal followed by a big YAWN, then I'm there.

Operating Systems are the most difficult software to write. It has to deal with the machine at the metal level, software from where ever and deal with the user in a way that comprehensable.

The traditional model of the operating system is to implement it in software so that it can be modified to run on new CPU archictectures. The OS dosen't change, the hardware does. This is how UNIX/Linux works and has been around since 1970.

Microsoft has adopted a "disposable operating system" model where every five years or so they throw it all out and start essentially from scratch. This means that not only do you have to buy a new operating system, you will probably have to upgrade or replace all of your software.

This is why MS Operating systems and applications are always being patched: by the time that they are stable, it time to throw them out and start over.

This is good for a monopolistic software giants but it is quite hard on their consumers.

[The Pecman]

The Kodak reps also claimed (two years ago) that Kodak was looking at running 35mm film at double frame rates (48 frames per second) on standard film stock for 1.85 ratios, to increase the quality of the image.

They gave up on this concept many years ago. Noted U.S. film critic Roger Ebert even wrote some newspaper columns about it, championing the idea as a way to increase sharpness and clarity in current films. But the idea never caught on.

What is catching on is 3-perf 35mm negative, which is used for all major U.S. dramatic TV shows (like Lost and Heroes), because the aspect ratio is ideally suited for HDTV. There's also no waste, so virtually every pixel of the negative gets used for actual photography. But the film still goes at 24fps.

I've worked on several fine Australian films over the years, including Gallipoli (in the early 1980s) and many others I can't even remember. They all used Kodak film.

My point was that there is no vast conspiracy out there trying to keep the cost of film out of reach for low-budgeted users. Everybody more or less pays the same price (though you obviously get a discount if you buy, say, 1,000,000 feet vs. 50,000 feet). And the cost of negative has not come down per se. Budgets have skyrocketed, so it's true that film is now a lower part of the budget, by percentage, than ever before.

[Mountain Dude]

Vista, the greatest new operating system since sliced silicon, has finally arrived.

What do you all think?

Is it worth upgrading?

If you're gonna upgrade, which version of Vista will you be forking out for?

As for me, well I'm going to wait and see. I'm still happy with 2000, and still use a PIII at 600mhz, and, sorry Bill, but Linux looks just as neat - and much less intrusive.

Back in the "Old Days" I loved the command prompt and fought moving to Windows because I was loosing that basic control. I must say though that I did get over that lose. Every new release seems to be building more walls between the hardware and the consumer. That wasn't including a good Firewall though -- They still haven't figured that one out

Vista seems to have placed the user into the idiot category. After spending too many years developing Vista I must say I am REALLY unhappy with the end result. I don't want Tags, I'm happy with the search in XP ----JEEZ!!!!!

Then there is the pricing. Do I need to buy the basic package or do I really need the top of the line. At what point do you get Networking? That's a must have for me. I have yet to see a comprehensive side by side comparison of each package. Maybe Microsoft has it on their web site -- I haven't looked yet. So much for building my interest. I think Microsoft has stepped into a huge bucket of s**t this time

Yesterday I downloaded a copy of ubuntu Linux -- have to LOVE the Linux pricing!!!! Loved being able to boot it from a CD and give it a test drive -- that was neat. I'm not sure if it was fair way of judging the Linux OS without all the require drivers. It did recognize my Network and was on the Internet in a flash. The screen Res was 800 x 640 which I didn't like at all -- I would hope that was a driver issue ((Maybe someone can enlighten me)) I do want to spend some more time looking at the Linux OS. I really would like to dump Windows for good!!

I'm going to pass on Vista for a (good) while.

[DesDownunder]

Mountain Dude,

I am feeling much the same way. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding which Linux is the best to try?

[Mountain Dude]

Mountain Dude,

I am feeling much the same way. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding which Linux is the best to try?

Interesting find today while checking out Linux:

http://sauveros.com/os/index.php?option=co...ge&Itemid=1

Just finished downloading files and am in the process of burning a CD.

What "Sauver" is offering seems to be a linux front end to Windows ---- Booting from a CD ( Sauver) takes you into Windows but under Linux --- Interesting -- can't wait to boot this -- could be WAY KEWL!!!!!

[Mountain Dude]

Well after getting the Sauver CD burned and then not booting on my laptop, I headed off to my desktop where the cd booted first try. Not what I had expected to see -- guess I was expecting Win XP LOL

OK, need to backup for a minute -- my post above talked about Sauver (Linux), a Windows look a like. Very nice clean look -- but a steep learning curve I'm afraid. I was able to get my printer recognized but wouldn't print. Unlike the ubuntu (Linux) that I tried yesterday, which got me on the internet in seconds (through my network) --- Sauver had no clue about either.

Both were booted from a CD disk without disrupting my XP OS. The Sauver software was very responsive. It loaded into Ram and not to the hard drive. I'm going to play with it some more tomorrow -- want to see if it remembered my preference settings, which I'm sure it did, but were these saved to the hard drive? -- had to go look, and found no sign of Linux type directories.

After 2 days spent poking at Linux -- I'm really liking what I am seeing. Sauver was awesome -- ubuntu, which seems to be very popular, wasn't as impressive but I really think that had more to do with the drivers.

It seems I'm not the not person looking elsewhere for an operating system. The MAC for me is not an option at this point -- the cost is beyond my limits. Linux being FREE looks real good. I'm hoping we can share some info back and forth and get past this Vista BS!!!

Take a hike Mr. Gates..........

Eddy

[Mountain Dude]

Well today's find is Linux-XP -- from Russia, of all places. http://www.linux-xp.com/index.php

This installs to your hard drive and I have not done that yet. The info claims it's a Win XP product running under Linux. The screen saves look like XP and claims to have the look and feel also. What you do in Win XP is handled in the same manor under Linux-XP. They also claim that most Windows software will also run under Linux-XP.

Like I mentioned above -- this is what they claim. Almost sounds to good.............I'm not adding any fluff.

Tomorrow I need to do a bit of housecleaning on C: drive -- do a backup and then add another partition to it and then load Linux-XP and see what happens

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think Bill Gates has done an awesome job these past 25 years. Bill got the PC organized and the ducks lined up -- all heading in the same direction. The helter skelter mess during those start up years of the home computer needed focusing and he did do that. Microsoft has done a great job in putting a computer in every home and more important -- into all schools. OK -- Apple had allot to do with that too. But, me thinks the bucks stops here -----!

My first computer was a IBM PC Jr --- I was in love!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 300 baud modums being the exception!!!!! Grass grew faster!!!!!

I was still in love with my computer.

2007 and the introduction of Vista will start the decline of Microsoft. Mr. Gates can step to the side now -- along with his many billions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ He did bring the personal computer into the 21st century and then dropped the ball.

Longhorn/Vista -- 5, 6, 7 years under development and they can't even get a "FIREWALL" WORKING RIGHT!!!!! REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They need to stop dispensing those "smokes" at the water cooler.

Oh my!!!!! Where do we go from here? Microsoft is no longer part of the future -- Vista is showing us that. Will Google do it? Or maybe Mozilla!!!!! Firefox is HOT!!!! Firefox OS could be hot too!

What were they thinking? !!!

Was that a rant?

Hugs to all,

Eddy

[Jay]

THIS IS SO KEWL ------!!!!!

Just loaded Linux-XP on my desk top computer -- well an hour ago. I'm working on my laptop at this moment.

Clean, simple and REALLY DOES ACT LIKE WIN-XP

I spent 10 minutes tweaking a few things and have my laptop working off the Linux-XP on my desktop -- info coming from MS Win XP !!!!!! FoxFire, Network connection and I was up and running!!!!!!!!

I AM SOOOOOOOOOOO HIGH (no, no drugs)

I need to import some of the fonts from Win XP ----- BUT I AM REALLY IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!!!

LINUX-XP.COM HAVE A LOOK!!!

Microsoft -- KISS MY, ................. Jeez -- I forget where I was going with that

Hugs people,

---

Moved to own topic by Camy

---

I took a look at this and there are pros and cons here. You may want to read this review.

Jay

[Drewbie]

Plus there are programs to strip files of DRMs, I just don't think vista will be for me for a long time or might never get it.

[Mountain Dude]

I took a look at this and there are pros and cons here. You may want to read this review.

Jay

You're right Jay -- I am only into the fact finding mode at this point. Linux-XP was the first .iso file that I loaded to my hard drive. Another few days to absorb all of this will help. What I'm seeing so far is encouraging.

The bottom line is that MS Vista is not the only option. Linux works too. I'm liking what I'm seeing.