How Have You Solved Your Vista Laptop Internet Connections Problems?

[Kaylee]

Nope, there's still only four. The "starter" is just Home Basic with restrictions put into it, and those N versions are just the respectively-named versions without Media Player installed per an EU requirement. As for Enterprise, well, you aren't going to be able to get that in any store except through specific special licensing through Microsoft that is geared toward businesses. Essentially, for all intents and purposes to the consumer who might hypothetically be looking to buy Vista, there are four versions. There are variations to some of those four core versions, but they are for specific cases and the average person isn't likely to come across them except in rare occassions (with the possible exception of the EU-mandated N variations). The whole "8/9/x number of Vista versions!" thing seems like unnecessary hyperbole to me. Why not go all-out and count the OEM versions as well? We could even double the number we're counting if we count the 64-bit versions as seperate versions.

That's actually a good point! So you're right -- there are 16 choices! lol!

Actually, seriously, if I had to think about it -- as far as I'm concerned, it counts as a choice. And that's why I listed eight. Last summer I had to take the time out to find out what my options were and that's how many were listed and so that's how many I had to educate myself about. (Though of course I could obviously eliminate some very quickly -- but I still had to learn about them -- even if it didn't take long to learn about some versions.)

Now I don't consider people who aren't computer experts to be idiots any more, and I find my job (head of IT Dept.) to be way less stressful than it would be otherwise because of it.

That is a stressful job! I worked for a large corp and I didn't envy the pressure the IT folks were under. I recall one IT manager saying her team was doing a good job when they got no more thought than the switch for the overhead lights. (Meaning everything should just work smoothly without thinking about it.) I agreed with her, but often I think that means that most IT folks are underappreciated.

Oh, and if you're taking an informal poll on Linux flavors to try, you can mark me down for Ubuntu. I think it's a "jack of all, master of none" as far as special features go, but I tend to prefer that approach.

Sounds perfect for me! Thanks for recommending it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

One word: Macintosh

 

[GreNME]

That's actually a good idea! So you're right -- there are 16 choices! lol!

Actually, seriously, if I had to think about it -- as far as I'm concerned, it counts as a choice. And that's why I listed eight. Last summer I had to take the time out to find out what my options were and that's how many were listed and so that's how many I had to educate myself about. (Though of course I could obviously eliminate some very quickly -- but I still had to learn about them -- even if it didn't take long to learn about some versions.) And really aren't they all basically one o/s -- with the basic difference being how much code is blocked from being run by the user?

No, not really. They are basically the same core operating system, but with the exception of the "starter" edition the only difference is what software is installed. Kind of like different packages for a car.

Still, if you were shopping for Vista, you'd be lucky if you found four options, and you would most likely only come across three. Those other versions are specialty builds to either comply with government requirements or to have something available for nations for whom average computing capabilities are greatly decreased. So, unless you live in India or China, or unless you're living in Europe and actually looking for them (the N editions), then your ability to have more than the four options is almost nil. I'm sure you could get Enterprise edition if you knew someone who knew someone who could get you a license on the sly, or if you wanted to talk to a reseller or Microsoft's own sales contacts, buy into the Software Assurance program, and get yourself five licenses of MS software-- the smallest block you can order software in this case is five licenses. So, yeah, it's possible, just not practical or probable for most people, which basically translates to "not really something the consumer has to worry about." There were corp versions and "specialty" versions of previous MS software, too-- XP had a corp license, a 'not for resale' license, OEM licenses, and not one but two kinds of XP 64-bit licenses (one for Itanium and one for x86-64), on top of its Media Center, Tablet Edition, XP Embedded, and so on-- and yet I've heard more belly-aching about this with Vista than I had with previous versions, including Windows XP.

Sorry, I hate coming off so strong on this otherwise small thing, but while I have been as critical of companies and their business practices as anyone else, but this accusation keeps tripping me up in the lists of often-valid complaints about the operating system. As software has permeated the computing market-- as opposed to formerly being whatever was bundled in the expensive computer you bought-- the average consumer is becoming more and more aware that software companies are producing multiple versions of many of their flagship software packages. What's changing is more about perception and foreknowledge, not the actual packaging models (though not absolutely so for either).

That is a stressful job! I worked for a large corp and I didn't envy the pressure the IT folks were under. I recall one IT manager saying her team was doing a good job when they got no more thought than the switch for the overhead lights. (Meaning everything should just work smoothly without thinking about it.) I agreed with her, but often I think that means that most IT folks are underappreciated.

I did the larger corp thing for a while, but I'm currently sticking to small-medium sized businesses (more than 25 but usually less than 100 employees), so it's far less stressful now. IT is underappreciated in the same manner that accounting (AP and AR, mostly) can typically be underappreciated-- you don't really give them much thought until there is a problem. For the average employee, I don't mind so much. It still bugs me when executive staff, however, behave like that. You would think that with the number of MBAs out there that more of them would have at least paid attention somewhat to the classes that earned them that degree.

Oh, and if you're taking an informal poll on Linux flavors to try, you can mark me down for Ubuntu. I think it's a "jack of all, master of none" as far as special features go, but I tend to prefer that approach.

Sounds perfect for me! Thanks for recommending it.

Hope it works out if you try it. Ubuntu is fairly easy to install, it tends to have packages in it that make installing (and finding) new software more simple than things used to be for Linux, and the community of support for it is pretty good. It's not always all roses, but I've seen fewer issues with Ubuntu than I have with other distributions.

 

[Kaylee]

No, not really. They are basically the same core operating system, but with the exception of the "starter" edition the only difference is what software is installed. Kind of like different packages for a car.

Still, if you were shopping for Vista, you'd be lucky if you found four options, and you would most likely only come across three. Those other versions are specialty builds to either comply with government requirements or to have something available for nations for whom average computing capabilities are greatly decreased. So, unless you live in India or China, or unless you're living in Europe and actually looking for them (the N editions), then your ability to have more than the four options is almost nil. I'm sure you could get Enterprise edition if you knew someone who knew someone who could get you a license on the sly, or if you wanted to talk to a reseller or Microsoft's own sales contacts, buy into the Software Assurance program, and get yourself five licenses of MS software-- the smallest block you can order software in this case is five licenses. So, yeah, it's possible, just not practical or probable for most people which basically translates to "not really something the consumer has to worry about." There were corp versions and "specialty" versions of previous MS software, too-- XP had a corp license, a 'not for resale' license, OEM licenses, and not one but two kinds of XP 64-bit licenses (one for Itanium and one for x86-64), on top of its Media Center, Tablet Edition, XP Embedded, and so on-- and yet I've heard more belly-aching about this with Vista than I had with previous versions, including Windows XP.

Sorry, I hate coming off so strong on this otherwise small thing, but while I have been as critical of companies and their business practices as anyone else, but this accusation keeps tripping me up in the lists of often-valid complaints about the operating system. As software has permeated the computing market-- as opposed to formerly being whatever was bundled in the expensive computer you bought-- the average consumer is becoming more and more aware that software companies are producing multiple versions of many of their flagship software packages. What's changing is more about perception and foreknowledge, not the actual packaging models (though not absolutely so for either).

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think most people still want to purchase a computer with some thought and knowledge about what they are getting into. For most people buying a Vista latop when it first came out was a radically different experience from buying an XP laptop when it first came out. There were so many more choices. And it was annoying. An O/S is just suppose to operate the d*** thing. (I agree with the creator of Linux on that one.)

Its true that since the time XP first came out, it also got more choices including XP Media Center. But people had a chance to learn about those choices over time, and the average consumer was probably only vaguely aware of some of those choices anyway (eg 64 bit o/s).

When Vista came out, every tech magazine had an article about the many different choices. And for the first time, an average consumer had to decide whether to install a 64 or 32 bit O/S. For the average consumer it didn't matter that it was mostly all the same core operating system anyway. The core operating system was being sold with some of its functions disabled, different ones in different versions. So you still had to be knowledgeable about the different versions because even if the reason for the different amount of functionality was trivial, the effect of that reason was not. It also didn't matter if some choices were irrelevent to them. They still had to take the time out to learn that before they could make any decisions. [ETA maybe the tipping point for me is that MS included Home Basic among its choices for Vista, an O/S that can't do some very basic O/S functions -- like backing up! ]

Afterall, it's not like MS is a vendor that one can trust. A trustworthy vendor would never have sold the eviscerated version of Home Basic in the first place. Also, before MS, no company had ever sold so many products that weren't actually ready to be sold. And the main reason that MS has the market share they have today is not because of the quality of their product but because of the nefarious business practices that they had engaged in -- such as threatening to withhold their O/S from OEMs unless they only offerred the end client a MS O/S or ... a M/S O/S. Or had their O/S (don't remember if it was 3.1 or Win 95) which issued erroneous messages whenever it detected a non MS application. That is when Word Perfect, Lotus 123, etc. lost their market share to MS Office. I don't know how they managed to break so many laws in the USA and get away with it. The only reason some of their practices have been curtailed is because of the European Union.

Hmm, I appeared to have gone off on a rant. Think its time to walk away from the keyboard again!

Dated article, but interesting.

Choose a Vista Video

 

[GreNME]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think most people still want to purchase a computer with some thought and knowledge about what they are getting into. For most people buying a Vista latop when it first came out was a radically different experience from buying an XP laptop when it first came out. There were so many more choices. And it was annoying. An O/S is just suppose to operate the d*** thing. (I agree with the creator of Linux on that one.)

I completely disagree with Torvalds (the guy who made Linux) on that note. Anyone who has sat someone down in front of a computer for the first time should be able to remember the familiar variation of "okay, what do I do with it?" Apple has answered this by more tightly integrating the software it makes to the hardware, resulting in the Macintosh and its "Mac" way of doing things. Windows is set up to behave more like the middle-man or interpreter between your software and the hardware-- never quite seamless but pretty diverse. Linux has been, for nearly twenty years (~17 years), a "from scratch" architecture that consists of loads of tiny modules that each contribute to do parts of what a user might want. The reality is that each of these things are exactly what an operating system is used for, and as demands increase so do the things required to meet those demands (on all three systems). Linus Torvalds knows this, but just like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs he would rather that more people use the system he brought to the table.

Its true that since the time XP first came out, it also got more choices including XP Media Center. But people had a chance to learn about those choices over time, and the average consumer was probably only vaguely aware of some of those choices anyway (eg 64 bit o/s).

Oh, not just XP, but even its predecessors. You just never heard about them because they weren't germane to the flagship line. Windows 2000 had a few versions (though fewer than XP/2003), and while 95 and 98/Me were out there as the Windows du jour the Windows NT lines were being sold right along with them. What changed? Honestly, XP is what changed everything, because it took the business NT lines and the consumer 9x lines and converged them into a single "product," even though right from the gate there were four versions (Home, Pro, Corp, and 64-Bit/Itanium).

When Vista came out, every tech magazine had an article about the many different choices. And for the first time, an average consumer had to decide whether to install a 64 or 32 bit O/S.

The same thing happened with 95 and 98. We went from 16-bit to 32-bit in those days. The only difference is that the internet hadn't been so fully engulfed with news "sources" yet that "everybody" wasn't being bombarded with the issue and, wonder of wonders, we got over it pretty quick. If you ask me, all the hemming and hawing is making what would have been minor issues fifteen years ago into huge scandalous debates.

[ETA maybe the tipping point for me is that MS included Home Basic among its choices for Vista, an O/S that can't do some very basic O/S functions -- like backing up! ]

Actually, backing up isn't a function of a core operating system. That's one of those add-ons for extra functionality I mentioned earlier.

Afterall, it's not like MS is a vendor that one can trust. A trustworthy vendor would never have sold the eviscerated version of Home Basic in the first place.

I almost agree with this, except I'd say that a reasonable vendor would not have packaged the eviscerated version as a retail offering. If they want to offer something like that I don't care, but it honestly has no place on store shelves in my opinion.

Also, before MS, no company had ever sold so many products that weren't actually ready to be sold.

No offense, but this sounds an awful lot like the "no steel-framed building ever..." claim I hear from 9/11 conspiracy theorists. If you don't think there haven't been plenty of software packages in the history of personal computing that were of questionable quality that required subsequent "patches" to address, then I kindly submit that perhaps you are simply unaware that software patching is not something Microsoft introduced to the world.

And the main reason that MS has the market share they have today is not because of the quality of their product but because of the nefarious business practices that they had engaged in -- such as threatening to withhold their O/S from OEMs unless they only offerred the end client a MS O/S or ... a M/S O/S.

We're getting a bit into the realm where I think time-lines of activities are becoming conflated, here. Microsoft did bully several OEMs, but this was in the late 1990's-- well after they had achieved market dominance. Perhaps you mean instead Microsoft's deals with IBM and then the clone market that got it its market dominance?

Or had their O/S (don't remember if it was 3.1 or Win 95) which issued erroneous messages whenever it detected a non MS application.

Never seen that. I've seen Windows kick out a boatload of error messages, but I never heard of this claim before? For my edification, you wouldn't happen to know which software it did this with, would you?

Dated article, but interesting.

Choose a Vista Video

Um, the first one isn't talking about Vista at all, it's talking about XP. And the Apple video: are you serious? You do realize that Apple's "Hi, I'm a Mac" videos are pretty much the same old "we're not going to outright lie but we'll mislead you in every imaginable way possible" kind of marketing?

Respectfully, I think that we're sinking into the realm of hyperbole here and it's probably best that the conversation end with us agreeing to disagree. Good luck with Ubuntu.

 

[Kaylee]

Actually, backing up isn't a function of a core operating system. That's one of those add-ons for extra functionality I mentioned earlier.

That ... surprises me.

I almost agree with this, except I'd say that a reasonable vendor would not have packaged the eviscerated version as a retail offering. If they want to offer something like that I don't care, but it honestly has no place on store shelves in my opinion.

Another thing we agree on!

No offense, but this sounds an awful lot like the "no steel-framed building ever..." claim I hear from 9/11 conspiracy theorists. If you don't think there haven't been plenty of software packages in the history of personal computing that were of questionable quality that required subsequent "patches" to address, then I kindly submit that perhaps you are simply unaware that software patching is not something Microsoft introduced to the world.

So ... MS didn't bring this to a whole new level?

We're getting a bit into the realm where I think time-lines of activities are becoming conflated, here. Microsoft did bully several OEMs, but this was in the late 1990's-- well after they had achieved market dominance. Perhaps you mean instead Microsoft's deals with IBM and then the clone market that got it its market dominance?

Well they had achieved market dominance to some extent otherwise they never would have been able to bully the OEMs the way they did -- but as a result of these tactics their market share grew even more.

Never seen that. I've seen Windows kick out a boatload of error messages, but I never heard of this claim before? For my edification, you wouldn't happen to know which software it did this with, would you?

I was working for a large corp at the time and it did this with Lotus 123 and Wordperfect. The company I worked for had a new IS director and one of the first things she was responsible for was to install a new O/S in all the PCs. Just about the second thing she did was to replace all of our spreadsheets and word processing applications with MS Office. She did this because of the O/S errors that were generated every time Lotus or WP was initially opened up and used. IIRC, the tech magazines at the time said there was no validity to these O/S error msgs but for the IT director it was a CYA issue and despite many protests we got all of our office application programs replaced. As I understand it, this was a pretty common reaction throughout the country at the time. I just can't remember if it happened when 3.1 or 95 came out. Maybe someone else will remember and post.

Um, the first one isn't talking about Vista at all, it's talking about XP.

Hmm, the way I saw it was that the article was talking about MS in general and about its historical trend to fracture its various O/Ss (for its own reasons) despite its claims in various legal courts that it can't do so because it would be harmful to their customers ...

I thought it fit in well with the topic so that's why I linked to it... {shrug}

And the Apple video: are you serious? You do realize that Apple's "Hi, I'm a Mac" videos are pretty much the same old "we're not going to outright lie but we'll mislead you in every imaginable way possible" kind of marketing?

I thought the spin the wheel video was funny and I was just trying to end the post on a light note. Hey, there's a reason why I'm not a professional comedian!

Respectfully, I think that we're sinking into the realm of hyperbole here and it's probably best that the conversation end with us agreeing to disagree. Good luck with Ubuntu.

Thanks! I don't have time to install it in the near future, but I hope to find time to try it one of these days.

Thanks for posting btw, even though we don't agree on everything -- I got a lot out of your posts and enjoyed reading them.

 

[GreNME]

So ... MS didn't bring this [re: patch releases for software] to a whole new level?

Not in any direct way. The advent of personal computers into a more widespread and common user market did that, and I dare say it would have likely been the same for any other software vendor. Even the Unix companies of old released patches regularly-- maintenance and upkeep has been a high-priced business for more than half a century.

Well they had achieved market dominance to some extent otherwise they never would have been able to bully the OEMs the way they did -- but as a result of these tactics their market share grew even more.

I think the essence of that is basically true. Microsoft is well-known to have an institutional paranoia that tends to be bad for competition and bad for dissemination of new technologies that they aren't involved in.

Hmm, the way I saw it was that the article was talking about MS in general and about its historical trend to fracture its various O/Ss (for its own reasons) despite its claims in various legal courts that it can't do so because it would be harmful to their customers ...

I thought it fit in well with the topic so that's why I linked to it... {shrug}

It fits in well with the claim that the company puts out more product versions than they need to, and I agree on that, but I was mainly pointing out that the practical reality doesn't quite match up to the claims behind a lot of the anti-Vista histrionics.

I thought the spin the wheel video was funny and I was just trying to end the post on a light note. Hey, there's a reason why I'm not a professional comedian!

I thought the first few Mac commercials were cute, but they tended to get worse as Apple became more obviously wild in their presentations. It comes across as petulant and childish to me, even though I really do personally dig the Mac operating system. I think the commercials, much like the "Switch" commercials (with individuals giving personal "testimonies"), are becoming such that they are making the company (Apple) look bad and elitist rather than personable and accessible.

Thanks! I don't have time to install it in the near future, but I hope to find time to try it one of these days.

Thanks for posting btw, even though we don't agree on everything -- I got a lot out of your posts and enjoyed reading them.

Here's hoping that whichever flavor you eventually get to try works out for you. Once you give it a try, definitely post here with questions or comments, as I'd be interested to find out how things go.