[Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vistaversions? - Linux

This is a discussion on [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vistaversions? - Linux ; Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions? And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but not on another? And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the OS ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vistaversions?

  1. [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vistaversions?

    Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?

    And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    not on another?

    And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    OS as a separate (upgrade package)?

    On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    choose.mspx
    http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

  2. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox
    wrote:

    >Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >
    >And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >not on another?
    >
    >And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    >OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >
    >On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    >the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    >versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >
    >http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >choose.mspx
    >http://tinyurl.com/3843r3



    I find it very confusing myself.

    However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing.
    If the general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do,
    they will be completely flummoxed by Linux.

  3. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vistaversions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:21:18 -0500, flatfish wrote:

    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:
    >
    >>Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >>
    >>And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >>not on another?
    >>
    >>And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    >>OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >>
    >>On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    >>the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    >>versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >>
    >>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >>choose.mspx
    >>http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

    >
    >
    > I find it very confusing myself.
    >
    > However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing. If the
    > general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do, they will
    > be completely flummoxed by Linux.


    So there's really no difference between the two, as far as confusion is
    concerned? How many different versions does there have to be before the
    customer gets confused?

  4. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    asstroturfer flatfish wrote on behalf of big corporation:

    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >>
    >>And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >>not on another?
    >>
    >>And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    >>OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >>
    >>On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    >>the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    >>versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >>
    >>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >>choose.mspx
    >>http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

    >
    >
    > I find it very confusing myself.
    >
    > However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing.
    > If the general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do,
    > they will be completely flummoxed by Linux.


    So what's new in your 2D constrained flatland today?

    Normal users don't fess up to using 500+ versions.
    They stick with one or two depending on their needs and the
    remainder comes to them via embedded devices such as DVD recorders.
    Some you would never meet e.g. a CN version unless you happen
    to be fluent in CN but still gets enjoyed by millions who need them in
    their native language.



  5. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    flatfish wrote:
    >
    > I find it very confusing myself.
    >
    > However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing.
    > If the general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do,
    > they will be completely flummoxed by Linux.


    Really? I only see one version of Linux on the Dell website. Where
    can I buy a system with the other 499 versions? >

    Thad

  6. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Robin T Cox

    wrote
    on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT
    :
    > Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >
    > And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    > not on another?
    >
    > And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    > OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >
    > On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    > the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    > versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    > choose.mspx
    > http://tinyurl.com/3843r3


    And why would it explain why? It just enumerates the
    editions; that's all it's designed to do.

    Of course one might also quibble as to some of the
    categories; the first one in particular is "Most secure
    Windows ever". This begs two questions:

    [1] Honest and for true? Not likely, given Microsoft's
    sorry record.

    [2] Even if one grants it as being the mosts secure Windows
    ever, is it the most secure solution ever for the
    user's desktop?

    "Instant Search": This is an oxymoron of the highest
    proportions regardless of implementation (if one has to
    search for something, it's not instant, folks). Given,
    again, Microsoft's past history, I doubt it's all that
    instant, either -- though some implementations might
    trade off idle time for expediency, as Linux does with
    updatedb/locate and Windows XP does with its FindFast.
    Or was it FastFind?

    "Elegant Windows Aero desktop experience": Purely
    subjective. It may be an improvement over earlier XP
    attempts at a desktop, but it's pretty sorry looking
    compared to XGL.

    "Best choice for laptops": You're kidding, right Microsoft?
    Ask any of our resident Applevocates (Macvocates?) here:
    they'll tear Microsoft a new one. And then, of course,
    there's the Linux bunch, myself among them. Purely
    subjective, again.

    "Collaborate and share documents": I suppose it's possible
    but really it depends on what one considers a document;
    collaboration has been around in some form since Ogg handed
    Gogg a flat rock with some paint on it. Microsoft Word
    isn't an unreasonable solution (if nothing else it serves
    as a method by which one can hang pictures on text), but
    it's not standard, and there have been issues in sharing
    one version of Word documents with a user that doesn't have
    that particular version of Word. It's getting better,
    but HTML and ODF seem to be more intelligently designed
    in this space.

    "Extend Windows Vista": Um....another misleading header,
    since the subtext explains it has to do with multiple
    monitor capability. Xorg has been able to do this for
    quite some time.

    "Experience photos and entertainment": Clear as mud.
    Most people view photos and might reminisce about them
    (especially if they're the photographer). Not sure
    how that counts as "experience". As for experiencing
    entertainment....there are a number of forms of
    entertainment, not all of which require specialized
    hardware of the computing sort -- or, for that matter,
    of *any* sort; a capella singing comes to mind, as well
    as a number of escapades that are best left unsaid in
    a family-oriented newsgroup.

    "Enjoy Windows Media Center": Given certain reports,
    that's exactly what the user will be doing, and I doubt
    the actual verb will be "enjoy", either; the actual video
    content gets pushed down into a tiny corner while the Vista
    Media Center tries to assert its importance. With at least
    one Linux-based implementation, the GUI gets plastered on
    top of the video, but at least in Linux's case the GUI is
    transparent, and tries not to be overly offensive about it.

    "Protect against hardware failure": Slightly misleading,
    as it's a backup/restore solution. Apparently the Home
    editions don't deserve this, either. Hello? Clue phone,
    line three...

    "Windows Fax and Scan": OK, I suppose. However, shouldn't
    we get rid of faxes some time in the near future? This
    *is*, after all, the 21st century.

    "Use scheduled backup": OK, so how come Home Premium has
    this feature without a backup solution?! Did I miss
    something?

    "Easier remote access for your business": Or, more likely,
    remote access for Microsoft. (Who, me cynical?) At least
    Home doesn't appear to have this feature, but malware will
    probably find some way in anyway...

    "Easier networking connectivity": Oh good, everyone can
    connect to the network. Of course, AIUI everyone *has*
    to in order to get the latest and greatest updates --
    whether one really wants them or not.

    "Better protect your data": Guess only Ultimate really
    needs Bitlocker. Everyone else can go crap on themselves.

    "Easily make DVDs": I guess Business doesn't need to make
    DVDs; Home Basic doesn't, either. (So how does Business
    make its backups?)

    "Have more fun on your PC": I guess Business and Home Basic
    aren't allowed to have more fun. Of course it depends
    on how much more fun Chess Titans, Mahjong Titans, and
    Inkball are. No more Space Cadet; that, at least, was
    somewhat enjoyable.

    "Create high definition movies": Um...OK. Does that mean
    they'll hire the actors for me?

    And then Windows Vista Starter is mentioned at the very
    bottom, as the "most affordable way to enjoy the basic
    Windows Vista experience". (Whatever *that* is.)

    Yeah.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
    It's a question of when.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:28:03 GMT, Robin T Cox
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:21:18 -0500, flatfish wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:
    >>
    >>>Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >>>
    >>>And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >>>not on another?
    >>>
    >>>And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    >>>OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >>>
    >>>On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    >>>the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    >>>versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >>>
    >>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >>>choose.mspx
    >>>http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

    >>
    >>
    >> I find it very confusing myself.
    >>
    >> However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing. If the
    >> general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do, they will
    >> be completely flummoxed by Linux.

    >
    >So there's really no difference between the two, as far as confusion is
    >concerned? How many different versions does there have to be before the
    >customer gets confused?


    Not really.

    The law of three applies here.

    Good/Better/Best
    Regular/Plus/Super (gasoline)
    Slow/Medium/Fast

    See the pattern?

    Consumers get confused generally when given more than 3 varieties of
    the same thing.

    The Japanese car manufacturers figured that one out a long time ago
    which is why their cars don't come with a zillion different options
    and combinations of those options like USA cars do.


  8. Re: Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On Nov 30, 1:45 pm, 7 wrote:
    > asstroturfer flatfish wrote on behalf of big corporation:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >>Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?

    >
    > >>And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    > >>not on another?

    >
    > >>And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    > >>OS as a separate (upgrade package)?

    >
    > >>On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    > >>the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    > >>versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.

    >
    > >>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    > >>choose.mspx
    > >>http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

    >
    > > I find it very confusing myself.

    >
    > > However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing.
    > > If the general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do,
    > > they will be completely flummoxed by Linux.

    >
    > So what's new in your 2D constrained flatland today?
    >
    > Normal users don't fess up to using 500+ versions.
    > They stick with one or two depending on their needs and the
    > remainder comes to them via embedded devices such as DVD recorders.
    > Some you would never meet e.g. a CN version unless you happen
    > to be fluent in CN but still gets enjoyed by millions who need them in
    > their native language.


    It's odd, this non-stop claim by the likes of flatfish, that there are
    too many versions of Linux.
    I'm sure there are, but I've only used 4 different distros since I
    started using Linux back around 2000.
    First was Red Hat, which became Fedora Core.
    Then I tried Suse. But I fell in love with Ubuntu and it's derivative,
    Mint.

    Have I played with any others? Sure, I've tried Puppy and Slax and
    Damn Small something or other Linux.

    Now for the more important part. Am I a programmer? Nope. Not unless
    you call Basic an advanced language.
    I still don't know the real difference between IDE and EIDE nor do I
    care.
    I know my laptop has 1 gig of DDR(?) ram, what speed I can't tell you
    but all I know is I can't use the memory modules from my desktop in
    the laptop.

    Yet according to the likes of flatfish, DFS and Hadron, only computer
    gurus and geeks are supposed to be able to run and install Linux.
    Through the likes of Usenet and IRC I've learnt how and why I should
    keep my home partitions separate from my boot partitions.
    But more importantly, I've never had a distro complain about the
    hardware that I'm using. I'm sitting in Blenz Coffee right now typing
    this on my Dell Latitude using Blenz's free wifi. I come in, but my
    coffee and veggie samosa, sit down, fire up the laptop and within
    three minutes I'm on the 'net.

    Oh well, that's just my view.

  9. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com

    wrote
    on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:17:17 -0600
    :
    > flatfish wrote:
    >>
    >> I find it very confusing myself.
    >>
    >> However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing.
    >> If the general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do,
    >> they will be completely flummoxed by Linux.

    >
    > Really? I only see one version of Linux on the Dell website. Where
    > can I buy a system with the other 499 versions? >
    >
    > Thad


    There's only so much one can do about that; even eRacks
    only offers about two dozen variants on their desktops. :-)

    But yeah, we really do need to cut down on the number of
    distros, down to exactly 1, so as not to confuse poor flatfish.

    I nominate Gentoo as the distro of choice.

    :-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net -- insert random tongue in cheek here
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
    void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  10. Re: Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:33:52 -0800, bobbie wrote:

    > On Nov 30, 1:45 pm, 7 wrote:
    >> asstroturfer flatfish wrote on behalf of big corporation:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox
    >> > wrote:

    >>
    >> >>Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?

    >>
    >> >>And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >> >>not on another?

    >>
    >> >>And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    >> >>OS as a separate (upgrade package)?

    >>
    >> >>On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    >> >>the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    >> >>versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.

    >>
    >> >>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >> >>choose.mspx
    >> >>http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

    >>
    >> > I find it very confusing myself.

    >>
    >> > However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing.
    >> > If the general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do,
    >> > they will be completely flummoxed by Linux.

    >>
    >> So what's new in your 2D constrained flatland today?
    >>
    >> Normal users don't fess up to using 500+ versions.
    >> They stick with one or two depending on their needs and the
    >> remainder comes to them via embedded devices such as DVD recorders.
    >> Some you would never meet e.g. a CN version unless you happen
    >> to be fluent in CN but still gets enjoyed by millions who need them in
    >> their native language.

    >
    > It's odd, this non-stop claim by the likes of flatfish, that there are
    > too many versions of Linux.


    Stupid, I call it. Just another way to diss Linux.

    > I'm sure there are, but I've only used 4 different distros since I
    > started using Linux back around 2000.
    > First was Red Hat, which became Fedora Core.
    > Then I tried Suse. But I fell in love with Ubuntu and it's derivative,
    > Mint.


    Most distros fall into simple categories - Debian-derived, or rpm-based,
    and are mostly variations an a common base when you get down to it. Red
    Hat and its branches, SUSE/Mandriva likewise, and Debian, with a few
    others like Slackware, etc.

    >
    > Have I played with any others? Sure, I've tried Puppy and Slax and
    > Damn Small something or other Linux.


    I like Slax. It was my favourite LiveCD for a long time. I don't use it so
    much now because I've gone off KDE, but I still keep an up-to-date version
    of it, just in case.

    >
    > Now for the more important part. Am I a programmer? Nope. Not unless
    > you call Basic an advanced language.


    I'm not even at that level.

    > I still don't know the real difference between IDE and EIDE nor do I
    > care.
    > I know my laptop has 1 gig of DDR(?) ram, what speed I can't tell you
    > but all I know is I can't use the memory modules from my desktop in
    > the laptop.
    >
    > Yet according to the likes of flatfish, DFS and Hadron, only computer
    > gurus and geeks are supposed to be able to run and install Linux.


    They seem to have all this troublem, yet I manage to install all kinds of
    flavours of Linux without too much of a problem, often none at all. And
    I've only been a *computer* user for eight years, never mind a Linux user.

    > Through the likes of Usenet and IRC I've learnt how and why I should
    > keep my home partitions separate from my boot partitions.
    > But more importantly, I've never had a distro complain about the
    > hardware that I'm using. I'm sitting in Blenz Coffee right now typing
    > this on my Dell Latitude using Blenz's free wifi. I come in, but my
    > coffee and veggie samosa, sit down, fire up the laptop and within
    > three minutes I'm on the 'net.


    I've had the odd hardware glitch, but not really anything lately, beyond
    my crappy Braodcom wifi card, in my laptop, which I have hopes of getting
    working sometime.

    >
    > Oh well, that's just my view.


    My view is, the likes of flatfish, Hadron and DFS should give up being the
    twits they are. They're obvioulsy easily confused.

    --
    Kier


  11. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:45:29 GMT, 7
    wrote:

    >asstroturfer flatfish wrote on behalf of big corporation:
    >
    >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >>>
    >>>And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >>>not on another?
    >>>
    >>>And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    >>>OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >>>
    >>>On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    >>>the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    >>>versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >>>
    >>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >>>choose.mspx
    >>>http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

    >>
    >>
    >> I find it very confusing myself.
    >>
    >> However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing.
    >> If the general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do,
    >> they will be completely flummoxed by Linux.

    >
    >So what's new in your 2D constrained flatland today?
    >
    >Normal users don't fess up to using 500+ versions.
    >They stick with one or two depending on their needs and the
    >remainder comes to them via embedded devices such as DVD recorders.
    >Some you would never meet e.g. a CN version unless you happen
    >to be fluent in CN but still gets enjoyed by millions who need them in
    >their native language.


    To the masses, Linux used to be Redhat.
    These days Linux is Ubuntu.

    Ask around and see for yourself.

    As for embedded devices, servers etc they are perfect applications for
    Linux. I have always agreed with that. MoSt people, including myself,
    have no idea what device amy or may no be running Linux so choice
    really isn't in the mix.



  12. Re: Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:33:52 -0800 (PST), bobbie
    wrote:


    >It's odd, this non-stop claim by the likes of flatfish, that there are
    >too many versions of Linux.
    >I'm sure there are, but I've only used 4 different distros since I
    >started using Linux back around 2000.
    >First was Red Hat, which became Fedora Core.
    >Then I tried Suse. But I fell in love with Ubuntu and it's derivative,
    >Mint.


    Well you've got me wrong.
    I have no problem with what I call focused distributions of Linux, for
    example DSL which is specifically built to run on older machines with
    less horsepower.
    No problems there.
    Stuff like Smooth wall, firewall on a floppy etc are also good.
    DAW or multimedia specific distributions are also a good idea as are
    development focused (programming) distributions.
    Still no problem from me.

    Where I take exception is with 250 different versions of say Ubuntu
    with different package managers, some cosmetics and tweaks and that's
    about it.

    THAT is where the confusion starts.

  13. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vistaversions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:21:18 -0500, flatfish wrote:

    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:
    >
    >>Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >>
    >>And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >>not on another?
    >>
    >>And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    >>OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >>
    >>On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    >>the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    >>versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >>
    >>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >>choose.mspx
    >>http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

    >
    >
    > I find it very confusing myself.
    >
    > However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing. If the
    > general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do, they will
    > be completely flummoxed by Linux.


    No, they'l try out one or two of the distros that everyone else uses.

    --
    Rick

  14. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vistaversions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:54:13 -0500, flatfish wrote:

    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:45:29 GMT, 7
    > wrote:
    >
    >>asstroturfer flatfish wrote on behalf of big corporation:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >>>>
    >>>>And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >>>>not on another?
    >>>>
    >>>>And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy
    >>>>the OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >>>>
    >>>>On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke,
    >>>>since the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up
    >>>>some versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining
    >>>>why.
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >>>>choose.mspx
    >>>>http://tinyurl.com/3843r3
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I find it very confusing myself.
    >>>
    >>> However I find 500+ versions of Linux even more confusing. If the
    >>> general public has problems figuring out Vista, and they do, they will
    >>> be completely flummoxed by Linux.

    >>
    >>So what's new in your 2D constrained flatland today?
    >>
    >>Normal users don't fess up to using 500+ versions. They stick with one
    >>or two depending on their needs and the remainder comes to them via
    >>embedded devices such as DVD recorders. Some you would never meet e.g. a
    >>CN version unless you happen to be fluent in CN but still gets enjoyed
    >>by millions who need them in their native language.

    >
    > To the masses, Linux used to be Redhat. These days Linux is Ubuntu.


    Then they won't have any problem choosing a distro, will they?

    BTW, PCLOS is getting more hits than Ubuntu over at distrowatch.

    >
    > Ask around and see for yourself.
    >
    > As for embedded devices, servers etc they are perfect applications for
    > Linux. I have always agreed with that. MoSt people, including myself,
    > have no idea what device amy or may no be running Linux so choice really
    > isn't in the mix.






    --
    Rick

  15. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:

    > Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >
    > And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    > not on another?
    >
    > And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    > OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >
    > On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    > the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    > versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    > choose.mspx
    > http://tinyurl.com/3843r3


    I'm not sure what you find so difficult to understand. It's quite obvious
    from looking at the grid that dark green arrows=Home Basic, lighter
    green=home premium, blue=business, black=ultimate.

    The chart clearly identifies which features belong to witch version.

    What version is pre-installed depends entirely on what the OEM decides to
    do. As for "pricing rationale", maybe you could ask that question of any
    product, including Linux enterprise products.

  16. Re: Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:34:16 -0500, flatfish wrote:

    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:33:52 -0800 (PST), bobbie
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It's odd, this non-stop claim by the likes of flatfish, that there are
    >>too many versions of Linux.
    >>I'm sure there are, but I've only used 4 different distros since I
    >>started using Linux back around 2000.
    >>First was Red Hat, which became Fedora Core.
    >>Then I tried Suse. But I fell in love with Ubuntu and it's derivative,
    >>Mint.

    >
    > Well you've got me wrong.
    > I have no problem with what I call focused distributions of Linux, for
    > example DSL which is specifically built to run on older machines with
    > less horsepower.
    > No problems there.
    > Stuff like Smooth wall, firewall on a floppy etc are also good.
    > DAW or multimedia specific distributions are also a good idea as are
    > development focused (programming) distributions.
    > Still no problem from me.
    >
    > Where I take exception is with 250 different versions of say Ubuntu


    There are no more than five official versions of Ubuntu. Don't exaggerate.
    If you were more honest you wouldn't be so despised.

    > with different package managers, some cosmetics and tweaks and that's
    > about it.
    >
    > THAT is where the confusion starts.


    You really must be easily confused.

    --
    Kier


  17. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:2se625-2e6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Robin T Cox
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:09:06 GMT
    > :
    >> Can anyone explain what the difference is between the Vista versions?
    >>
    >> And why a particular Vista version is pre-installed on one machine but
    >> not on another?
    >>
    >> And what the pricing rationale is between the versions when you buy the
    >> OS as a separate (upgrade package)?
    >>
    >> On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    >> the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    >> versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    >> choose.mspx
    >> http://tinyurl.com/3843r3

    >
    > And why would it explain why? It just enumerates the
    > editions; that's all it's designed to do.
    >

    If you are not being deliberately obtuse just to think you are more
    appealing to the gearheads that way, the answer is simple. The basic
    version is pretty much the same as XP Home with the security changes added.
    Premium adds the multimedia stuff and nifty video for machines that have
    better multimedia hardware. Those are the Home versions. The business
    version is essentially the same as XP Pro, with the security changes.
    Ultimate is the business version with the multimedia stuff added.
    Enterprise is the configurable version of Ultimate that allows for
    independent security feature enabling defaults and is site licensed.

    > Of course one might also quibble as to some of the
    > categories; the first one in particular is "Most secure
    > Windows ever". This begs two questions:
    >
    > [1] Honest and for true? Not likely, given Microsoft's
    > sorry record.
    >

    Definitely the most secure yet. And that is what people want, i.e. a better
    Windows each release. That is what they get, too.

    > [2] Even if one grants it as being the mosts secure Windows
    > ever, is it the most secure solution ever for the
    > user's desktop?
    >

    Definitely. Just ask 99 out of 100 users. In this businss, absolutes don't
    count, attitudes count.

    > "Instant Search": This is an oxymoron of the highest
    > proportions regardless of implementation (if one has to
    > search for something, it's not instant, folks). Given,
    > again, Microsoft's past history, I doubt it's all that
    > instant, either -- though some implementations might
    > trade off idle time for expediency, as Linux does with
    > updatedb/locate and Windows XP does with its FindFast.
    > Or was it FastFind?
    >

    Indexing in the background. Makes it mighty fast. What does Linux do? Who
    cares?

    > "Elegant Windows Aero desktop experience": Purely
    > subjective. It may be an improvement over earlier XP
    > attempts at a desktop, but it's pretty sorry looking
    > compared to XGL.
    >

    Says someone used to the amateur, home-made OSS stuff. It's an acquired
    taste and Windows users are acquiring it faster.

    > "Best choice for laptops": You're kidding, right Microsoft?
    > Ask any of our resident Applevocates (Macvocates?) here:
    > they'll tear Microsoft a new one. And then, of course,
    > there's the Linux bunch, myself among them. Purely
    > subjective, again.
    >

    But all Mac advocates are silly geese or worse, so what do they know? They
    are mostly interested in listening to music and watching music videos and
    are generally spaced out. Linux fans are gearheads with no sense of taste
    at all.

    > "Collaborate and share documents": I suppose it's possible
    > but really it depends on what one considers a document;
    > collaboration has been around in some form since Ogg handed
    > Gogg a flat rock with some paint on it. Microsoft Word
    > isn't an unreasonable solution (if nothing else it serves
    > as a method by which one can hang pictures on text), but
    > it's not standard, and there have been issues in sharing
    > one version of Word documents with a user that doesn't have
    > that particular version of Word. It's getting better,
    > but HTML and ODF seem to be more intelligently designed
    > in this space.
    >

    Get a job with a big company and this will have more meaning to you. It
    will make you a Vista fan, too.

    > "Extend Windows Vista": Um....another misleading header,
    > since the subtext explains it has to do with multiple
    > monitor capability. Xorg has been able to do this for
    > quite some time.
    >

    Who cares? No one uses Xorg anywhere. That, BTW, is the key to all of
    this. It doesn't matter what Linux may or may not do, it matters that
    people use a feature and they will use the feature with Windows while it
    remains a curiosity with Linux.

    > "Experience photos and entertainment": Clear as mud.
    > Most people view photos and might reminisce about them
    > (especially if they're the photographer). Not sure
    > how that counts as "experience". As for experiencing
    > entertainment....there are a number of forms of
    > entertainment, not all of which require specialized
    > hardware of the computing sort -- or, for that matter,
    > of *any* sort; a capella singing comes to mind, as well
    > as a number of escapades that are best left unsaid in
    > a family-oriented newsgroup.
    >

    An attitude that proves my case.

    > "Enjoy Windows Media Center": Given certain reports,
    > that's exactly what the user will be doing, and I doubt
    > the actual verb will be "enjoy", either; the actual video
    > content gets pushed down into a tiny corner while the Vista
    > Media Center tries to assert its importance. With at least
    > one Linux-based implementation, the GUI gets plastered on
    > top of the video, but at least in Linux's case the GUI is
    > transparent, and tries not to be overly offensive about it.
    >


    > "Protect against hardware failure": Slightly misleading,
    > as it's a backup/restore solution. Apparently the Home
    > editions don't deserve this, either. Hello? Clue phone,
    > line three...
    >
    > "Windows Fax and Scan": OK, I suppose. However, shouldn't
    > we get rid of faxes some time in the near future? This
    > *is*, after all, the 21st century.
    >
    > "Use scheduled backup": OK, so how come Home Premium has
    > this feature without a backup solution?! Did I miss
    > something?
    >

    You betcha. The Home backup is automatic for documents, music, videos, and
    photos in the user's personal stash. The pro version allows for more
    detailed selection of direct resource volume and individual file protection.

    > "Easier remote access for your business": Or, more likely,
    > remote access for Microsoft. (Who, me cynical?) At least
    > Home doesn't appear to have this feature, but malware will
    > probably find some way in anyway...
    >

    It is the Remote Console feature from XP Pro silly. Like the Norton PC
    Anywhere or the Citrix terminal server. Good for business, not much
    anything else.

    > "Easier networking connectivity": Oh good, everyone can
    > connect to the network. Of course, AIUI everyone *has*
    > to in order to get the latest and greatest updates --
    > whether one really wants them or not.
    >

    That is just a silly smart aleck comment. Shows a juvenile approach that
    turns people off.

    > "Better protect your data": Guess only Ultimate really
    > needs Bitlocker. Everyone else can go crap on themselves.
    >

    What data do you have that anyone would care about? OTOH business computers
    may have a lot of stuff. Enterprise edition has the feature, too.

    > "Easily make DVDs": I guess Business doesn't need to make
    > DVDs; Home Basic doesn't, either. (So how does Business
    > make its backups?)
    >

    The regular way, silly. Critical data is generally protected via some sort
    of continuous protection scheme that backs up to disk storage somewhere on a
    network and provides off-site archival storage to tape on some interval,
    usually daily. See Veritas NetBackup, BackupExec, Brite-Stor, or other
    enterprise backup schemes. They are even available for Linux, but they are
    not free.



  18. Re: Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    flatfish wrote:

    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:33:52 -0800 (PST), bobbie
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It's odd, this non-stop claim by the likes of flatfish, that there are
    >>too many versions of Linux.
    >>I'm sure there are, but I've only used 4 different distros since I
    >>started using Linux back around 2000.
    >>First was Red Hat, which became Fedora Core.
    >>Then I tried Suse. But I fell in love with Ubuntu and it's derivative,
    >>Mint.

    >
    > Well you've got me wrong.
    > I have no problem with what I call focused distributions of Linux,


    Thats a frivolous claim. Apparently only you know what a
    'focused distribution' is but the 500+ distro makers
    don't know it. Have you tried phoning up anyone and tell them that?


    > for
    > example DSL which is specifically built to run on older machines with
    > less horsepower.


    Are you sure? Thats not what I call focus. Particulary because thats not
    how use it. Most of the time DSL for me runs in powerful computers
    in Qemu doing a hundred and one things that others simply can't manage.


    > No problems there.


    So?

    > Stuff like Smooth wall, firewall on a floppy etc are also good.


    So?

    > DAW or multimedia specific distributions are also a good idea as are
    > development focused (programming) distributions.
    > Still no problem from me.


    So?

    > Where I take exception is with 250 different versions of say Ubuntu
    > with different package managers, some cosmetics and tweaks and that's
    > about it.


    So, have you rung up any of these 250 different Ubuntu version makers and
    exchanged words with them. Did they tell you to fork off by any chance?


    > THAT is where the confusion starts.



    Your confusion is down to the way you failed to fork off and practice Linux.
    You should be lying back and thinking of Linux and be engaged in multiplying
    instead of spliffing and playing with yourself.


    http://www.livecdlist.com
    http://www.distrowatch.com


  19. Re: Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    7 writes:

    > flatfish wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:33:52 -0800 (PST), bobbie
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>It's odd, this non-stop claim by the likes of flatfish, that there are
    >>>too many versions of Linux.
    >>>I'm sure there are, but I've only used 4 different distros since I
    >>>started using Linux back around 2000.
    >>>First was Red Hat, which became Fedora Core.
    >>>Then I tried Suse. But I fell in love with Ubuntu and it's derivative,
    >>>Mint.

    >>
    >> Well you've got me wrong.
    >> I have no problem with what I call focused distributions of Linux,

    >
    > Thats a frivolous claim. Apparently only you know what a
    > 'focused distribution' is but the 500+ distro makers
    > don't know it. Have you tried phoning up anyone and tell them that?


    It would seem that MS and Apple do too. And as for phoning up 500+
    developers - well, well done, you have just supported (inadvertently of
    course) the criticism of the needless number of half arsed distros.

  20. Re: [Rival] Can anyone explain the difference between the Vista versions?

    On 2007-11-30, Robin T Cox wrote:
    > On the face of it, the customer is forced to buy a pig in a poke, since
    > the official page seems to be worse than useless. It flags up some
    > versions with green, blue and black arrows without explaining why.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ista/editions/
    > choose.mspx
    > http://tinyurl.com/3843r3


    That's a pretty clear table. Rows are features, columns represent Vista
    versions. There is a check mark at the intersection of a given row and a
    given column if the Vista represented by that column has the feature
    represented by that row.

    I'm surprised you have not seen this kind of chart before.

    The colors of the check are reasonably obvious, once you note that
    all Vista Ultimate check marks are black, all the Vista Business ones
    are blue, all the Vista Home Premium are green, and all the Vista Basic
    are a different green. Note that the colors correspond to the box
    colors for those editions.

    Most likely, the colors are to make it easier for you to keep track of
    the columns. If you scroll down to a particular feature, and see it is
    checked in columns 2 and 4, but can't remember which Vista editions
    those columns represent, the colors might jog your memory.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast