Another problem with Vista

This can only be a Vista problem because this always worked on XP. I converted a Word doc to a PDF and it crashed MS Word. Then a solution popped up that said I should update and that the problem was with Word 2002.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh - did i mention that the solution also mentioned I would do well for myself to fork out some of my hard earned cash and buy Office 2007!

Hmmmm..... MS up to is dirty tricks???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Go linux. everything will be free, and you get almost exactly the same features in linux apps that work like windows apps such as openoffice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Never apply for a job in IT. Your career will be rather short if you can't solve a problem, and you think Linux cures everthing.

I have deployed Linux as a desktop solution, and boy, it was a pain in the arse. Yes it's cheap, but that saving is completely overshadowed by the amount of help users need.

 

yes, i totally think linux cures everything.

oh and if you get the right distro these days everything will work out of the box. Only for the advanced stuff will you need to edit a few config files and use some console commands.

 

Something wrong with Vista != go Linux. Linux has it's uses much like there are different tools for different jobs. (i.e. I'd use a barebones BSD system for a web server over a bloated Windows OS)

As for MS's incompatibility... well the operating systems differ in regards to folder allocations and even security layers, this means that some things that were allowed to openly run in XP are now restricted in Vista and why there are so many issues between programs.

Obviously it's all about compatibility and this is why updates are the most important thing in regards to the new OS's, it might seem that Microsoft is trying to flog new software to you but in reality everything moves on over time, new softwares made and old software gets thrown a shelf life with limit support with future operating systems. It's not so much about flogging you new software than just stating that the software lifecycle for your particular version of software is at an end.

 

In response to Stryder saying that getting linux isn't a solution:

Ubuntu linux is perfectly suitable for everyday applications such as word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, internet, mail, listening to music, watching movies, chatting with msn or any other kind of instant messenger, even for inexperienced people. Files can be exported as windows-compatible files too.

The idea that linux has to be hard to use is very popular. It's not.

In addition, it's also way more secure than windows. (and you don't get vista's annoying security messages)

If it's vista's fancy graphics you're after, Ubuntu has it, with much more features and customizability.

 

There's enough "Linux rulez kuz Windoze sux" threads on the internet. The problem is that you are too blind to see that the world is not run by one OS, when people concerned themselves it was (back when they though Microsoft ran everything) they started this brainwashing campaign of forcing linux down peoples necks.

Some people can handle linux, others can't, it's a fact.

What isn't taken into consideration is that when large companies kit out all their systems for people to use, they usually go with the mainstream brandname's because that's what people are trained on, or work with at home and have experience with. The problem in that situation with linux is that an entire network of machines would have to be replaced and reinstalled at cost and then comes the awesome task of having to retrain a large number of employee's to use different software solutions. Obviously in the real world this is impractical because it will cost a lot of money for the implication and money from the time that employee's are tied up learning.

This is why people such as yourself aren't going to be able to change the world alone. If you want people to move to the OS, at least promote it as being a way to prove your own personal adaptability by learning as many different operating systems as possible. (it's something that can be added to a resume)

 

it is inescapable at this point that Vista is a poorly designed and implemented OS... this is simply a fact... XP SP2/3 is another matter to consider i suppose...

the releases of Linux are superior to this... period...

i have long said as Microsoft had to actually start coding OS functionality, as opposed to buying companies' software, and 'tacking on' bloat code, they would reveal themselves as lacking in skill at actual OS design... i mean in this day and age a self-corrupting and self-fragmenting file system?... please...

it will be a few more years before the average joe, and average 'IT' workers too, will have the knowledge and perspective to see through it i suppose...

the amateurish attempt at journaling in Vista?... it's like a child's understanding of it... Vista is simply a lousy OS... Microsoft will bloat the code of it with 'fixes' and etc. as always happens.. and use the monopoly to force people to adopt so they once again get their free R&D they are so famous for...

but i will never install Vista, because of the nature of Vista itself, not any sort of emotional response against Microsoft or personal championing of Linux(as my favorite OS is Solaris, and it's also the most sophisticated OS)... with Vista Microsoft has forced me to go purely UNIX or Linux from now on...

i will be checking out BSD on a Mac for sure...

 

I was pretty anti vista. With SP1 a lot of stuff seems to be smoothed out. If you use 64 bit you have to expect to tweak some older software. Or use new stuff. It's a smoother jump than 16 bit OS's were to win95 OSR2(32bit).

On the other hand I hear Windows 7 is coming out next year, which has got me pretty pissed. It's starting to look like Vista might become something like windows Millennium.

 

It has resembled the ME debacle for some time now from my perspective. I've read quite a few people saying they didn't understand what all the fuss was about because they bought a computer that had it, and it has worked perfectly for them. I remember reading/hearing that a fair number of times about ME as well. But with ME, their posts were always followed by many posts of computer techs telling them that they were very lucky, and that ME was a horrible OS for most who were unfortunate enough to have to use it.

Many have maintained it was just a matter of teething problems, or people trying to run it on old hardware, or bad drivers. But just last week, I spoke to a doctor who has had repeated problems with his new Sony laptop bluescreening and losing all of his data, even after having sent it in for repair twice. He was planning on returning it, and buying a Mac. "This Vista is no good." This is well over a year after the OS was released! I suspect this scenario is repeating itself all over the world.

XP was about seven months old when I tried it, and I immediately thought it was superior to Win98 in just about every way.

On other forums, I've heard anecdotes of people being unable to play legally purchased content on their Vista systems. Only after ripping to their hard drive (which basically makes it illegal) content were they able to play it. And they had no problems playing content that was flat out illegal.

I don't see myself buying Vista ever.

 

It is safe to say that backwards compatibility with every piece of hardware and software is asking alot from a new OS.

 

You need to update. Get Word 2007. I use Windows at work and it works just fine, Vista with Word 2007. Just converted a whole slew of protocols to PDF yesterday.

 

i love Ubuntu.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dude, try getting some real world experience of supporting real peope trying to use it to do real work. You know, sit a sectretary down in front of 'Open Office' and tell her that she now has to use that because her boss was too cheap to pay for Microsoft products.

You might as well move into that office, 'cos you're gonna be talking that secretary through a lot of stuff, and asked 'where is ...' and 'how do I ...' so much you'd want to tear your hair out.

I've done this. It was a major ballache. Linux has it's uses, and even though the distros keep getting better, it's not for the majority of regular people.

 

Repo Man,

I think that (According to Digital Millennium act at least from what i could gather), when you copy a purchased content to HDD and DO NOT SHARE / USE FOR COMMERCIAL purpose, it is NOT ILLEGAL.

Can you clarify?

Rick

 

I could never figure out how Open Office Org could compare to MS Office 2003. Everything just seems so much easier in Work and Excel than in OOO.

 

Most of the issues with Vista aren't necessarily the result of the OS, many (but not all) of the problems are as a result of the the fact that Microsoft decided they wanted to make Vista as compatible as possible with software from previous iterations of windows whilst still recoding it from scratch because of security issues.
This ended up meaning that vista has lots of different modules for running different types of applications, so its fairly compatible but uses way more RAM then if they had just decided to break with tradition and not be compatible much at all.

Those of you complaining about lack of compatibility, there are 2 major reasons for that:
1. new .NET framework
compatibility is a problem with .NET 1.1 vs .NET 2.0 vs.NET 3.0
2 security issues
in Vista everything runs in a 'sandbox' where there are more restriction on what a program can and cannot do, this often results in things that were common practice in XP and and before no longer working

Apparently Microsoft has come up with a much better solution to this in Windows 7, which is apparently cosmetically similar to what apple did with OSX (where old applications are run in something akin to an emulator)