Archive: Business & Technology

Dr. Digit 'Splains It All Dr. Digit 'Splains It All

When I was a software developer it didn't take long to learn that you make your money in upgrades.  Once you have a decent sized user base you release a new upgrade at a reduced price when you need income.  Assuming you provide value each time, most users buy it -- or enough to make it worthwhile.  Microsoft has a mixed record in that regard.  For example, a lot of people thought Millenium Edition (ME) was released only because 2000 wasn't consumer friendly enough and XP wasn't ready.  My family still has a computer with ME on it.  Yecch!

But my inner geek always wants the latest and greatest.  Better looking, better working, newer, better gadgets.  Hardware and software.  So it was with some interest that I went to Best Buy with a friend last night to see what Vista looks like.  From all the hype I thought it might be too different, but from what we could see in an admittedly fast first look Vista is just Windows, but prettier.  Or should I say more graphically able?  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It did seem perky, but my friend noted that after a few Windows Updates XP slows and slows and slows -- he thinks that likely to be true with Vista updates based on Microsoft's track record.  We agreed that the perkiness on the Best Buy machine probably had to do with the dual processor.  And a machine being sold with Vista on it is likely to have been made to optimize the advantages.  So putting Vista on your current machine would likely yield less satisfying results.

My programming friends have been struggling with adapting their programs for Vista for many months, and it sounds like MS has gotten so caught up in security issues that it is very difficult to get things to work.  At least it sounds as if older programs won't because they won't be able to write their files.  And certain things programs could do before won't work.  Even though many users either aren't on networks or don't need the setup businesses do, Vista is all about "permissions" -- accounts on which things can run and accounts on which they can't.  I don't know about you, but I don't want accounts on my computer.  I just want to turn it on and use it.

In fact it is all over the news that crackers are already trading Vista vulnerabilities, and older operating systems like FreeBSD (a version of UNIX) are much more secure.  So the end result is likely to be what we have now but worse -- attempts to enhance security making the computing experience more cumbersome, less productive, and less fun.

I also don't want to buy all new versions of things again.  Quickbooks already sent mail saying I would have to buy their new version to use with Vista.  Whenever there is a major operating system upgrade, the utilities aren't far behind.  So upgrading the operating system is a lot more expensive than just buying the operating system.

Widgets, little applications that sit on your desktop to show the time, weather, news, and so on, are cool but they are basically the same thing Google Desktop Search has on its side bar.  I already use and like Google Desktop Search, but I disabled the sidebar because a) I didn't like how much space it takes on the screen, and 2) I didn't like it accessing the Internet as much as it does, popping things up and so on.  And I already have things on my computer that tell me the time and weather.  I have a big round thing on my wall that tells me what time it is easily, at a glance, and with my glasses off.  Once the novelty wore off I think I would end up not using widgets.

The computer we looked at reported that Vista was a 32 bit operating system.  I thought the whole point of Vista was the jump to 64 bit.  Windows 95 was a jump from 16 bit to 32 bit.  This means that Windows 95 could process twice as much stuff in the same time period as Windows for Workgroups could.  While dual processors achieve a similar result using hardware, I had understood Vista would do it in the software.  My friend said that there is a 64 bit version of Vista.  But he said he has heard that the 64 bit version has even more problems running things.  That is to be expected, we agreed.

But is it?  These are computers -- the point is that it is easier for them to do certain things.  Shouldn't the operating system be made to do them before it is released?  Is it unreasonable for consumers to expect backward compatibility?

What I have never liked about the Mac is how it ties my hands when I want to do something under the hood (I have never liked the price either).  It looks like Vista is going in that direction even as Macs go in the direction of PCs.  Both slowly, but surely.  Will we all end up with what we didn't like about the other system?

All the geek shows and magazine articles ask, "Should you upgrade to Vista?" and then go into paroxysms of pleasure over cascading windows drawn in perspective stacks.  And those only work if you have a beefy enough computer to run them.  All this clever graphic stuff -- aren't computers supposed to be for accomplishing tasks?  Isn't all the froufrou distracting?

The bottom line is that I liked what I saw, but not enough to run out and get Vista.  The problem with first impressions is that you may like something at first that will turn out not helpful in frequent use.  And you may not appreciate new features until you get used to them.  So I won't claim that my first impression is 100% fair.  But it is enough to convince me that I'll wait until I need a new computer for tasks I actually do.  I'll deal with upgrades for the programs I am still using at that point.  I am pretty happy with my current computer -- why upgrade just because I can?

I guess my inner geek is dead.

----
v3i5