Vista is the best version of 64-bit Windows... XP was more of a hobbyist thing (and still is). I just want to straigten out a couple of things. First, 64-bit operating systems can address 4GB of memory total, period. That doesn't mean just RAM and that doesn't mean just video card RAM... It also means things like BIOS ROM, RAID cards, low level programs like keyboard controllers, and other things. 16kb here... 128kb there... If you have 1GB of video card RAM, the OS will only recognize a little less than 3GB of RAM. It's not "64-bit lets you have 3.5" it's "64-bit lets you have 4GB of memory in your entire computer and system RAM takes the lowest priority of being counted". Second, Vista 64 runs 32-bit applications just fine, thanks to an emulator similar to what XP has to run 16-bit applications. Unfortunately 64-bit doesn't emulate 16-bit, so programs that you used when Windows 3.1 was the prime of the pack won't work anymore... But let's face it. People who use these programs at home should upgrade by now... People who use these programs at businesses haven't upgraded because those in charge never justified the cost and this will help the employees in their quest for easier to use software when 32-bit becomes a thing of the past. (Now, to be perfectly honest, the 64-bit memory allocation is far, far, far more complicated than that, but I won't get into that for the sake of your sanity.)

As such, if you buy a new computer RIGHT NOW? You should not consider a 32-bit operating system. Even now, 4GB is cheap enough to be expected in a computer you buy RIGHT NOW, and 64-bit is required to see all of that RAM. It doesn't cost any more when you pick 64 over 32 and it offers many more advantages. Anyway... It's people like these who make me think that I would be an AWESOME system builder and repair person. You know, I even caught someone saying that Vista SP1 was a piece of trash... In the spirit of my not believing stuff like this without proof, I asked them to provide links and numbers so I could see myself (I even linked them to the benchmarks that say Vista SP1 fixed graphics performance)... Of course, no response, but there've been a few others who jumped on my bandwagon with "what the heck are you talking about, man?"

What's worse than a noob who claims something without giving proof? A noob who claims something without giving proof who thinks that all of us should take their word for it because they think they're a professional... Ugh. No wonder Windows gets such a bad rap. Even the "pros" don't understand computers.

Oh, and while we're at it, a while ago, Slashdot ran with an article that spelled doom and gloom for the market share of Windows, and they were all praising the fact that Windows MIGHT drop below 90%, as if that is some sort of huge deal. They, of course, took the time to promote how Apple rose an entire 2% in the last year. (It's funny that they didn't note the 0.2% increase in Linux use... Not the exciting "year of Linux" everyone foretold in January, is it?) Well, if you're going to use this chart to condemn Microsoft, you have to use the same numbers for everything. Can't selectively say "Windows is failing" and then ignore "Linux is stuck". Of course, these are liberal, anti-capitalist, open-source fanatics we're talking about. They'll pick and choose whatever they darn well please and the Slashdot "editors" won't bother to check facts.

What I want to point out (which is what PCWorld was also keen to point out) is that over the last year, Vista has grown over 300%, from 4% to 16%. Now, this is just Vista, not "Windows". The upgrade rate is growing steadily faster than Apple's... People keep claiming that Vista is "dead" and that because Microsoft is already creating a new Windows, it means that Vista doesn't have Microsoft's own "blessing". Absolute hogwash. Upgrades of this magnitude have always been slow... People wouldn't upgrade to XP from 2000, but when they were finally forced to, they enjoyed it all the same. People don't want to upgrade to Vista from XP, but those of us who are finally forced to decide it's really not as bad as everyone says it is. Take it from me... Vista on a new, modern system (as it was designed for) is absolutely amazing. Vista upgrading from a computer that can barely run XP? Not so hot.

All part of my "please, use common sense, you clueless rabble" theme for this blog.

Now, during the history of DirectX, Microsoft was experimenting with how to make it work. They tried to make DirectX not work directly in tangent with the kernel of the system, running in user-mode to promote stability, but that proved to be far too slow and they abandoned that approach. As a result, DirectX up to version 9 has been a kernel patch, more or less, but with Vista, drivers are no longer operated at the kernel level, so DirectX 10 couldn't either. This is what all the smart people bring up. I mean, you have the casual Vista haters who just hate for no reason, and then you have the true concerned performance mongers who dig up information and go: "Look, this is what Vista does and I don't think it's so great." Not for performance, maybe, but separating drivers from the kernel practically eliminates Stop errors. (Otherwise known as Blue Screens of Death.)

But fear no more! ExtremeTech has run benchmarks on Vista (SP1 and base) vs XP (SP3 and SP2) and I think the results will surprise you. Certainly there was a performance decrease with Vista base, but with the advent of SP1, you can see that the frame rates are on par with XP if not exceeding XP entirely. I tolerated the slower performance of Vista for the stability of the new driver model, but I think it's clear that Microsoft is figuring out how to make DirectX 10 (which runs safely in user-mode) work as fast as DirectX 9 (which runs dangerously in kernel-mode). Everyone needs to revise their opinions about Vista's performance and wake up and smell the roses... Vista is not the mammoth tangle of processor intensive garbage that everyone makes it out to be. Every operating system is released with issues, even immaculate Apple has bugs (that are just simply overlooked by fanboys). Vista just needed a bit of time to mature, and, slowly but surely, Microsoft is addressing the concerns of everyone who doesn't want to use Vista. Soon enough, the only reason they haven't upgraded would be because they don't want to. Which is fine, but don't go justifying your decision by making Vista out to be something it clearly isn't.

Fact is: Service Pack 1 DOES increase performance to every bit the speed you had with Windows XP, AND you're getting a far safer and stable approach to drivers than you did with Windows XP. You have the best of both worlds now... I think it's time for some people see how nice Vista is for themselves. If history is anything to go by (and it usually is), all you performance mongers will eventually see the light and upgrade. After all, you upgraded to Windows XP, did you not?

Let's see if all those people who were waiting for SP1 before trying Vista were only talking out their butt. I mean, I already made the prediction, which was verified with the screenshot of Slashdot I posted... My guess is that people aren't going to use Vista because they don't want to explain their opinion that Vista isn't worth it when they haven't even tried it, yet. (You know, that line they feed to everyone that doesn't like Linux?)

I'm eager to watch the irony unfold!

Heeheehee... So true.

People are getting upset because Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 is going to be ACID2 compatible, but only if you add a special <meta> tag to the sites that want IE to be running in that mode. Why? I fail to see why this is such a big deal, from the perspective of a web site designer.

Face it. IE6 was screwed up. But it was still the most popular browser until Firefox showed up on the scene. There are going to be countless sites that are built to cater to IE6's shortcomings and funky non-standards. That's just a fact. Standards compliant sites are a minority. Face it... Not many people but uber-geek techies (with nothing to lose if people don't visit their sites) are going to design outside IE's problems and force their readers to download another browser besides that which came by default with the most popular operating system in the world.

But people are still complaining about IE8. Why? I think it's because it should render sites properly without the addition of a tag, correct? I can understand that... A tiny, tiny bit. But you would rather Microsoft, who has a huge market share, whether you want to believe it or not, decide to fix their browser and then subsequently BREAK all the websites that were designed for IE6? How is that going to be a good thing?

"Hello, this is Microsoft. We finally fixed IE in version 8, but you're going to pay for our mistakes now, because your sites are going to be broken, and you're going to have to rush to make sure it all works again because we screwed up."

Yeah... That's going to be a good approach. (The Apple approach, haha: "We changed this, now deal with it, because we know best.") This is Microsoft we're talking about. Do you honestly think that's the best course of action for them? They have a huge responsibility to their existing users, and they have always bent over backwards to provide backwards compatibility for things. Just look at Windows... It's getting fatter and fatter because people still want to run the thing on ancient hardware. Of course, people complain about Windows being bloated... But then people also complain about Windows Vista having such steep system requirements when Microsoft decides to drop some old hardware in favor of the latest stuff. (And yet, Apple doesn't seem to garner this sort of reaction.)

Approach A: Microsoft builds Internet Explorer 8 to be 100% standards compliant all the time, without use of meta tags. Sites built to cater to the funkiness of the browser instantly stop working. Public outcry ensues because Microsoft doesn't give anyone time to fix the problem.

Approach B: Microsoft builds Internet Explorer 8 to be 100% standards compliant only with a special tag for sites that have been built to be standards compliant. Sites continue to work as they are at the moment, giving time for people to upgrade to the new standards mode. Public outcry ensues because Microsoft makes you add a tag to your site to run in the standards mode.

I am going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and say that this is a transitional phase between IE8 and IE9 and 10. Give people enough time to warm up to the new mode and give them enough time to fix their sites. Every browser has quirks. IE8 is a massive upgrade, from the sounds of things. There will, of course, be some quirks. Every application has them. When IE9 or 10 comes out, strip the compatibility feature and use that as the time limit for people to get their sites finished. There will naturally be a group of people who don't bother to upgrade until they have to, but that's what the time limit is for. Once you have a sample of how IE is going to work in standards mode, you can experiment without it being mission-critical that you have the site working flawlessly when IE8 rolls out.

But maybe that's just me and my being a fan of Microsoft shining through.

Actually, no. There's someone who doesn't agree. Of course there is.... There's always someone out there vocal enough and insane enough to say that even when Microsoft does what people want, it won't matter. People complain about something, Microsoft fixes it, and people just find something else to complain about. (Example: People complain about drivers smashing Windows XP and to get all that stuff out of the kernel. Windows Vista does that, but I think you can tell what people think about Vista. I'm waiting for Vista SP1 to come out so I can flaunt when people said they wouldn't touch Vista until it came out... You just know that it's only a front to dodge the shots that they have an inherent, inexplicable hate for Microsoft, and that they'll find someone else to complain about when SP1 arrives.)

This guy pulls random charts out of his bu-... Erm, ahem... Out of his website's logs, and attempts to prove that people won't use IE8 by showing that the majority of his visitors are predominantly Firefox and/or still IE6 users. That's right. He's using logs from his own blog that is all about technology. I highly doubt that the regular Joe who uses what browser Windows gives him will be visiting that site. Take my site, for example, even! Everyone I know uses Firefox or Safari. As far as I know, I'm the only one using Opera. Actually, here! I can post my Google Analytics logs, too:

As you can see, clearly, Firefox dominates, with IE at a distant second place. What does that mean? It means, quite simply, that the people who visit my site use Firefox the most. Generally speaking, the people who find my site most interesting also think that Firefox is best. My site isn't exactly a public necessity, now, is it? All this tells me if that my friends use Firefox the most. If you wanted to get a good idea of what browsers the general public used, you're going to have to ask Yahoo or Google or YouTube or MySpace or something that everyone uses. But let's take a closer look at the logs that tell me what version of Internet Explorer everyone uses, shall we?

Huh... Look at that. 63% of the visitors who use Internet Explorer are using the latest one. It's a bit of a wider gap than the logs the other guy pulled out, eh? For kicks, let's look at what versions of Firefox people are using!

Pretty much the same as the other guy's. 2.0.0.11 (wow, what a version, what is that? Major.Minor.Patch.what? What comes after Patch? Hotfix?) is the lead, of course, because it's the latest. But, hmm... Do you want to know why everyone upgraded Firefox? Is it because they're security conscious and want the latest little itty-bitty third-point release? Maybe! I'm going to bet, though, it's because Firefox pops up a window when you start it and it keeps bugging you to upgrade to the latest obscure version. You know, I'll also bet that if Internet Explorer did that, more people would upgrade, but... I'm also willing to bet that if Internet Explorer popped up an upgrade window like that, people would be extremely upset and complain that Microsoft is trying to cram upgrades down their throats. So, as it is, you have to run Windows Update and manually choose to install Internet Explorer 7, or download it from Microsoft.com.

My ultimate point is this:

Internet Explorer 8 passes standards. This is a very, very, very good thing for web designers. After so long of complaining to Microsoft that their program doesn't work the way it should, it finally does! However, there are people out there who, after complaining for so long, keep complaining because... Why? I don't think anyone really knows besides the fact that it's cool to whine about Microsoft. They'll pull out logs of their little bit of the internet and say "Look! Look! IE6 is still almost half of the market share! Here's the proof" when their tiny little site about the latest in-depth technological posts are probably going to attract people who are interested in that sort of stuff, and probably don't even use Windows in the first place.

It's the Browser Wars all over again, and I know people have their favorites. Mine, personally, is Opera, but I also use Firefox (my third choice), and Internet Explorer 7 (my second choice), and I keep them upgraded and I use them all for different purposes. (Safari, by the way, is installed, but I only use it to make sure my site shows up properly.) I'm just saying... Try to keep an open mind, will you? It's a good thing IE8 is standards-compliant, and some of you need to get off your soapbox for 5 seconds and give Microsoft some credit. (And stow the "about time" comments.) Ah, but that's a little too much to ask, isn't it... These are the same people want Microsoft to get more in tune with the general user, but they aren't willing to tell Microsoft about what they generally use their computer for. (Which, by the way, I asked anyone to tell me how else Microsoft could learn how to "get in touch" with the general user, but, as I predicted, I received no comments.)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a room to finish cleaning for company tomorrow!

I'm sure that everyone reading this right now has red flag popping up in their brains. "Microsoft watching me?! More than they already do with Windows alone?! THE NERVE!!"

Honest question for you guys. Did you even read the FAQs and such? They tell you what they're going to monitor. It checks to see how you use Microsoft products, it checks Windows settings, number of users on the system, various Control Panel settings. Hardware details... Processor, RAM, and so forth. Information about (not information in) files in common storage places, such as how many things you're actually storing in My Documents. The programs you run, and problems you encounter. They say they don't intentionally read identification information, such as passwords. But, in all honesty, with the massive uproar whenever something like this comes up, will someone mind telling me how Microsoft is actually going to use your password and compromise your security? They're going to send a representative to act as your friend long enough for you to feel safe handing your laptop over to him so he can finally use your password? I also stand next to my view that if you store credit card and banking information in plain-text form on your computer, then you almost deserve someone to steal it.

So this is all with the intent of learning how to improve Windows. You know what that is, I'm sure, because every outspoken malcontent whines about how Microsoft should fix their products and get more in tune with what people actually want today. Well... This is their answer, and all you can do is scream "bloody murder!" about privacy issues? Seriously, how else is Microsoft supposed to find out what you use Windows for? Do you think they should hire about a thousand people to sit in a big room with telephones and wait for people to call in with their input?

You call, again and again, for Microsoft to get their act together, and when they think of a way to do that, you trip over each other to be the first to call out PRIVACY VIOLATION, when they haven't even DONE anything, yet. (Or you just take a cheap jab and say there's nothing they could learn that they don't already have access to. Oh, very witty of you.)

I'll probably get... no comments, but I'm going to pose the question anyway. How do you think Microsoft should get a feel for what the market is like, when they have such a massive market share? Let's be reasonable, too. Something that could actually be done. Something like random visits just... isn't going to cut it. Is there anything better that they could do? Anything better than installing an application that literally watches you do work? How else are they going to know what the modern market wants to do?

Since I know they're going to be brought up, please don't say something about "well, Apple knows what their market wants just fine without spying" or "Linux knows what people want". That may be the case, but, face it. They're incredibly small market shares. Apple and Linux know what their market wants pretty much because their market already likes what Apple and Linux was doing in the first place. There was no adaptation to be done. Actually, go ahead and say that if you want, but don't bother unless you can explain how Apple and Linux knows what their market wants. "They just do", for example, isn't going to cut it.

All that being said, I want to say that I was completely and totally prepared to apply for this Microsoft "spy app". I mean, hey! I enjoy Vista immensely. What could be better than getting a free copy of Ultimate for letting a program watch what windows I open? As long as I know it's there, I'll make a point of not doing anything deadly secretive while it's there. (You know, all those CIA reports I have to write up... Can't let anyone get their hands on those, right?) But, sadly, the free software promotional ended yesterday, I believe, and now there's no incentive, so I'm not going to do it.

And here is where someone's going to say "aha! You're calling us out for not wanting to run the test when not even you are going to?" No... No, I wasn't calling you out for not wanting to run the test. I was calling you out for exploding over the "privacy violation" of this test... I was calling you out for acting like you had no choice in the matter and that Microsoft has no right learning what it might, possibly, without-sure-proof, learn what it might. I'm calling you out for wanting Microsoft to make their products better, but being too paranoid and anti-Microsoft at heart to take this as an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.

If you don't want to participate, fine. But is there a better way to get what you've been wanting Microsoft to do for so long? For Microsoft to know what you want, you're going to have to tell them somehow, and this is one of those ways.

(PS - For the record, I would like to think that I would defend any company who does this. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Blizzard, or otherwise. Granted, it's pretty obvious that I'm a little biased toward Microsoft, but I'd still like to believe that my leaning away from anyone wouldn't prevent me from seeing this the same way had, say, Apple wanted to install a program and monitor your activities and all the Apple users were upset. (Yes, I know, Apple would never do such a thing.))