Check out this thread:
http://www.mepislovers.org/forums/s...

Funny, all my apps work fine.

I love the part where he says how Vista is so evil because it broke Outlook Web Access usage. Guess what? That's not a problem with Vista - it's a problem with IE7. The admins of the Exchange server need to patch their servers to fix the issue. This is all due to better security found in IE7.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/20...

Man, we should really hate Microsoft for increasing browser security in IE7! Man, those guys are just pure evil!

Other wonderful idiotic statements in his post:

"First, I got the home edition. That's all you get on a new machine, at least at my favorite computer store."

Yeah, that definitely sounds like a problem with Microsoft, not the people who run his favorite computer store. I'm sure this is a big conspiracy by Microsoft to NOT sell you a higher profit margin product. *rolling eyes*

"From a user standpoint, it was just XP repackaged. There was really no new functionality."

Vista will in the end be far more secure than XP, but apparently, that's not factored into "new functionality".

"It doesn't have the aero glass interface which is really the eye candy that Microsoft has been touting. To get that, I have to fork out $500 or more…way beyond my computer software budget."

Windows allows you to upgrade to a higher version for almost the price difference between the two (like $10 difference). And besides, how is Microsoft to blame for this shop's idiotic choice to only sell Home Basic?!

Oh, and Vista Ultimate even retail boxed doesn't cost $500. I love his factual statements!

"I also have to buy a top level (i.e., very expensive) machine to get even reasonable performance out of it."

Flat out not true, and you don't have to have Aero anyway.

The DRM stuff was inevitable if Microsoft was going to be able to allow Vista to playback HD content, so what can you say about that?

As for Genuine Advantage, yeah, I do agree that it does suck, but it's not the end of the world.

Thanks for sharing a user post filled mostly with half truths and sheer blind ignorance of Vista!

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

Edit: Most of my apps. I do have a few that don't work, with those companies issuing updates soon.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

"Man, we should really hate Microsoft for increasing browser security in IE7!"

No, of course we shouldn't. But we should hate them for issuing one new product that doesn't work with their other new product. You might think that when they developed IE7 they'd have ensured it worked with Vista.

"Oh, and Vista Ultimate even retail boxed doesn't cost $500."

We do not all live in the USA, you know. It's around $750 in Britain.

"The DRM stuff was inevitable if Microsoft was going to be able to allow Vista to playback HD content, so what can you say about that?"

Not it wasn't. M$ keep saying "had we not done this, Windows wouldn't be able to play (this or that, it isn't the same every time)". This *is not* true - had M$ just told the Hollywood people "we're not doing it" do you really think Hollywood would have persisted with product that wouldn't work in Windows?

"No, of course we shouldn't. But we should hate them for issuing one new product that doesn't work with their other new product. You might think that when they developed IE7 they'd have ensured it worked with Vista."

It DID work with Vista. Dude, READ! This was NOT an issue with IE7. It was an issue with Exchange Outlook Web Access using insecure code.

"We do not all live in the USA, you know. It's around $750 in Britain."

And a dollar in the US is not a pound in Britain.

"Not it wasn't. M$ keep saying "had we not done this, Windows wouldn't be able to play (this or that, it isn't the same every time)". This *is not* true - had M$ just told the Hollywood people "we're not doing it" do you really think Hollywood would have persisted with product that wouldn't work in Windows?"

YES! The vast majority of users watch HD content on their TV WITHOUT a Windows machine even remotely involved.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

"It DID work with Vista. Dude, READ! This was NOT an issue with IE7. It was an issue with Exchange Outlook Web Access using insecure code."

So was it, or was it not, an issue whereby one MS product failed to support another? If it is easy enough to rememedy with a patch, why not incorporate that patch in the OS?

"And a dollar in the US is not a pound in Britain."

No, it isn't. It seems to be a common belief that we in Britain get paid twice as much as Americans - that a job which would pay USD500 a week in the USA pays GBP500 a week here. This is NOT TRUE. We actually get paid about 15% more than you do - that job would pay around GBP280 - and are asked to pay prices about 100% higher than yours.

"The vast majority of users watch HD content on their TV WITHOUT a Windows machine even remotely involved."

Many do, for sure. But the proportion who use a computer for the task is high - too high for Hollywood to be prepared to lose that part of the market.

"So was it, or was it not, an issue whereby one MS product failed to support another? If it is easy enough to rememedy with a patch, why not incorporate that patch in the OS?"

It was an issue where OWA used insecure code for people sending messages. Microsoft in IE7 forbids the browser to use that type of code. Therefore, OWA had to be changed to NOT use that code to send messages. Therefore, VERY clearly, EXCHANGE needed to be patched, NOT VISTA!

Therefore, NO, you do not patch the OS, and besides anyway, your OS has NOTHING to do with this. It's a browser thing. If you had XP with IE7, same deal.

Again, this is one of those things people like to crap on Microsoft about, and it's completely unfounded because it's not understood. They see, "hey, this worked on XP, but not on Vista, therefore, Vista is bad". No, absolutely not true.

"No, it isn't. It seems to be a common belief that we in Britain get paid twice as much as Americans - that a job which would pay USD500 a week in the USA pays GBP500 a week here. This is NOT TRUE. We actually get paid about 15% more than you do - that job would pay around GBP280 - and are asked to pay prices about 100% higher than yours."

I'm sure Microsoft raises prices on Britain by 25% because they hate Britain.

Couldn't have to do with anything else, like taxes in Britain, etc.

And besides, this guy never said he was from Britain anyway.

"Many do, for sure. But the proportion who use a computer for the task is high - too high for Hollywood to be prepared to lose that part of the market."

What does that matter?! People have this view that the amount of money a company has is directly proportional to the power they have over another company or industry. While more money helps, it doesn't necessarily dictate leverage.

Microsoft has no leverage with Hollywood. If they said no, Hollywood would have just said, fine, Windows won't be able to playback content.

That's not gonna cost Hollywood anything. Consumers at this point don't use PC's for the most part as a playback device for HD content. They buy HD-DVD and BluRay players. A consumer would pop the disk in a Windows machine, see it won't work, and say, "guess I need to buy/use an HD-DVD/BluRay player". Hardly anyone is gonna pick up a movie and say, "I'm not buying this because it won't playback on my PC."

On the other hand, Microsoft IS trying to get into the home theater/content playback, media reseller market first with XP MCE, then came the XBox 360 market place, then the Zune, then Vista Home Premium/Ultimate with the MCE applet, etc. This is a market they have plenty to gain in if they succeed, and the ability to playback HD content created not by them, but by Hollywood is essential. That HD content was going to be DRM'ed with or without Microsoft onboard. They NEED Hollywood on board in order to succeed.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html