数億の人々が毎日使用するプロダクトを取ると何に加え少数の新しい特徴を/磨きインターフェイスを、そして次にこの遅れのおよび虫によって苦しめられる改善のためのお金のグリップを殻から取り出すために皆を得ることを試みる得るか。 いいえ、私達は新しいコークス古い、信頼できる友人を断念することならWindowsヴィスタの即ちその消費者要求であることを輝きおよび豪華で新しい包装より多く終えるものが開発しようとしたときにマイクロソフトがおそらくその壊れる実験からのレッスンを学んだかもしれないが、述べていない。 And besides that impressive Aero GUI -- which many PCs can't take advantage of anyway -- what is Vista really offering us that XP didn't? A crash-prone new media player? Exclusive "ultimate extras" that have so far amounted to a lame shareware game? A thousand chances a day to feel important when bequeathing "Administrator privileges" on all those demanding processes?

You can probably tell by now that we're no Vista proponents, and having run the new OS exclusively for almost six months at this point, we're actually about to "make the leap" back to XP. But we're not willing to give up on Redmond just yet, and the beauty of all these service packs and "Patch Tuesdays" is that some of our suggestions could conceivably be incorporated into a product that's already hit the market. So, what...

A couple weeks ago, my buddy Dwight Silverman asked whether he should be tempted by low, low prices to bump the RAM in his Windows Vista machine from 2GB to 4GB.


He asks:

My problem is this: I want the RAM, but do I really need it? I seldom, if ever, use all the memory now in my PC ― the RAM gauge I use as part of yahoo widgets seldom goes above 65 or 75 percent. I have no performance complaints. (I also use a 2-GB USB flash drive for Vista’s ReadyBoost, which helps.) Would spending $80 to kick my RAM up a single gigabyte to 3 GB be worth it? Would I be better off spending $160 and going to 4 GB?

I’ve got a lot of experience with different PC configurations, and I can say with confidence that 2GB is more than enough for even the most demanding business user. There are two important exception to that rule: If you use one or more virtual machines in the same session, you’ll benefit from as much RAM as you can install, and 2GB probably won’t be enough. You’ll also need (and want) the extra RAM if you run 64–bit Windows Vista, a topic I’ll get to shortly. First, let’s talk about that 2GB configuration.

I’ve used Vista on more than a dozen machines from at least six manufacturers. Currently, my working machines are an Asus Tablet PC and a Dell XPS 410 desktop,...

Windows Vista has kind of gotten a bum rap. Some of the rap is deserved -- Microsoft shipped it too early. But for the most part, the rap is carried on by vocal techies who just like to poop on things because they think criticizing things makes them appear more knowledgeable.

Talking to a techie about the quality of mainstream software is a lot like talking to a film school graduate about the quality of mainstream movies. Sure, you might have liked Pirates of the Caribbean but talk to a film snob and it's the 7th sign of the Apocalypse. So how good is Windows Vista? The answer is, pretty good. Far better than Windows XP. But I can think of 5 big mistakes Microsoft made that has taken a window out of its sails.

Let me outline those 5 mistakes Microsoft made with the Windows Vista launch and talk about how Microsoft might be able to keep Windows Vista from being a sequel to Windows ME.

#1 The UAC. The User Account Control in Windows Vista is a feature that appears to have been designed by a marketing committee. Some casual computer user decided that the way to make other casual users think that Windows Vista was "secure" was to have more prompts. A lot more prompts. And so, even a power user (i.e. early adopters) logged on as an administrator is going to find themselves being prompted...

Is Vista the operating system love to hate, or the one you hate to love? Those conflicting thoughts surfaced as I followed Ed Bott’s provocative post on whether vista scare stories are distorting user perceptions. My take: Vista wouldn’t be my primary OS if I didn’t really like it, but it’s still got issues. Five in particular stick in my craw.

Application "Not Responding”
When Windows XP doesn’t want to do stuff, it simply locks up in what I call car-crash mode. You know: Those 15 seconds when XP isn’t responding to your mouse click (and 20 re-clicks) seem like a couple of hours. When you get several mini-lockups in a row, you know it’s time to reboot and shake free whatever process (often, rundll32.exe) that has run amuck.

Standard operating procedure in Vista is both better and worse. I call it the “stutter-start” response. When Vista’s flummoxed, it doesn’t outright up and die on you. Instead, you get that little swirling circle and a “Not Responding” message in the title bar of internet explorer, Mail, Search, or whatever window you happen to be in.

My criticism here is not so much about how Vista is notifying

...