Chris Barker wrote:
> I was away from home when I read this post and had a look at the website,
> Moose. But my immediate response was that it was a spoof.
>
Rats, I wasn't gong to say anything further ...
I had the pleasure, and generally it was, of running a market research
department for a few years. I"m familiar with teh pain of a company when
a product acquires a tainted reputation for incorrect reasons.
As a piece of market research, before it was transformed into a piece of
marketing, it seems to to be a perfectly legitimate effort. Focus
groups and trial panels with products carrying fake names is a common
way of separating reputation from experienced performance.
> The reaction of the supposed reviewers looked entirely posed.
People in focus groups, if put on camera, tend to come across as stiff
and unnatural. Record them from behind the one way glass, and you get
natural, lively interaction. The problem with this example is that they
wanted marketing shots with people talking to the camera and such.
Yes, it's awkward marketing. But I think the results of the research
show that a large part of their target audience is prejudiced against
their product on the basis or rumor and Apple ads.
> And Vista works like Vista whether it's called Vista or something obscure ...
>
I'm not a fan of MS and bloatware. On the other hand, I like to be fair
and truthful. I bought a computer with Vista. Unlike Scott, I didn't
have to buy any new peripherals. I was a relatively early adopter,
because it was time for a new machine, so I had a couple of driver
problems, but they weren't hard to resolve and later Vista drivers came
out for that equipment.
But here's the key thing. Vista has been absolutely solid for me. It has
so far never crashed. It starts up fine every time, and quicker than XP2
on the old box. It has been the most reliable OS I've ever had on a PC.
All but one application I've tried on it, and I use a lot of programs,
has run on it without problem and always more quickly than on the XP
box. Indeed, the new box is faster and has more memory, but if we are to
believe what the rumors say, the bloated awfulness of Vista should
negate that.
People even complain about the look and how the Aero look is eating up
their machine CPU. It's a matter of a few seconds to make it look just
like XP, with no Aero translucency,if that's what they want.
Think I wasn't going to say anything about that one app that doesn't run
under Vista - try to slip it by? That is the price of OS stability and
reliability. A C program compiled using an open source compiler can't
access enough memory to run in DOS mode. The reason is that some DOS
mode programs are poorly written or the compilers have poor memory
management. Those programs were a cause of hangs and crashes of XP and
prior OSs, as they crashed around in memory and wrote where they
shouldn't. Compile the program using MSs library, and they run fine -
without posing a danger.
Anyway, I don't give a d**n whether anybody buys or uses Vista. But I
think, at least based on my own experience, that it has got a bum rap.
> I have to deal with it on our Parish Priest's computer which is much too
> measly a machine to load the OS and it just takes ages to do anything!
>
So if you try to tow a caravan using a car without enough power to do
the job, you blame the caravan? On a contemporary entry level computer,
Vista just sings along. You want to run PS? Just as with XP, get a
faster processor and lots of memory.
> I wonder if increasing the RAM will help; que piensas?
>
Almost certainly. But a new, entry level computer with a faster
processor and more, faster memory is really inexpensive these days. Find
a donor like me with a decent XP box sitting idle. (Only less compulsive
about back-up.)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|