[Note: I have not installed MSE yet, it is not available in my country. All opinions are based on information online.]
So Microsoft has just launched it's new Microsoft Security Essentials v1.0 software (MSE abbreviated). MSE is basically a free, lightweight and effective anti-virus software that can be installed on XP, Vista and 7 systems which have been validated as genuine copies. Remember that Microsoft used to sell it's OneCare product? Well, MSE replaces OneCare. It is essentially OneCare, minus all the extra PC tune-up and backup stuff, i.e. MSE is just supposed to tackle viruses and spyware. It is built on the same foundation as OneCare.
MSE is a very interesting product, for if it really takes off, it could spell doom for the big-time security companies, namely Symantec (Norton) and McAfee. I mean, think about it: we're talking about a no cost, lightweight, hassle-free security solution which claims to provide very effective security for a worry-free PC experience. Microsoft says it gives the same level of protection as Microsoft's Forefront product for businesses. That's what many consumers want, isn't it? We all like to install our AV, then forget about it and let it take care of itself.
But that's where my worry is. Maybe it's just a human thing, but I do not feel secure when something is this good. When you download an installer that is less than 10MB and when something as important as an AV takes up so little computing resources, I just have that feeling that it's not good enough, that it only offers basic protection and is not as intensive as Norton, with all their complex detection technologies. So I'm not sure if I would trust MSE to protect my PC from all sorts of threats online; I guess only time will tell if MSE can be a replacement for Norton when it comes to solid PC protection. I'm a big fan of Norton Internet Security 09, because their protection is top-notch, and I always feel secure online. But with the simple UI of MSE and little options or settings, I just feel that it is inadequate.
So in conclusion, for the informed IT user who likes to muddle with settings and options, maybe MSE is not for you. I guess MSE is targeted at that ignorant user who knows nuts about anti-virus software but still want to stay secure. Also, it is catered towards developing countries where users do not want to fork out extra buck for security software. But I would assert that there is one last target audience: the netbook users. Yes, because MSE is so feather-light, it is an ideal AV solution on low-powered netbooks. But then again the whole question of 'is it good enough protection' arises. Only time will tell, but with this first release, the situation looks positive. Tests reveal that MSE is indeed quite effective... if I can trust MSE, then I will not renew my Norton subscription when it expires.
Showing posts with label Windows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Windows. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Thurrott's Windows 7 FAQ
Windows guy Mr Paul Thurrott, over at his website, has published a useful Windows 7 FAQ. He mentions about some of the upcoming features to expect in this version of Windows, and even provides some interesting screenshots.
Note-worthy improvements are changes to make UAC more customisable (and hopefully less irritating), a new Solution Centre to replace Security Centre, new UI for the explorer, and a cool new "ribbon" version of MS Paint. Thurrott also talks about a ton of other minor improvements and additions, but I think we still have to wait for PDC for more news and confirmations.
Note-worthy improvements are changes to make UAC more customisable (and hopefully less irritating), a new Solution Centre to replace Security Centre, new UI for the explorer, and a cool new "ribbon" version of MS Paint. Thurrott also talks about a ton of other minor improvements and additions, but I think we still have to wait for PDC for more news and confirmations.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Windows: life without walls
I have written about Vista's poor public image before, and a recent innovative advertising strategy Microsoft took to sell vista, called the Mojave Experiment.
Today, Microsoft has launched a new campaign to promote Vista, which is a stellar operating platform btw. It's called Windows: life without walls, and there are some print ads available, check it out:
The concept here is really interesting, cool and funky, but more than visual appearance, I think it really captures the essence of the "Vista life". Over this year, I've really come to embrace Vista fully, as a superb and dependable OS. And you should too. I use the Mac on a daily basis, and I know of swarms of friends who have recently "converted" to the Mac too, but you know what? Vista's as great... and this advertisement says it all: life without walls.
What Microsoft promises you are a plethora of choices to select from: both hardware and software. Unlike Macs, you are not tied down to a closed system of hardware. You can choose from a million computers on Windows from so many manufacturers, including tablet PCs, and configure them in almost any way you want (often cheaper than a Mac too). On the software side, Vista offers you so many configuration options and allows for personalisation of your desktop more than the OS X does. It has awesome multimedia capabilities with Windows Media Centre, and coupled with Windows Live and the new suite of "Wave 3" software, you will be connected with friends like never before. Windows Live is a huge part of the Windows ecosystem, and exemplifies Microsoft's "Software + Services" approach as a stepping stone toward full cloud computing. Not to mention Vista is also the platform for the amazing Zune music player, which I've heard (and strongly believe) is the better device over the iPod for pure music enthusiasts.
This is what you should know about Vista. Not the lies that the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads churn out, not the BSODs, or the incompatibility, or the horror stories you hear when Vista first shipped. All that's changed dramatically... no longer do I scorn on PCs the way I did 2 years ago. I have two systems running Vista at home, and use them as often as the Mac. I'm proud to be a PC user!
Today, Microsoft has launched a new campaign to promote Vista, which is a stellar operating platform btw. It's called Windows: life without walls, and there are some print ads available, check it out:
The concept here is really interesting, cool and funky, but more than visual appearance, I think it really captures the essence of the "Vista life". Over this year, I've really come to embrace Vista fully, as a superb and dependable OS. And you should too. I use the Mac on a daily basis, and I know of swarms of friends who have recently "converted" to the Mac too, but you know what? Vista's as great... and this advertisement says it all: life without walls.
What Microsoft promises you are a plethora of choices to select from: both hardware and software. Unlike Macs, you are not tied down to a closed system of hardware. You can choose from a million computers on Windows from so many manufacturers, including tablet PCs, and configure them in almost any way you want (often cheaper than a Mac too). On the software side, Vista offers you so many configuration options and allows for personalisation of your desktop more than the OS X does. It has awesome multimedia capabilities with Windows Media Centre, and coupled with Windows Live and the new suite of "Wave 3" software, you will be connected with friends like never before. Windows Live is a huge part of the Windows ecosystem, and exemplifies Microsoft's "Software + Services" approach as a stepping stone toward full cloud computing. Not to mention Vista is also the platform for the amazing Zune music player, which I've heard (and strongly believe) is the better device over the iPod for pure music enthusiasts.
This is what you should know about Vista. Not the lies that the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads churn out, not the BSODs, or the incompatibility, or the horror stories you hear when Vista first shipped. All that's changed dramatically... no longer do I scorn on PCs the way I did 2 years ago. I have two systems running Vista at home, and use them as often as the Mac. I'm proud to be a PC user!
Sunday, September 7, 2008
IE 8 beta 2 compatibility
The upcoming version of Internet Explorer, IE 8, is now in public beta and can be downloaded from Microsoft's website to test out.
There are a ton of new features in this browser, and some are very useful, such as the Smart Address Bar and Tab Groups.
Microsoft explains that 'the Smart Address Bar in Internet Explorer 8 matches what a user types in the Address Bar with titles in the history as well as content in their favorites and feeds, making it easier to locate sites the user wants to visit.'
Tab Groups is a superb way to keep organised automatically: 'When one tab is opened from another, the new tab is placed next to the originating tab, and both are marked with a colored tab, so users can quickly discern which tabs have related content.'
Despite all these cool stuff, the big deal to me is that Microsoft promises IE 8 to be more standards compliant by default. This is normally thought of as a good thing, since the browser now adheres to web standards and thus is more compatible, but apparently this isn't the case.
With beta 2, users are reporting more compatibility problems viewing websites than with IE 7. Many websites will not render properly in IE 8 (such as Gmail), with misalignments and stuff which messes up the page. To solve this, supposedly, you can click on the 'compatibility view' button up next to the address bar to display the website as viewed in IE 7, which will correct display problems like misaligned text, images, or text boxes. This option is on a per site basis and all other sites will continue to display with IE 8 functionality. But even in this view, there are still bugs present and rendering mistakes!
This is very disconcerting to me, that the latest version of a browser is less compatible than the previous version. I really hope Microsoft figures everything out by the final release, and if need be, throw out a beta 3.
We all wanted standards compliant, and now that it is more standards compliant, is this really what we desire? I don't really know why being standards compliant ends up being less compatible, but my guess is that developers tend to put in IE specific code in their websites that doesn't run well in IE 8's default standards compliant mode.
This is so important for Microsoft... compatibility is one of the key fundamentals of any good browser. If it doesn't work right with sites, then people won't want to use it, no matter how many superb features it offers. Either web developers have to start getting rid of IE specific code in time for the final release... or Microsoft has to work some magic to make everything render right. I believe they will do so, but for now, this product is kinda half-usable and non-technical users should hold up downloading this first.
There are a ton of new features in this browser, and some are very useful, such as the Smart Address Bar and Tab Groups.
Microsoft explains that 'the Smart Address Bar in Internet Explorer 8 matches what a user types in the Address Bar with titles in the history as well as content in their favorites and feeds, making it easier to locate sites the user wants to visit.'
Tab Groups is a superb way to keep organised automatically: 'When one tab is opened from another, the new tab is placed next to the originating tab, and both are marked with a colored tab, so users can quickly discern which tabs have related content.'
Despite all these cool stuff, the big deal to me is that Microsoft promises IE 8 to be more standards compliant by default. This is normally thought of as a good thing, since the browser now adheres to web standards and thus is more compatible, but apparently this isn't the case.
With beta 2, users are reporting more compatibility problems viewing websites than with IE 7. Many websites will not render properly in IE 8 (such as Gmail), with misalignments and stuff which messes up the page. To solve this, supposedly, you can click on the 'compatibility view' button up next to the address bar to display the website as viewed in IE 7, which will correct display problems like misaligned text, images, or text boxes. This option is on a per site basis and all other sites will continue to display with IE 8 functionality. But even in this view, there are still bugs present and rendering mistakes!
This is very disconcerting to me, that the latest version of a browser is less compatible than the previous version. I really hope Microsoft figures everything out by the final release, and if need be, throw out a beta 3.
We all wanted standards compliant, and now that it is more standards compliant, is this really what we desire? I don't really know why being standards compliant ends up being less compatible, but my guess is that developers tend to put in IE specific code in their websites that doesn't run well in IE 8's default standards compliant mode.
This is so important for Microsoft... compatibility is one of the key fundamentals of any good browser. If it doesn't work right with sites, then people won't want to use it, no matter how many superb features it offers. Either web developers have to start getting rid of IE specific code in time for the final release... or Microsoft has to work some magic to make everything render right. I believe they will do so, but for now, this product is kinda half-usable and non-technical users should hold up downloading this first.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Internet Explorer 8 privacy features
Hmm... haven't posted on Microsoft stuff for some time. IE 8 is currently in development and recently the team announced an interesting feature regarding user privacy. This is THE single feature in IE which I so longed for, and I'm glad it's here.
Remember how Apple's Safari web browser has a "private browsing" feature which keeps online activities private (e.g. not saving history), and how Firefox has a "delete private data" option which rids the browser of stored data? I use these features frequently. Soon, IE 8 will finally include a similar feature, or rather, a similar set of features.
InPrivate browsing (what a nice name for private browsing) is a mode which lets you control whether or not IE saves your browsing history, cookies, and other data. Delete browsing history simply deletes traces of your browsing activities. InPrivate Blocking informs you about content that is in a position to observe your browsing history, and allows you to block it, while InPrivate Subscriptions allow you to control the list of sites which InPrivate Blocking blocks or allows.
I think such privacy features, though not new, are very useful in certain situations. For example, for public computers in school where leaving your digital footprint behind for another user to view may be unwanted, or when you use your friend's computer. Yet there are times when you're just casually surfing and don't require the browser to keep traces of your activities. This is also good when you want to clear your browser of all tracking cookies or clean up the history list... at least it can be done in a single click which is more convenient. I'm looking forward to IE 8, and let's hope Microsoft implements this properly.
Remember how Apple's Safari web browser has a "private browsing" feature which keeps online activities private (e.g. not saving history), and how Firefox has a "delete private data" option which rids the browser of stored data? I use these features frequently. Soon, IE 8 will finally include a similar feature, or rather, a similar set of features.
InPrivate browsing (what a nice name for private browsing) is a mode which lets you control whether or not IE saves your browsing history, cookies, and other data. Delete browsing history simply deletes traces of your browsing activities. InPrivate Blocking informs you about content that is in a position to observe your browsing history, and allows you to block it, while InPrivate Subscriptions allow you to control the list of sites which InPrivate Blocking blocks or allows.
I think such privacy features, though not new, are very useful in certain situations. For example, for public computers in school where leaving your digital footprint behind for another user to view may be unwanted, or when you use your friend's computer. Yet there are times when you're just casually surfing and don't require the browser to keep traces of your activities. This is also good when you want to clear your browser of all tracking cookies or clean up the history list... at least it can be done in a single click which is more convenient. I'm looking forward to IE 8, and let's hope Microsoft implements this properly.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Vista reliability monitor: all time high!
Check this out! The reliability score of my Vista system is at an all time high of 9.96! Almost perfect score if I keep this up for a few days more... hmm wonder if it will ever hit 10.00? :P
Well, for those who don't know what I'm referring to, Windows Vista has this application 'Reliability and Performance Monitor' which will keep track of how healthy your system is based on performance counters, event trace data and configuration information. It also considers errors such as application failures, hardware failures etc.
When you first install Vista, the score is a perfect 10, then depending on how many subsequent errors there are, the score fluctuates. A long period of healthy performance would give you a higher score and vice versa... it's one of those cool things in Vista that's just plain fun to look at. Btw, I don't know anyone with as high a score as mine!
Update (16 Aug): My reliability index has hit 10.00!
Well, for those who don't know what I'm referring to, Windows Vista has this application 'Reliability and Performance Monitor' which will keep track of how healthy your system is based on performance counters, event trace data and configuration information. It also considers errors such as application failures, hardware failures etc.
When you first install Vista, the score is a perfect 10, then depending on how many subsequent errors there are, the score fluctuates. A long period of healthy performance would give you a higher score and vice versa... it's one of those cool things in Vista that's just plain fun to look at. Btw, I don't know anyone with as high a score as mine!
Update (16 Aug): My reliability index has hit 10.00!
Monday, May 5, 2008
Survey Results: The Vista & XP conundrum
Windows Vista has been around for quite some time already. Having turned one year old, and into its first service pack, it cannot be considered as 'the new kid on the block'. Many new computers come with Vista pre-installed. I think it's a stellar operating system, but a large portion of people believe otherwise, thinking that XP is still a wiser choice.
I've written about this before, saying that it is frightening how people don't want to move on to Vista but cling tightly to XP. I said I found this trend puzzling and disconcerting, that people would actually find a dated OS more attractive than a fresh revolutionary version of Windows. Tech journalist Paul Thurrott gave his view on this problem and explained why.
In my attempt to seek first-hand answers, I decided to conduct an online survey on my friends to find out why exactly.
The survey was hosted on freeonlinesurveys.com, and most of the respondents were young people who typically use a computer on a daily basis, for school work, entertainment, online chatting, internet etc. Thus it is appropriate to survey this target audience to find out their thinking behind the choice of operating system for home use specifically, be it XP or Vista. A big thank you to all those participants, your effort was helping in allowing me to gain insight on this issue.
Analysis of Questions
Question 1:
I started with a non-intimidating question. What is the primary operating system your home computer runs on? The purpose of this is to see how popular Vista is in the Singapore market, and also, as a side aim, to see how much market share the Mac has. I was expecting the majority to be still using XP, and I was dead right.
68% of respondents run XP, while only a pathetic 16% use Vista. Clearly, XP is ubiquitous. On the Mac, things are equally bleak, but interesting: the total number of Mac users equal that of Vista users. Could this signify that Mac is gaining market share? I think so. I know of many friends who bought a Mac within this year; it's crazily popular.
Implication:
Vista is obviously not very sellable and appealing to customers, and this should worry Microsoft that Vista is not selling as well as planned. Although one could argue that it doesn't matter, as long as people buy a Windows license and Microsoft earns the buck, it's OK if they are not getting Vista. However, that isn't completely valid. By not getting Vista, customers are not "sold on the company's technological vision, and they're no longer lining up as Microsoft tries to lead them to the future", in the words of Thurrott. Thus there is a need for more marketing/positive publicity for users to be convinced to upgrade.
Question 2:
If you must choose between Windows XP or Vista, which would you prefer to run on your computer?
I expected the results to show a bias towards XP, since I have read that many detest Vista and therefore wouldn't choose to run it on PCs. However, it turned out to be a draw, or almost. Vista won by a mere 4%. Nevertheless, this trend is worrying as there is no widespread adoption of Vista, even one year after release.
Implication:
This is not the ideal situation that we should see. Ideally, if Vista was more successful, almost everyone should choose it over XP, but clearly this isn't the case. As with question 1, this shows that there is a problem with Vista such that customers do not find it favorable to use on a daily basis.
Question 3:
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Windows Vista in general?
The reactions to this question are widespread and not clearcut. There are 2 people who think Vista is absolute baloney, some thinking that it's average, some above average, and one respondent thinks it is flawless and deserves full score. However, the bulk responded by giving a score between 5 to 7, meaning average to good.
Implication:
This question was tough to evaluate, so I concluded that opinions are mixed, but the majority of people perceive Vista to be average to good, as opposed to exceptional. I guess this could be the reason for the slow adoption rates, as people don't recognise the brilliance of Vista.
Furthermore, XP service pack 3 will be released, and many Vista features were brought down to run on XP (e.g. Office 07, Windows Defender, Windows Presentation Foundation, .NET 3.x), meaning that XP is still not that bad an alternative and it seems logical to stick with it. In this respect you could argue that the failure of Vista is Microsoft's own-doing, and I would agree. But to add on, Microsoft has to do this as many businesses still rely on XP, and small portable under-powered laptops still utilise XP, hence there is a demand for increased support that Microsoft has to address.
Question 4:
Are you aware of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista? The purpose of this question is to gather the level of awareness the public has regarding this release.
Apparently, 64% indicated that they aren't aware of SP1, and thus I would assume they also do not know what it is about. Only 36% have heard of SP1. This is acceptable as most aren't tech savvy enough to be concerned with tech news.
Implication:
There's not much to conclude from this. I mean, the only group of people this affects are the minority of Vista users, and even so, it would most probably have downloaded and installed on their machines automatically via Windows Update in a non intrusive manner. So it is possible that people have updated Vista without even knowing what the update entails or what it is.
Question 5:
Do you think that Service Pack 1 has made Vista a more viable operating system than before? This has to do with the mentally that an OS is only 'usable' and 'stable' after the release of its first service pack (which btw surely isn't the case for Vista).
55.6% think that SP1 has made Vista better, while 44.4% disagree.
Implication:
According to Microsoft, the release of SP1 shouldn't change the 'Vista value equation', meaning that SP1 should not make extensive changes to Vista such that the user experience is dramatically better. SP1 contains security updates and system performance improvements, amongst other minor changes like how Windows Genuine Advantage works and how file search functions. However, there are no significant changes made and Vista with or without SP1 is still largely the same.
Therefore, SP1 has definitely made Vista more viable, but in truth, not exceptionally viable. Just a little bit more viable.
Question 6:
Focusing specifically on Vista users, I proceeded to ask: Do you regret choosing to run Windows Vista? This is to see if Vista is truly that inferior compared to XP.
The response elicited is very encouraging and assuring that I'm not the only weirdo who thinks that Vista is good. 71.4% indicated no regret in choosing Vista, while 28.6% felt that they made a wrong decision.
Implication:
This goes to show that although few use Vista, but those who use it mostly like it and are not disappointed with it.
Question 7:
If you regret choosing Vista (i.e. answer YES to question 6), why? For the minority who regretted Vista, I wanted to know what was the reason.
Out of the respondents who disliked Vista, they said that Vista is laggy and runs slowly on their computer, and hangs often. Also, it is incompatible with games, software and hardware. Lastly, it is 'bloated' with unnecessary software.
Implication:
This is where the survey gets interesting. Let's address the first complain of laggy performance. Basically, if you have capable hardware, you shouldn't face this issue, but if you run on old hardware, or did an upgrade from an XP-era machine, then it isn't shocking to find that Vista runs less than optimally. Therefore my only response to this is: for any OS, do make sure you have a good hardware configuration and CPU power before running the OS, otherwise it will surely be laggy.
The second issue is that of compatibility, which I hear so so often, it's frustrating. To claim that Vista is incompatible with many software is complete nonsense. In fact, compatibility on Vista is so much better than on XP when it was initially launched. Most major programs work fine, such as Firefox, Office, Photoshop, iTunes etc. When it comes to games, however, I'm uncertain as I do not play games to know if this is a problem. Hardware wise, it is also very much a non-issue as long as you do not have extremely dated hardware. New drivers have been issued for download which has increased compatibility greatly.
The last issue is that of unnecessary features. By this, I assume people are also referring to the excessive eye-candy and animations in the Aero interface. This is a funny problem: in XP people complained that it lacked features, yet when Microsoft increased the feature-set in Vista by adding in things like the Sidebar, 3D flip, Windows Meeting Space, DVD Maker, Mail etc., people complain that it is bloated. So it appears that it is hard to please the customer whatever Microsoft does. It seems to me that people are just getting back at Microsoft any way possible.
Question 8:
For existing XP users: Why won't you upgrade your computer to Windows Vista, or buy a new computer with Vista installed?
This is perhaps the most important question in the entire survey, as it tackles the root of the conundrum: why are users so comfortable with XP such that they will not upgrade to Vista? The results confirm my initial speculation, and also Thurrott's theories: that people avoid the upgrade as they are contented and satisfied with XP and see no urgent need for Vista. This is the single most outstanding reason!
Apart from that, the number two reason is that these XP users have read negative reviews of Vista and have influenced them to believe that Vista sucks. Other reasons for not upgrading is due to the perceived compatibility issues, and the fact that Vista runs slower than XP on an equivalent hardware configuration.
Implication:
Why people aren't upgrading is more of an issue of human nature rather than anything else. Because people have been sticking with XP for so long, they get contented with it and will not throw it away just yet. It's back to the analogy of the 'old sweatshirt' that Thurrott describes, and boy is it true! The saying goes that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Similarly, if XP has no big flaws, then continue using it. Now that some Vista features have been ported down to XP, there are not many compelling reasons to upgrade. The only reasons I can think of now is because of Instant Search, improved security (UAC) and the fanciful Aero interface.
But nonetheless, Vista is superb, and if you're getting a new desktop/laptop, try to run Vista (on capable hardware) and I'll assure that you'll like it!
I've written about this before, saying that it is frightening how people don't want to move on to Vista but cling tightly to XP. I said I found this trend puzzling and disconcerting, that people would actually find a dated OS more attractive than a fresh revolutionary version of Windows. Tech journalist Paul Thurrott gave his view on this problem and explained why.
In my attempt to seek first-hand answers, I decided to conduct an online survey on my friends to find out why exactly.
The survey was hosted on freeonlinesurveys.com, and most of the respondents were young people who typically use a computer on a daily basis, for school work, entertainment, online chatting, internet etc. Thus it is appropriate to survey this target audience to find out their thinking behind the choice of operating system for home use specifically, be it XP or Vista. A big thank you to all those participants, your effort was helping in allowing me to gain insight on this issue.
Analysis of Questions
Question 1:
I started with a non-intimidating question. What is the primary operating system your home computer runs on? The purpose of this is to see how popular Vista is in the Singapore market, and also, as a side aim, to see how much market share the Mac has. I was expecting the majority to be still using XP, and I was dead right.
68% of respondents run XP, while only a pathetic 16% use Vista. Clearly, XP is ubiquitous. On the Mac, things are equally bleak, but interesting: the total number of Mac users equal that of Vista users. Could this signify that Mac is gaining market share? I think so. I know of many friends who bought a Mac within this year; it's crazily popular.
Implication:
Vista is obviously not very sellable and appealing to customers, and this should worry Microsoft that Vista is not selling as well as planned. Although one could argue that it doesn't matter, as long as people buy a Windows license and Microsoft earns the buck, it's OK if they are not getting Vista. However, that isn't completely valid. By not getting Vista, customers are not "sold on the company's technological vision, and they're no longer lining up as Microsoft tries to lead them to the future", in the words of Thurrott. Thus there is a need for more marketing/positive publicity for users to be convinced to upgrade.
Question 2:
If you must choose between Windows XP or Vista, which would you prefer to run on your computer?
I expected the results to show a bias towards XP, since I have read that many detest Vista and therefore wouldn't choose to run it on PCs. However, it turned out to be a draw, or almost. Vista won by a mere 4%. Nevertheless, this trend is worrying as there is no widespread adoption of Vista, even one year after release.
Implication:
This is not the ideal situation that we should see. Ideally, if Vista was more successful, almost everyone should choose it over XP, but clearly this isn't the case. As with question 1, this shows that there is a problem with Vista such that customers do not find it favorable to use on a daily basis.
Question 3:
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Windows Vista in general?
The reactions to this question are widespread and not clearcut. There are 2 people who think Vista is absolute baloney, some thinking that it's average, some above average, and one respondent thinks it is flawless and deserves full score. However, the bulk responded by giving a score between 5 to 7, meaning average to good.
Implication:
This question was tough to evaluate, so I concluded that opinions are mixed, but the majority of people perceive Vista to be average to good, as opposed to exceptional. I guess this could be the reason for the slow adoption rates, as people don't recognise the brilliance of Vista.
Furthermore, XP service pack 3 will be released, and many Vista features were brought down to run on XP (e.g. Office 07, Windows Defender, Windows Presentation Foundation, .NET 3.x), meaning that XP is still not that bad an alternative and it seems logical to stick with it. In this respect you could argue that the failure of Vista is Microsoft's own-doing, and I would agree. But to add on, Microsoft has to do this as many businesses still rely on XP, and small portable under-powered laptops still utilise XP, hence there is a demand for increased support that Microsoft has to address.
Question 4:
Are you aware of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista? The purpose of this question is to gather the level of awareness the public has regarding this release.
Apparently, 64% indicated that they aren't aware of SP1, and thus I would assume they also do not know what it is about. Only 36% have heard of SP1. This is acceptable as most aren't tech savvy enough to be concerned with tech news.
Implication:
There's not much to conclude from this. I mean, the only group of people this affects are the minority of Vista users, and even so, it would most probably have downloaded and installed on their machines automatically via Windows Update in a non intrusive manner. So it is possible that people have updated Vista without even knowing what the update entails or what it is.
Question 5:
Do you think that Service Pack 1 has made Vista a more viable operating system than before? This has to do with the mentally that an OS is only 'usable' and 'stable' after the release of its first service pack (which btw surely isn't the case for Vista).
55.6% think that SP1 has made Vista better, while 44.4% disagree.
Implication:
According to Microsoft, the release of SP1 shouldn't change the 'Vista value equation', meaning that SP1 should not make extensive changes to Vista such that the user experience is dramatically better. SP1 contains security updates and system performance improvements, amongst other minor changes like how Windows Genuine Advantage works and how file search functions. However, there are no significant changes made and Vista with or without SP1 is still largely the same.
Therefore, SP1 has definitely made Vista more viable, but in truth, not exceptionally viable. Just a little bit more viable.
Question 6:
Focusing specifically on Vista users, I proceeded to ask: Do you regret choosing to run Windows Vista? This is to see if Vista is truly that inferior compared to XP.
The response elicited is very encouraging and assuring that I'm not the only weirdo who thinks that Vista is good. 71.4% indicated no regret in choosing Vista, while 28.6% felt that they made a wrong decision.
Implication:
This goes to show that although few use Vista, but those who use it mostly like it and are not disappointed with it.
Question 7:
If you regret choosing Vista (i.e. answer YES to question 6), why? For the minority who regretted Vista, I wanted to know what was the reason.
Out of the respondents who disliked Vista, they said that Vista is laggy and runs slowly on their computer, and hangs often. Also, it is incompatible with games, software and hardware. Lastly, it is 'bloated' with unnecessary software.
Implication:
This is where the survey gets interesting. Let's address the first complain of laggy performance. Basically, if you have capable hardware, you shouldn't face this issue, but if you run on old hardware, or did an upgrade from an XP-era machine, then it isn't shocking to find that Vista runs less than optimally. Therefore my only response to this is: for any OS, do make sure you have a good hardware configuration and CPU power before running the OS, otherwise it will surely be laggy.
The second issue is that of compatibility, which I hear so so often, it's frustrating. To claim that Vista is incompatible with many software is complete nonsense. In fact, compatibility on Vista is so much better than on XP when it was initially launched. Most major programs work fine, such as Firefox, Office, Photoshop, iTunes etc. When it comes to games, however, I'm uncertain as I do not play games to know if this is a problem. Hardware wise, it is also very much a non-issue as long as you do not have extremely dated hardware. New drivers have been issued for download which has increased compatibility greatly.
The last issue is that of unnecessary features. By this, I assume people are also referring to the excessive eye-candy and animations in the Aero interface. This is a funny problem: in XP people complained that it lacked features, yet when Microsoft increased the feature-set in Vista by adding in things like the Sidebar, 3D flip, Windows Meeting Space, DVD Maker, Mail etc., people complain that it is bloated. So it appears that it is hard to please the customer whatever Microsoft does. It seems to me that people are just getting back at Microsoft any way possible.
Question 8:
For existing XP users: Why won't you upgrade your computer to Windows Vista, or buy a new computer with Vista installed?
This is perhaps the most important question in the entire survey, as it tackles the root of the conundrum: why are users so comfortable with XP such that they will not upgrade to Vista? The results confirm my initial speculation, and also Thurrott's theories: that people avoid the upgrade as they are contented and satisfied with XP and see no urgent need for Vista. This is the single most outstanding reason!
Apart from that, the number two reason is that these XP users have read negative reviews of Vista and have influenced them to believe that Vista sucks. Other reasons for not upgrading is due to the perceived compatibility issues, and the fact that Vista runs slower than XP on an equivalent hardware configuration.
Implication:
Why people aren't upgrading is more of an issue of human nature rather than anything else. Because people have been sticking with XP for so long, they get contented with it and will not throw it away just yet. It's back to the analogy of the 'old sweatshirt' that Thurrott describes, and boy is it true! The saying goes that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Similarly, if XP has no big flaws, then continue using it. Now that some Vista features have been ported down to XP, there are not many compelling reasons to upgrade. The only reasons I can think of now is because of Instant Search, improved security (UAC) and the fanciful Aero interface.
But nonetheless, Vista is superb, and if you're getting a new desktop/laptop, try to run Vista (on capable hardware) and I'll assure that you'll like it!
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Vista (SP1) screenshots
As promised, here are some quick screenshots of Vista Home Premium running on an iMac.
Apple Safari web browser, which looks horrible on Vista. Installed to test it out.
Windows 3D Flip
About my computer. Take note of the Experience Index score of 4.8!
Norton Antivirus and the desktop
Welcome Centre and the new Start menu
Apple Safari web browser, which looks horrible on Vista. Installed to test it out.
Windows 3D Flip
About my computer. Take note of the Experience Index score of 4.8!
Norton Antivirus and the desktop
Welcome Centre and the new Start menu
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Let's move on: Vista SP1
To me, it's surprising how so many people don't like Vista. I was at a bookstore last Sunday, and a quick read at the content of computer magazines showed a similar and worrying trend that claim Vista to be lousy, buggy, and a memory-hog. Many of these magazines do not do justice to the amount of effort the Vista team has put in, and definitely do not portray Vista accurately. They all claim that Vista is slow and requires expensive hardware to run well, that it is buggy and unreliable, that UAC sucks, and that it is inferior to XP.
Yes, Vista might run slower, that's true. But hey, when XP first released, wasn't that what people said about XP over Windows 2000? I mean, we can only expect each successive OS to run on more demanding hardware than before. How can a new OS, with more advanced features and UI, run better on slower hardware than it's predecessor? It doesn't make sense. Furthermore, what these magazines and articles miss out is the fact that you're trading the slower performance for more security, a better looking interface (Aero), and new features, such as Instant Search. To me, it's a fair trade-off. Vista is indeed more secure than any other version of Windows. I don't know how to put it, but it's frustrating how people simply dismiss Vista saying that it is worse than XP. Even close friends of mine are sticking with XP, and that baffles me. For me, I use Vista because it's the future of Windows. XP was the past, and it's no good clinging onto something so dated. It's high time for us to move on and adopt Vista. It's the best version of Windows yet I believe.
But why aren't people moving on? Paul Thurrott alludes XP to a comfortable but dirty old sweatshirt that you've been wearing for years. You know it's old, but yet you aren't willing to throw it away because you're too attached to it. And that's the biggest problem with Vista: they delayed it too much, in an attempt to release a polished OS, such that people get too familiar with XP and they become contented with it.
Well, now that SP1 is out, it may be time to reevaluate your stand. I've been playing around with SP1 recently, it doesn't offer significant visual improvements, but improves performance such as time taken to move files etc.
Let's move on. Vista is the future of computing, not XP.
Yes, Vista might run slower, that's true. But hey, when XP first released, wasn't that what people said about XP over Windows 2000? I mean, we can only expect each successive OS to run on more demanding hardware than before. How can a new OS, with more advanced features and UI, run better on slower hardware than it's predecessor? It doesn't make sense. Furthermore, what these magazines and articles miss out is the fact that you're trading the slower performance for more security, a better looking interface (Aero), and new features, such as Instant Search. To me, it's a fair trade-off. Vista is indeed more secure than any other version of Windows. I don't know how to put it, but it's frustrating how people simply dismiss Vista saying that it is worse than XP. Even close friends of mine are sticking with XP, and that baffles me. For me, I use Vista because it's the future of Windows. XP was the past, and it's no good clinging onto something so dated. It's high time for us to move on and adopt Vista. It's the best version of Windows yet I believe.
But why aren't people moving on? Paul Thurrott alludes XP to a comfortable but dirty old sweatshirt that you've been wearing for years. You know it's old, but yet you aren't willing to throw it away because you're too attached to it. And that's the biggest problem with Vista: they delayed it too much, in an attempt to release a polished OS, such that people get too familiar with XP and they become contented with it.
Well, now that SP1 is out, it may be time to reevaluate your stand. I've been playing around with SP1 recently, it doesn't offer significant visual improvements, but improves performance such as time taken to move files etc.
Let's move on. Vista is the future of computing, not XP.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
iPhone arriving to Singapore + Vista SP1
My dad woke me up today and excitedly told me that the iPhone was coming to Singapore in September. He said he heard it over the radio, but I can't seem to find official confirmation on the net, but anyway it is going to be with Singtel. This confirms a post that I wrote some time ago on the iTunes store coming to Singapore.
I can't help but feel a sense of excitement, although I'm wondering, how did Apple solve the problem of only allowing the iPhone to work with one telco? Because Singapore usually doesn't allow phones to be tied solely to only one operator... But never mind that. What I predict is going to happen is this: around June/July, there will be a special iPhone event by Apple to introduce the new software update 2.0 (3rd party apps) and also announce a 3G version of the iPhone which will look exactly the same as before, but with in-built 3G support. Then they will announce the 3G iPhone arriving in Asia, and soon Singapore will get it.
So apart from some iPhone hope this morning, I also connected Vista to the internet for the first time, upgraded Vista to Service Pack 1, installed Norton Antivirus 2008, ran scans and configured security settings.
The total install time for SP1 on my system was roughly 40mins, and the file size (from Windows Update) was only 70MB, because I got all the updates before that. The first thing I noticed was Welcome Center finally recognised my 4GB RAM and didn't show 3GB. The rest of the changes aren't visible. Install was straightforward, and it rebooted only once.
I have to say that after knowing Vista a bit more, I'm in LOVE with it, and I can't switch back to XP!
I can't help but feel a sense of excitement, although I'm wondering, how did Apple solve the problem of only allowing the iPhone to work with one telco? Because Singapore usually doesn't allow phones to be tied solely to only one operator... But never mind that. What I predict is going to happen is this: around June/July, there will be a special iPhone event by Apple to introduce the new software update 2.0 (3rd party apps) and also announce a 3G version of the iPhone which will look exactly the same as before, but with in-built 3G support. Then they will announce the 3G iPhone arriving in Asia, and soon Singapore will get it.
So apart from some iPhone hope this morning, I also connected Vista to the internet for the first time, upgraded Vista to Service Pack 1, installed Norton Antivirus 2008, ran scans and configured security settings.
The total install time for SP1 on my system was roughly 40mins, and the file size (from Windows Update) was only 70MB, because I got all the updates before that. The first thing I noticed was Welcome Center finally recognised my 4GB RAM and didn't show 3GB. The rest of the changes aren't visible. Install was straightforward, and it rebooted only once.
I have to say that after knowing Vista a bit more, I'm in LOVE with it, and I can't switch back to XP!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Windows Experience Index
Running Vista on a Macintosh via boot camp may not be the best way to enjoy Vista, but I get the best of both worlds. Today I ran the Windows Experience Index rating test on my new system, and it rated my iMac a base-score of 4.8.
So Windows Experience Index is a new feature found in Vista that helps end users understand how well equipped the hardware of a system is to run Vista and all the fanciful effects such as Aero. It accesses the capability of the system and then assigns a score to each individual component of the CPU, such as the processor, RAM, hard drive, graphics etc. Obviously, a higher score means a faster system.
So I ran the test, and my graphics card yielded the highest subscore of 5.9, which is impressive. My RAM got the lowest subscore, which is 4.8. Hence the final score, which is based on the lowest score received form a particular component, is a 4.8, and that's quite good by the way.
So generally here's how to compare these values:
1.0 to 1.9: Your system has just met basic requirements for running Vista Home Basic. Do not expect to do heavy multi-tasking or gaming on such systems. Best used for email, web surfing and simple word processing.
2.0-2.9: Slightly more responsive, but still unable to run Aero in most cases. Typically these are the systems that were upgraded from XP.
3.0-3.9: Minimum requirements for running Home Premium or better editions of Vista. Will do Aero, if only on one monitor. For high resolution screens, may have performance issues. Will run Media Center and allow you to play games.
4.0-4.9: Very good performing PCs, better than average. Will run the full feature set of Vista without glitches, including Aero. Will do HD video, dual monitors, and run intensive software well.
5.0 & above: You've got the top-of-the-line system. Will do almost anything, the system has dramatically exceeded the minimum requirements.
So I'm pleased with my base-score of 4.8!
My system has a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T7700 800MHz FSB 4MB L2 cache processor, 4GB RAM (which shows 3 on Vista for some funny reason), 200GB HDD (supposed to be 500GB but 300 is for Leopard) and an ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics card.
I suspect that the reason for the low score on the RAM is because it is only running at 667MHz, which could be better, at say 800MHz. And it is only DDR2 SDRAM, not the latest DDR3 RAM.
So Windows Experience Index is a new feature found in Vista that helps end users understand how well equipped the hardware of a system is to run Vista and all the fanciful effects such as Aero. It accesses the capability of the system and then assigns a score to each individual component of the CPU, such as the processor, RAM, hard drive, graphics etc. Obviously, a higher score means a faster system.
So I ran the test, and my graphics card yielded the highest subscore of 5.9, which is impressive. My RAM got the lowest subscore, which is 4.8. Hence the final score, which is based on the lowest score received form a particular component, is a 4.8, and that's quite good by the way.
So generally here's how to compare these values:
1.0 to 1.9: Your system has just met basic requirements for running Vista Home Basic. Do not expect to do heavy multi-tasking or gaming on such systems. Best used for email, web surfing and simple word processing.
2.0-2.9: Slightly more responsive, but still unable to run Aero in most cases. Typically these are the systems that were upgraded from XP.
3.0-3.9: Minimum requirements for running Home Premium or better editions of Vista. Will do Aero, if only on one monitor. For high resolution screens, may have performance issues. Will run Media Center and allow you to play games.
4.0-4.9: Very good performing PCs, better than average. Will run the full feature set of Vista without glitches, including Aero. Will do HD video, dual monitors, and run intensive software well.
5.0 & above: You've got the top-of-the-line system. Will do almost anything, the system has dramatically exceeded the minimum requirements.
So I'm pleased with my base-score of 4.8!
My system has a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T7700 800MHz FSB 4MB L2 cache processor, 4GB RAM (which shows 3 on Vista for some funny reason), 200GB HDD (supposed to be 500GB but 300 is for Leopard) and an ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics card.
I suspect that the reason for the low score on the RAM is because it is only running at 667MHz, which could be better, at say 800MHz. And it is only DDR2 SDRAM, not the latest DDR3 RAM.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
"Writing like in high school"
So it's the holidays now, and today I was at home all day, with much time spent on the computer. Recently, I got a new Seagate FreeAgent 250 GB HDD solely for backup purposes, and I've been sitting in front of two computers literally transferring tons of gigs of data into the lovely Seagate, deleting useless files, updating old files with newer versions and organising data into folders.
Thankfully I'm kinda done, phew!... and just 5 mins before this, I decided to do some 'random surfing'. I launched Safari and randomly typed in 'windows vista suck' in Google (just for fun, but I believe in the contrary), hit search and landed myself on some random website: http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8288296398.html.
Goodness, this is one of the most horrid professional reviews of Vista I ever read. Yes the article is dated, but it is one very unfair, inaccurate review of a superb OS, in fact it was so horrid that I had to stop reading half way to blog about it now. I don't care if Vista sucks or not, but this guy sure sucks. He is a clear advocate for Linux (come on, the website is desktoplinux.com after all), and writes about Vista in a very intolerably negative way.
Knowing that his guy should be lambasted by the Windows fans, and also highly praised by the Mac/Linux community, I decided to check out the comments or talkback, as written on the webpage. True enough, some people did agree and like his review, but most commented that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols did not do enough research upon writing this biased review.
One reader wrote this that I especially like: You write like you're in high school.
Really, honestly, he does, go read it. But the point I want to make is that as tech journalists, we should always be accurate, reliable, trustworthy in order to gain readership and reputation. Of course, using good language is also a must. That's why I trust the winsupersite a lot for accurate and up-to-date Windows news.
Don't just trust any article that you Google!
Thankfully I'm kinda done, phew!... and just 5 mins before this, I decided to do some 'random surfing'. I launched Safari and randomly typed in 'windows vista suck' in Google (just for fun, but I believe in the contrary), hit search and landed myself on some random website: http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8288296398.html.
Goodness, this is one of the most horrid professional reviews of Vista I ever read. Yes the article is dated, but it is one very unfair, inaccurate review of a superb OS, in fact it was so horrid that I had to stop reading half way to blog about it now. I don't care if Vista sucks or not, but this guy sure sucks. He is a clear advocate for Linux (come on, the website is desktoplinux.com after all), and writes about Vista in a very intolerably negative way.
Knowing that his guy should be lambasted by the Windows fans, and also highly praised by the Mac/Linux community, I decided to check out the comments or talkback, as written on the webpage. True enough, some people did agree and like his review, but most commented that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols did not do enough research upon writing this biased review.
One reader wrote this that I especially like: You write like you're in high school.
Really, honestly, he does, go read it. But the point I want to make is that as tech journalists, we should always be accurate, reliable, trustworthy in order to gain readership and reputation. Of course, using good language is also a must. That's why I trust the winsupersite a lot for accurate and up-to-date Windows news.
Don't just trust any article that you Google!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Hiatus
Like how Microsoft has decided to delay XP Service Pack 3, I shall delay all forms of online activities for now, until after exams are over and I happily store my notes away.
Hey, its ONE down, six more to go!
So please don't miss my voice or blog posts or photos as I shall not be doing any of those stuff until after 8 Oct, except for the all-important checking of mail.
Oh, random note: HALO 3 IS OUT!! (Although that doesn't concern me in any way because I'm not inclined to computer games)
And...Microsoft just shipped Server 2008 Release Candidate 0 (why 0?), which includes Windows Server Virtualisation!
Hey, its ONE down, six more to go!
So please don't miss my voice or blog posts or photos as I shall not be doing any of those stuff until after 8 Oct, except for the all-important checking of mail.
Oh, random note: HALO 3 IS OUT!! (Although that doesn't concern me in any way because I'm not inclined to computer games)
And...Microsoft just shipped Server 2008 Release Candidate 0 (why 0?), which includes Windows Server Virtualisation!
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ubuntu Linux: open source is good
18 Jan 2007 is a historic day in my life. For the first time since I was born, I have finally got to use LINUX!
After purchasing the book Moving to Ubuntu Linux at Parkway today, I immediately went back home to try running Ubuntu from the DVD the book provided.
Ubuntu is a full desktop operating system created by the Linux community. It is based on Unix, and is fully open source and fully distributable to anyone by anyone. It is completely free.
AND BOY, LINUX IS COMPARABLE TO WINDOWS!!!!
It is as good as Windows, and almost works the same too!
I will give a more detailed review of Ubuntu when I have time some day, but I would like to leave you with a screenshot (taken on my computer):
Oh yes, Linux can run together with Windows on the same machine, with partitions made to the hard disk of course!
After purchasing the book Moving to Ubuntu Linux at Parkway today, I immediately went back home to try running Ubuntu from the DVD the book provided.
Ubuntu is a full desktop operating system created by the Linux community. It is based on Unix, and is fully open source and fully distributable to anyone by anyone. It is completely free.
AND BOY, LINUX IS COMPARABLE TO WINDOWS!!!!
It is as good as Windows, and almost works the same too!
I will give a more detailed review of Ubuntu when I have time some day, but I would like to leave you with a screenshot (taken on my computer):
Oh yes, Linux can run together with Windows on the same machine, with partitions made to the hard disk of course!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)