My point is, if the feature is available people will enable it, if their system can't handle it they'll complain. Better to give those people a version without those features in the first place. That is why I'm using the Business version... I don't know what the Media Center does in the background in Vista Home, and I don't wanna know. I'd prefer it not to be there in the first place, that way I don't have to wonder what problems it's causing.
I guess you could solve that problem by having some kind of diagnostic system, but then you run into the issue of having the OS make decisions for the user (something I can't stand).
-Hirudin
Don't those two statements contradict each other.
Actually I would rather have a single version of Vista for Desktop computers that includes everything and during installation it tells you 'your hardware can't support xxxxx feature and so it isn't being installed, if you upgrade your xxxxx to xxxx spec you can install this feature via the Programs applet in the Control Panel'.
MS effectively do this already with Aero and it really isn't a problem (as you say for most people you don't gain a lot with Aero anyway - and certainly not enough to justify the performance hit on lower end hardware) so why not just extend this to other features that require a particular standard of hardware.
Having said that I would prefer it if MS didn't put features into Windows that are demanding on hardware at all. MS like to blur the boundaries between an operating system and applications by adding loads of stuff by default that most people don't want or need (hence the popularity of vLite and nLite with tweakers). It is not the job of Windows to use up those resources - it is Windows job to allow the applications you use to run efficiently. If MS want to add all this pointless bloat they could simply have an extra installer on the Windows DVD which can be run once Windows is installed in its base form and then you can pick and choose the memory or graphic hogging elements that you actually want to install. You could also guarantee that most people wouldn't get round to doing it if it was an optional process and suddenly everyone would be saying "WOW Windows 934 is really much faster than Windows 933" simply because they don't realise that haven't install all the crap that causes most of the slowdowns!
It will probably take MS until version 933 to realise this - and by then you will need the equivalent of a Cray computer just to load Windows!
Anyone else see another 'anti-competitive' case coming at MS? In Vista they seem to have gone back to installing stuff by default that courts around the world have repeatedly said they should not because it discriminates against 3rd party products. It is now almost impossible to buy a new computer without finding Office 2007 preinstalled and ready to run for 3 months (at which point they want you to take out a second mortgage). The EU insisted on versions of Windows that remove common elements (such as WMP) and MS actually produce these at a higher price - but try and find an OEM that actually installs them! Do MS even produce OEM versions of these EU compliant versions?
Recent Posts
