Vista and Office 2007 Reviews

Jeff Beard over at the LawTech Guru Blog has a great review of Microsoft Vista Ultimate and Office 2007. As I don’t install malware onto my PC, I haven’t installed Office 2007 yet. Okay, I know it’s a bad joke but I couldn’t resist at least one jab especially given Jeff’s first sentence concerning the only major overhaul in Vista, Aero, the nice glassy interface Vista uses and as Jeff so eloquently puts it, “very Apple-ish”. Any product which gets that statement as a review is begging for me to make a jab.Â Apparently Jeff has a lot to say concerning the integration of Word 2007 into a legal environment so we’ll consider this an ongoing review to include Vista 2007.

Jeff unknowingly does a great job exposing Vista for what it is, a “skin” for Windows XP. Skins are programs, sort of like themes for Windows, that change the look and fell of the OS. There are skins out there to make your XP look and act like OS X and there are also skins which make XP look like Windows Vista. I’ve had them installed on some of my XP machines and quite frankly, there isn’t much difference between a “skinned” XP and Windows Vista. As for stability, Jeff comments that compared to the initial release of Windows XP, Windows Vista is very stable. Of course, he doesn’t mention what I and everyone else who have used Vista has discovered: Vista is no more stable than Windows XP.

The complaint I have to Microsoft concerning Windows Vista is “why do I need it”? Windows XP is relatively stable if you install all of the service packs and furthermore “Vienna”, the successor to Vista, is due out in 1.5 years. Why should I drop a couple of hundred dollars and a major hardware upgrade (if I were a PC user) to support the video demands of Aero if the product is just going to be replaced in the not too distant future. Of course, there are those who say that in the Redmond Wormhole, 1.5 years to release = 4 years to release and if that’s what you believe, why stick with any Microsoft products?

Users of Microsoft products will find this discussion very familiar because it’s the same critique given to Windows ME, a product replaced before anyone even got used to it. Great review Jeff, but if I were a PC user, I’d wait until Vienna.

Tags: law

http://www.burroughs-law.com Lawrence D. Burroughs II

I once was a Mac user and decided it wasn’t working out. It was hip and trendy and didn’t really suit my needs too well. I had to make too many compromises to make things work the way I needed them to. Some told me I could run Windows from my Mac in order to run the software I needed but I couldn’t figure out why I’d want to do it. Why pay more to run Windows and my software on a beautiful, yet extremely overpriced, machine? The fact that I have to run two operating systems on my computer to do what I need to do is well beyond me. There’s nothing I need to do that I can’t accomplish with a PC. With a Mac, it’s a different story.

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoyed the Mac while I had it. I made some nice movies and some pretty web pages. But for getting down and dirty and getting things done, nothing compared to my trusty ol’ home built PC. Try updating a Mac’s hardware or keeping it current with the times. For a fraction of the cost and none of the headaches most Mac users complain about with their Windows experiences, I’m able to get the job done in less time and for less money than any of my Mac using counterparts. No blue screens of death and no major viruses. There’s no incrimental update for a Mac. There’s just a loyal community of Mac diehards plopping down another couple grand for an entirely new machine. Again, there pretty. I get that. I’m hoping there’s more to it for most of you but let’s be real about it.

Vista works well but is admittedly new. It’s no wonder there are so many compatibility issues with a new OS where the OS designer doesn’t hold a monopoly on the hardware. I’ve upgraded four machines so far with little effort. There are endless possible combinations with the PC and only a few select configurations with a Mac, all of which are controlled by Apple. That is a good thing from a stability standpoint but it is stiffling to say the least from a cost and creativity standpoint.

Also, I can’t figure out why Mac users are down on Microsoft so much for releasing a new OS when Apple does it every other year. Vista works well and Office is a refreshing update to an old standard. Even at Apple’s price for a new OS, it costs more to keep a Mac current with its OS than it does a Windows machine. You can pay $99 every other year for OS X “update” or $149 every other fourth year (or more by some calculations) for true innovative advancement. Again, I just can’t understand the mindset.

Finally, with all the talk about the different versions of Vista I find it funny that people complain. Sure, we’d all like the top of the line version, but most of us don’t need all the bells and whistles. Otherwise we’d all be driving around in the most expensive cars with all the options no matter what the cost. The choice would be between an expensive car with options we may not need or ever use and hoofing it Fred Flinstone style. Why not have the option to buy only what you need? Aren’t we a nation geared towards the notion of freedom of choice? Well, one size certainly does not fit all when it comes to technology. Microsoft has figured this out, why hasn’t Apple?

I realize they try to address this with their hardware offerings, but come on. Do you ever wonder why Apple doesn’t sell its OS to builders or hobbyists? The Vista v. OS X battle is far from a fair fight. Apple has the luxury of designing its OS around a single system set. Microsoft just gives us what we need and allows us the freedom to choose our system. In my opinion, they do a decent job of appealing to the true “needs” of the masses.

If your system is current enough, go ahead and get the new OS. You’ll need it eventually. As with all things technology, as soon as you’re current, you’ve fallen behind.
http://www.technoesq.com Finis Price

Actually, there are many, many, many users of older PowerPC Mac G3′s, G4′s and G5′s who have upgraded their machines and are running the same OS and programs I am running on my new Macbook Pro. To say that Mac’s are not upgradable only reveals that you’ve never owned a Mac long enough to need to upgrade it, which says a lot for Macs. A G4 can run todays programs with just a memory upgrade, can the same be said for a Pentium 2?

As for the OS being made by the same entity as the hardware manufacturer, I’d prefer it that way. It accounts for the stability you see with Mac OS as well as the backwards compatibility you get with each release of Mac OS’s.

I would rather pay $99 for the updates to Mac OS which has REAL improvements and works with my older machine than Microsoft’s $149 and up to upgrade to an OS which is less stable than the previous and doesn’t support my hardware.

If Dvorak changed his mind concerning Mac’s everyone should at least try them for 30 days. Trust me, you won’t go back.
Pingback: TechnoEsq » Adobe Taking On Microsoft?