:coffee:

From my InFo Weel Newsletter .........

Windows Vista: The OS About Nothing

Microsoft's new Windows ad, featuring Jerry Seinfeld, is outdated and not very funny--but it's highly revealing of all that's wrong out there in Redmond.

The background: Windows is losing market share to Apple's Mac OS and even Linux. And Vista, the latest version, has been a big fat dud. Businesses have shunned it outright, and many consumers find it unintuitive and difficult to use.

So, Microsoft hired "award winning" agency Crispin, Porter + Bogusky--at a reported cost of $300 million--to give Vista, and the Windows franchise in general, an image makeover. The Seinfeld ad debuted Thursday and it's the first piece of an integrated marketing campaign covering TV, the Web and point-of-sale outlets.

It's not going to work.

The ad shows Seinfeld helping Microsoft chairman Bill Gates buy shoes at a discount store. Gates opts for a pair called The Conquistador. "They run very tight," Seinfeld warns. It does not get any funnier than that.

But it's a remarkable, 90-second second encapsulation of why Microsoft is going to have a tough time thriving in the Web 2.0 world, where consumers--not agencies and marketers--decide what's in.

For starters, what does the decision to use a 54-year-old, white, multimillionaire comedian, whose show went off the air ten years ago, as the centerpiece of a campaign that's supposed to give Windows a hip new image and help Microsoft reconnect with younger buyers, tell us about the company?

Mostly that it's dominated by middle aged white guys who made their own millions more than a decade ago and who are woefully out of touch with America's changing demographics and any generation that doesn't go by the initials BB.

These guys probably still think the Fonz is cool.

The ad is also a good metaphor for Windows Vista itself. Despite the hype surrounding its launch (Dan Lyons, aka "Fake Steve", thinks Microsoft deliberately leaked Seinfeld's involvement to generate some buzz), the first spot is being greeted with a resounding, "Huh?"

It doesn't even mention Windows. Sure, it's not always necessary to drill a product's name directly into consumers' skulls by mentioning it 60 times in 60 seconds, but even Microsoft appears to be conceding that the connection is too obscure. It's already put out a press release explaining it.

Read the rest of my analysis of Microsoft's $300 million big honking brand campaign here.

Paul McDougall
paulmcd@techweb.com
InformationWeek | Business Technology News, Reviews and Blogs (http://www.informationweek.com)

:killingme

OUCH! :killingme

OUCH! :killingme

Latest Apple Ads ..........

Apple - Get a Mac - Watch the TV Ads (http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/)

So, Microsoft hired "award winning" agency Crispin, Porter + Bogusky--at a reported cost of $300 million--to give Vista, and the Windows franchise in general, an image makeover. The Going to take more than high priced commercials and actors to make me want to buy Vista. :lmao: Why doesn't Microsoft, with it's billions, fix the effing problem with Vista and make Vista over.

Going to take more than high priced commercials and actors to make me want to buy Vista. :lmao: Why doesn't Microsoft, with it's billions, fix the effing problem with Vista and make Vista over.



you have to admit you have a problem 1st ..... Balmer and crew have been entrenched so long ....

IMHO

they need to dump and do a compete re write .... providing an emulation for old applications .... like Apple did when they switched to OS X .... you could get "classic" which was an emulator ....

God I wish I could switch back to XP, but I am too chicken that my touchscreen won't work and I will have a shiat load of driver problems. On top of that, I have NEVER owned an HP before so this thing is freaking alien to me.

:bawl: I want my XP back :bawl:

A few years ago, I went to the Sugar Bowl with some friends and met one of their friends...who worked for MS on Longhorn (Vista). I told her that they need to ditch all the fancy stuff and just make it work right. She didn't like that too much, but I guess I was right.

OS 7 is due out in a a few years....they aren't going to do much more with vista. And honestly, After finally being forced to get vista for DX 10 support, it really aint all that bad. Just turn off all the stupid wastes of memory and get rid of Aero and your set.

Still <3 RH though

MS Mojave :whistle:

Vista isn't bad if you have a good computer with lots of Ram. But that is the problem. It offers absolutely nothing over xp but alot of fluff and requires anyone with an old or cheap computer to upgrade or buy a new one to run it.

I always thought that windows xp was a huge resource hog, but at least it offered a couple nice things like easier network setup. Vista seems to have ruined that. It took me a half hour to connect my laptop to my parents wireless modem. I found the network easily, but it kept asking me for a user id and password instead of the wep key that was required. After searching for awhile I finally found a manual configuration panel, but getting to it was anything but obvious. It's weird though, because on my home network, the wep key entry field comes right up when I click connect.

As for that commercial, I found it to be stupid and didn't see how it was promoting vista or anyting else. Unless they were tying to sell shoes?

Vista isn't bad if you have a good computer with lots of Ram. But that is the problem. It offers absolutely nothing over xp but alot of fluff and requires anyone with an old or cheap computer to upgrade or buy a new one to run it.

I always thought that windows xp was a huge resource hog, but at least it offered a couple nice things like easier network setup. Vista seems to have ruined that. It took me a half hour to connect my laptop to my parents wireless modem. I found the network easily, but it kept asking me for a user id and password instead of the wep key that was required. After searching for awhile I finally found a manual configuration panel, but getting to it was anything but obvious. It's weird though, because on my home network, the wep key entry field comes right up when I click connect.

As for that commercial, I found it to be stupid and didn't see how it was promoting vista or anyting else. Unless they were tying to sell shoes?

That’s the point. Today’s market is driven by the manufacture, not the consumer. It’s not what we want, but what these companies can forcefully push down our throats.

OS 7 is due out in a a few years....they aren't going to do much more with vista. And honestly, After finally being forced to get vista for DX 10 support, it really aint all that bad. Just turn off all the stupid wastes of memory and get rid of Aero and your set.

Still <3 RH thoughWhat are the wastes of memory in Vista? How much RAM is needed to effectively run it?

What are the wastes of memory in Vista? How much RAM is needed to effectively run it?

Aero, Sidebar, visual effects, that idiotic nanny filter, along with all the other processes that plague all the other systems.

Define "Effectively run". I triple boot my main computer with Vista/XP/Linux. As that is my "main" computer I have 8gb (4x2), and as would be expected, it runs flawlessly.

On my secondary desktop (that I use to test software prior to installing/patching it to my main desktop) I have 4gb. It runs perfectly fine.

My laptop which dual boots vista/xp has 2gb and it is slow. Granted, the whole computer is slow, but even if it had the stats of my desktops it would still be noticeable. In my opinion, for a desktop, max out your RAM. 8gb costs ~ $150 now.

For -most- users, 2-4gbs will suffice. If your not trying to mess with multiple games, programs, etc. running.

Either way, I highly recommend getting over the "Ooo pretty background" complex that vista tries to force onto you. Aero is completely useless (although the hover over pop-up tabs and atl-tabbing was nice) and putting anything except "Adjust for best performance" as your UI options is just silly.

Admittedly I keep the sidebar operational on my secondary machine, as I keep in close contact with people internationally and enjoy the multiple clocks that I can use to see what time it is in Scotland, Italy, New Zealand and Japan.

It offers absolutely nothing over xp

It offers DX 10...the only legal OS that has it. And if you're into graphics (or bought a video card in the past year) then its almost a necessity to have vista.

I think the problem MS is having with Vista, is that there is just no reason to upgrade. All it does is cost money and all it gives you is .... a smaller bank account.

just what everyone wants!

For -most- users, 2-4gbs will suffice. If your not trying to mess with multiple games, programs, etc. running


Just as an FYI if you only are running the standard 32 bit version of Vista it can't utilize anything beyond 4GB but even then it will never use the whole 4GB and may use alot less depending on your system.

A quote from an article on the 32 bit version of Vista:

"If your video adapter has 512MB of RAM, your maximum memory is going to at most be 3.5GB, because Vista has to use 512MB of the 4GB maximum address space it can utilize to address your video memory. It’ll actually be lower than the 3.5GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too."

In other words anything over 4GB is a waste unless you run the 64 bit version of Vista.

Just as an FYI if you only are running the standard 32 bit version of Vista it can't utilize anything beyond 4GB but even then it will never use the whole 4GB and may use alot less depending on your system.

A quote from an article on the 32 bit version of Vista:

"If your video adapter has 512MB of RAM, your maximum memory is going to at most be 3.5GB, because Vista has to use 512MB of the 4GB maximum address space it can utilize to address your video memory. It’ll actually be lower than the 3.5GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too."

In other words anything over 4GB is a waste unless you run the 64 bit version of Vista.

Yup yup. 64 bit here. :)

my x86 XP box runs quite nice on 3gb

I have upgraded my laptop to VISTA and right now it is running faster than XP... it is a Dell XPS1710 with 4GB, but even at 2GB it is just as quick. I did the upgrade to get my head into VISTA more as that will be the next O/S wave coming through here. I did keep my XP disk just incase I could not operate something with VISTA, but so far, so good.

I have noticed before SP1 this thing was a dog with VISTA, now with SP1 it is really quick.

8GB might be a stretch unless you are doing graphic manipulation. For the average user, 2GB would be fine to check e-mail, browse the web and write some letters... 4GB would be optimal in a new computer.

Memory is cheap right now, so why not put more in if you can.

Get a MAC!

Might only work with 2.3% of the software on the market but for an extra two grand you can get a little Apple emblem that lights up!

:jet:

Get a MAC!

Might only work with 2.3% of the software on the market but for an extra two grand you can get a little Apple emblem that lights up!

:jet:

Many
Applications
Crash
If
Not
The
Operating
System
Hangs

:killingme

Many
Applications
Crash
If
Not
The
Operating
System
Hangs

:killingme

ah huh ......... not any more :whistle:

Got 64bit Vista here, but sadly just found out from HP I can't get anymore memory for this computer. It has 4gb. I wanted to double it, they said it could not handle it.

Got 64bit Vista here, but sadly just found out from HP I can't get anymore memory for this computer. It has 4gb. I wanted to double it, they said it could not handle it.

In all honesty, I am running VISTA on my 1710 and it is flying with 4GB - it even runs just as fast with 2GB. If I render with Photoshop CS3 is slows down with 2, but not with 4... the typical user will never go this far though.

Not sure about the 64bit OS - but I imagine the memory footprint is not that much more different, so you should be OK with 4GB for the life of your laptop.

Let me know if you want to trade that XPS away for my Optiplex. :lol:

what no bring homes from the gobberment ............. :whistle:

Vista Ultimate 32bit for me! Ive just now barely maxxed out 2gig with playing Crysis at full res.

Vista Ultimate 32bit for me! Ive just now barely maxxed out 2gig with playing Crysis at full res.

Your a homo. ;D

Your a homo. ;D

No your a homo...

In all honesty, I am running VISTA on my 1710 and it is flying with 4GB - it even runs just as fast with 2GB. If I render with Photoshop CS3 is slows down with 2, but not with 4... the typical user will never go this far though.

Not sure about the 64bit OS - but I imagine the memory footprint is not that much more different, so you should be OK with 4GB for the life of your laptop.

Let me know if you want to trade that XPS away for my Optiplex. :lol:

I don't think so! I got too much money wrapped up in that thing. I have decided to just use it for when we travel. So it will sit in my laptop case and collect dust in the mean time. Its the new computer that run 64bit vista and I was told with the 64 bit the computer uses all the 4GB. If you have regular 32bit vista you only use about 3.2GB of your memory. :shrug: That truly sucks cause try finding 64bit XP its almost impossible! And when you do boy is it overpriced!

If you have a 32bit OS you have to add in the video ram also with the system memory to total 4gig.
EX: I have 1gig of video memory so I can only have up to 3gig of system mem.
EX I have 512meg of video memory so I can have up to 3.5gig of system mem.


See it all depends on what you have. On my machine I can only have 3gig though.

I don't think so! I got too much money wrapped up in that thing. I have decided to just use it for when we travel. So it will sit in my laptop case and collect dust in the mean time. Its the new computer that run 64bit vista and I was told with the 64 bit the computer uses all the 4GB. If you have regular 32bit vista you only use about 3.2GB of your memory. :shrug: That truly sucks cause try finding 64bit XP its almost impossible! And when you do boy is it overpriced!

Wow - I am looking right now on a 32-bit VISTA platform, with Outlook, IE7, Word, X-Windows emulator and a couple of SSH terminals open I am using just shy of 1.2 GB. :confused:

I would hold on to the XPS and re-load XP or a fresh VISTA, mine at home running VISTA 32-bit, running Outlook, IE7 and word is right around 800MB...

Wow - I am looking right now on a 32-bit VISTA platform, with Outlook, IE7, Word, X-Windows emulator and a couple of SSH terminals open I am using just shy of 1.2 GB. :confused:

I would hold on to the XPS and re-load XP or a fresh VISTA, mine at home running VISTA 32-bit, running Outlook, IE7 and word is right around 800MB...

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. In a 32 bit machine it will max out to 3.2GB of RAM if you had everything going all at once. In a 64 bit machine you would max out at 4GB of RAM if you had everything going at once. Only the 64bit machine is able to utilize all 4GB of RAM. Does that make more sense?

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. In a 32 bit machine it will max out to 3.2GB of RAM if you had everything going all at once. In a 64 bit machine you would max out at 4GB of RAM if you had everything going at once. Only the 64bit machine is able to utilize all 4GB of RAM. Does that make more sense?

I understand what you are saying now... only because of the Kernel change between XP and VISTA and how the Kernel utilizing memory based on what devices it has to work with (video, chipsets, audio controllers, USB and FireWire controllers/devices.) I thought you meant "typical" running footprint. Now I understand, here is a bit more information for you to smoke your mind... :cool:

The 32-bit O/S (regardless if its XP or VISTA) can still addresses the entire 4GB, you only see (say 3.5GB) because if your video adapter has 512MB of memory on board, the O/S must map that 512MB in its first 512MB of resident memory. Graphics memory mapping overwrites resident memory.

Also, other devices that utilize DMA (Direct Memory Access) and drivers loading will also suck up pieces of resident memory. These are little known facts about windows.

Even though you have a 64-bit machine you may or may not be able to utilize the entire 4GB as well - here is a snipit from MSDN on the subject;

For Windows Vista to use all 4 GB of memory on a computer that has 4 GB of memory installed, the computer must meet the following requirements:
• The chipset must support at least 8 GB of address space. Chipsets that have this capability include the following:
• Intel 975X
• Intel P965
• Intel 955X on Socket 775
• Chipsets that support AMD processors that use socket F, socket 940, socket 939, or socket AM2. These chipsets include any AMD socket and CPU combination in which the memory controller resides in the CPU.

• The CPU must support the x64 instruction set. The AMD64 CPU and the Intel EM64T CPU support this instruction set.
• The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature. The memory remapping feature allows for the segment of system memory that was previously overwritten by the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) configuration space to be remapped above the 4 GB address line. This feature must be enabled in the BIOS configuration utility on the computer. View your computer product documentation for instructions that explain how to enable this feature. Many consumer-oriented computers may not support the memory remapping feature. No standard terminology is used in documentation or in BIOS configuration utilities for this feature. Therefore, you may have to read the descriptions of the various BIOS configuration settings that are available to determine whether any of the settings enable the memory remapping feature.
• An x64 (64-bit) version of Windows Vista must be used.
Contact the computer vendor to determine whether your computer meets these requirements.

Note When the physical RAM that is installed on a computer equals the address space that is supported by the chipset, the total system memory that is available to the operating system is always less than the physical RAM that is installed. For example, consider a computer that has an Intel 975X chipset that supports 8 GB of address space. If you install 8 GB of RAM, the system memory that is available to the operating system will be reduced by the PCI configuration requirements. In this scenario, PCI configuration requirements reduce the memory that is available to the operating system by an amount that is between approximately 200 MB and approximately 1 GB. The reduction depends on the configuration.

In theory with todays designs of O/S, not the theoretical addressing limits (below), 64-bit applications running on a 64-bit operating system are allotted 8 TB in virtual memory for user processes and 8 TB for kernel processes which make the virtual memory total equal 16 TB.

Currently, all 64-bit versions of Microsoft operating systems do not use the 16 TB limit, but impose a practical limit on the address space and allow no more than 128 GB of physical memory to be accessed. Now, with 64-bit VISTA, you can address different amount of memory based on the type of VISTA you have;

Home Basic: 8GB
Home Premium: 16GB
Utimate: 128GB +
Business: 128GB +
Enterprise: 128GB +

64-Bit XP goes up to 128GB

Bottom line, 2 to the power of 32 = 4,294,967,296 - we know this as 4GB, the max which any 32-bit O/S can address. 3 flavors of Server 2008 (32-bit) can go up to 64GB of physical memory, but this is using something called PAE which we will NOT get into :lol:

2 to the power of 64 = 1.84467441 × 10^19 (ten to the 19th power) - we know this as 16EB (EXABytes - or 16.8 Million TeraBytes - or 16.8 Trilion GigaBytes), the 64 bit O/S is theoretically capable of addressing this much memory, but currently only go out to about 2TB of physical memory, and only go out to about 8TB in swap space (maybe more)... I am not sure of any O/S going beyond 2 TB of memory today though. :shrug:


Here is some light reading (table) giving you some ideas of where Microsoft is today;
Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows) (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx)

The 64-bit Architecture mathematically can hit the 16 EB mark, but the O/S vendors do not have the kernels ready to address that much space - I believe their high-water marks for memory addressing is 16TB.

Thats alot of Ram... I thought 8gig was insane for a home user!

Thats alot of Ram... I thought 8gig was insane for a home user!

Today it is! :lol: Maybe not in a few years.

Since we are talkng memory, I just ordered a server here at work - to give you an example of cost...

With 16GB it came out to 11K, to take it to 32GB was only an additional $1200. To go to 64GB was an additional $7400 more than original price, to jump to 128GB was $12,000 more than orig. :faint:

I understand what you are saying now... only because of the Kernel change between XP and VISTA and how the Kernel utilizing memory based on what devices it has to work with (video, chipsets, audio controllers, USB and FireWire controllers/devices.) I thought you meant "typical" running footprint. Now I understand, here is a bit more information for you to smoke your mind... :cool:

The 32-bit O/S (regardless if its XP or VISTA) can still addresses the entire 4GB, you only see (say 3.5GB) because if your video adapter has 512MB of memory on board, the O/S must map that 512MB in its first 512MB of resident memory. Graphics memory mapping overwrites resident memory.

Also, other devices that utilize DMA (Direct Memory Access) and drivers loading will also suck up pieces of resident memory. These are little known facts about windows.

Even though you have a 64-bit machine you may or may not be able to utilize the entire 4GB as well - here is a snipit from MSDN on the subject;



In theory with todays designs of O/S, not the theoretical addressing limits (below), 64-bit applications running on a 64-bit operating system are allotted 8 TB in virtual memory for user processes and 8 TB for kernel processes which make the virtual memory total equal 16 TB.

Currently, all 64-bit versions of Microsoft operating systems do not use the 16 TB limit, but impose a practical limit on the address space and allow no more than 128 GB of physical memory to be accessed. Now, with 64-bit VISTA, you can address different amount of memory based on the type of VISTA you have;

Home Basic: 8GB
Home Premium: 16GB
Utimate: 128GB +
Business: 128GB +
Enterprise: 128GB +

64-Bit XP goes up to 128GB

Bottom line, 2 to the power of 32 = 4,294,967,296 - we know this as 4GB, the max which any 32-bit O/S can address. 3 flavors of Server 2008 (32-bit) can go up to 64GB of physical memory, but this is using something called PAE which we will NOT get into :lol:

2 to the power of 64 = 1.84467441 × 10^19 (ten to the 19th power) - we know this as 16EB (EXABytes - or 16.8 Million TeraBytes - or 16.8 Trilion GigaBytes), the 64 bit O/S is theoretically capable of addressing this much memory, but currently only go out to about 2TB of physical memory, and only go out to about 8TB in swap space (maybe more)... I am not sure of any O/S going beyond 2 TB of memory today though. :shrug:


Here is some light reading (table) giving you some ideas of where Microsoft is today;
Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows) (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx)

The 64-bit Architecture mathematically can hit the 16 EB mark, but the O/S vendors do not have the kernels ready to address that much space - I believe their high-water marks for memory addressing is 16TB.

OOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW I think I just hears something snap! Oh it was just MY BRAIN!!! :faint:

Today it is! :lol: Maybe not in a few years.

Since we are talkng memory, I just ordered a server here at work - to give you an example of cost...

With 16GB it came out to 11K, to take it to 32GB was only an additional $1200. To go to 64GB was an additional $7400 more than original price, to jump to 128GB was $12,000 more than orig. :faint:

Is that some new Solaris System ?


I have been drooling over this for 2 yrs ...

Thunder n4250QE (S4985) (http://www.tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=271)


The Thunder n4250QE (S4985) offers support for AMD Opteron ™ 8000 Series processors for high-level workstation and serving applications. A true monster platform, the S4985 also supports up to (4) PCI Express x16 slots, a PCI slot, SATA2 with RAID, dual Gigabit and single 10/100 Ethernet port, built-in video, and remote management (IPMI 2.0) option, all in a massive SSI MEB (16" x 13") form factor. Add the M4985 for additional 4P configuration, for a total of (8) processors in all!


:drool:


it now supports 4x 512k L2 Cache/2MB L3 Cache Quad Core Opteron™

for 32 Cores of Processing Goodness .......

talk about a system to run multiple VPC's on ...

Is that some new Solaris System ?

No, it is for a Linux BEA Web Logic web server of all things. :lol:

These guys wanted two, dual core CPU's - instead of the new quad cores. When I asked "Why in the hell..." they said it was because of licensing BEA Web Logic Server is based on the number of CPU's... Dual Core was 25K, Quad Core was 50K.

This is the price of a Dell PowerEdge 2950 III - 3TB of internal RAID 5...


That board you show looks like it is going to fly. :yay:

That board you show looks like it is going to fly. :yay:



yeah I missed a board for $ 400 and the Riser for $400 .... :faint:


last month on Ebay ........... :whistle: