The updates in Vista also annoy me. One way or another when they're running they kill my performance (maybe it's Kaspersky's fault though), then sometimes a box pops up telling me that the computer is about to restart... whether I give it permission or not! I have an unhealthy distrust of Microsoft, but I thought I'd give automatic updates a chance... bad decision.

I can think of a reasonable reason to have multiple different versions: that way you can have more advanced versions that require higher end hardware. If Microsoft didn't relegate DreamScene (the animated desktop thing) to Ultimate you'd have all kinds of problems with people turning it on for no good reason, then complaining about how Vista is a resource hog. How much better would the average computer's performance be if people would just turn off Aero? (dwm.exe is using 250mb of RAM on my computer right now) 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). A built in "vLite" like installer might work too... I wish I could easily turn off the indexer, firewall + defender, windows update, the sidebar, etc. during the install, or better yet, before burning the install disc.

Hirudin, you can skip the auto-updates if you use a pirated version of Vista. They're disabled for a reason.

Just saying. 

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).

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?

Don't those two statements contradict each other.
...

Sorta... The second statement was talking about a solution that I thought would probably annoy me; but I think you're right - if those extra features (DreamScene, Media Center, Remote Access, "iHome" clone apps, etc.) were implemented exactly like Aero is now I think they could probably make the majority of their customers happy.

About Office being installed on pre-built computers... isn't that a choice of the OEMs? They want to put "Includes Office*" on the side of their boxes so they'll sell more computers. They also probably get a kickback for whatever software they put on their computers, be it from Microsoft or Roxio.
*3 month trial

I'm with you, I wish Microsoft would spend less time trying to shove WMP down my throat. They could use that saved time to make their OS better, or the saved man-hours to reduce their prices.

One question out of topic : Which OS is going to be included for MS Surface Computing Project? Vista or Win7?

The operative machines use Vista, as expected. Surely Microsoft will transition the product line to Windows 7 when it's ready, for obvious reasons.

Isn't Vista and Server2008 the same kernel anyway? Usually the only difference between workstation and server (for the same generation of Windows) is a few changes in the registry, and the "extra stuff" that's included. For XP and Server2003 there were some differences though, including a more recent compiler being used to build the kernel. XP64 was based on Serv2003 codebase, not XP32 codebase.

IMHO you're better off taking a Vista Business version and running it through vLite - that way, you won't have software bitching about requiring the Pro Version to run on server edition OSes.

I've tried out Windows Server 2008 and there are things to recommend it - navigating around it *seems* simpler (probably lack of UAC!), for one thing. However, there's not much to choose between it and Vista in terms of speed at boot and overall responsiveness, IMHO. My Vista installation has a lot of 3rd party apps installed and running, WS2008 has an AV/AS app and that's about it. Vista is 32-bit, WS2008 is 64-bit and that's my prime motiviation for giving it a go. Vista's back in the notebook, but when I have some free time I'd like to swap the drives again and play around with Server. For one thing, I'd like to get a photo editing app and Office 2007 installed and see if the extra gig of RAM that the 64-bit OS recognises will have any effect on performance under load...

Darwin, why not simply install 64bit Vista instead of mucking around with the server stuff?

Er...  Actually, that's what I'd like to do! However, I messed up when I bought my notebook and bought one with a 32-bit OEM install. I'd have to pay full price for Vista 64-bit whereas as a student I was given a free licence for Windows Server 2008. As I had a spare SATA drive gathering dust, I thought I'd give it a whirl!

I don't think he is talking about money Zaine - there seems to be no automatic migration method in the beta.

Sorry but after the Vista fiasco (with even MS saying it is OK to stick with XP until 7 is realeased and offering free upgrades to XP with Vista Business) MS would shoot themselves in the foot if there is no financial incentive to upgrade from XP to Windows 7. The sorts of prices they charge for full versions of Windows it simply would not sell to anyone except the OEM market who would be forced adopters. Businesses in particular (that don't use volume licensing) would ignore it completely.

If MS aren't careful they will end up with a customer base still using Windows XP in 2010 and a big reluctance to move at all to a new version of Windows. It won't happen but they should seriously look at Apple's pricing model.

Personally I think there is a lot to be said for releasing version 7 as a major service pack to Vista (rather like XP SP2 was a major update to XP). They are unlikely to do that though because they will want to kill the name Vista as soon as possible. I bet they don't stick to Windows 7 either. How about Windows XP reloaded - might con enough people into thinking it is a better version of XP

Rather than wasting time and energy on copy protection and DRM MS should scrap all those technologies and make Windows cheap enough for home use (and license flexible enough in the home) to make it a no brainer to buy a copy. That would put piracy out of business and make the whole thing so much more user friendly.

If the movie studios don't like it tough - they can always try to introduce a cometing operating system with all the DRM crap included and see if anyone wants to buy it.

I was reading on (one of) the blogs from Bruce Schneier (a wel known cryptographer and author), that Windows is implementing DRM to keep the movie industry hostage and not the other way around. Any quoting from that blog is impossible because of a very "leaking" memory I'm afraid.

Of course I cannot find the direct link to this particular blog on his site anymore  but you will likely find it when you have more time on your hands than me at the moment. Well, he writes entertainingly so it will not be a punishment to read more of his works anyway.

Ah, I knew I got at his site through another link...and how could I ever think it was not through this forum 

Indeed, thanks for the link urlwolf 
(and city_zen for "letting me see the light"  )