You Can't Coach That

Conspiracy Theories and Windows

I love a good conspiracy theory. It is not that I necessarily believe them I just find them interesting to think about. The interwebs is of course an excellent source of said theories. I recently heard a good one concerning Windows (the source slips my mind otherwise I would quote it here).

The story goes that Microsoft are intentionally slowing down Windows XP through the patches delivered through live update. The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that this is being done to encourage the switch to Vista.

There are two issues in this particular morsel of anti-Microsoft propaganda. Firstly, are patches and updates slowing XP down, and secondly would Microsoft be doing this intentionally.

In response to this second issue, my thinking is that the potential downside to Microsoft of such action would be so serious that it just couldn’t be true. It does make for a good story though and stranger things have happened.

As for the idea that XP is being slowed down by patches and updates, I offer my own anecdotal “evidence”. I have recently reformatted two of my Windows machines, my everyday PC and my music jukebox PC. They both have received a fresh install of Windows XP. While one is a laptop and the other a desktop they have similar configurations. They are both Pentium 4 machines while the laptop processor is faster, they both have 512 meg of RAM and they both have 7200 rpm hard drives. One key difference in the two setups is the fact that the laptop has been updated for all Microsoft patches and updates while the desktop has not. The desktop is a bare install of Windows XP with service pack 2 installed. This machine does not connect to the internet so I see no need to patch it.

Theoretically, these machines should show similar performance. And drum roll please - they don’t. The laptop computer with XP fully updated and patched is noticeably slower in performing basic tasks. For example it takes longer to open a “my computer” window and the right click context menu takes longer to appear. Now you might be thinking that I am making claims without proof or evidence to back them up, and you would be right. I don’t plan on going as far as timing various operations for comparison purposes, I have better things to do.

This is just another small nail in the coffin that will bury my loyalty to Windows. As for moving to Vista I am left cold by the thought of the system specifications that are needed just to run the operating system. I am 90% decided on a move to an Apple Mac Pro. Go ahead, talk me out of it.

“You can’t coach that”

Nooooo don’t switch to Mac. You’re being taken from the darkside, resist it.

The reason your laptop is slower is because of all the desktop shortcuts to porn sites.

If your PC can do XP OK then it will be fine for Vista - don’t listen to people that haven’t actually used or installed it.
It runs perfectly fine on my 3 year old PC. I did buy a $70 video card though as the onboard video couldn’t do Aero (well the video couldn’t do much really)
Actually Vista without Aero is still really good.
Vista cost me $140 at Dick Smiths (they messed up the price )
To be honest I find Vista to be snappier to use and quicker to boot than XP. The only thing is mobile phone manufacturers haven’t made Vista apps yet so I don’t know how to get pics off my phone atm.

Mac… at least your not going Linux. Side note. A work mate has just taken in his 24inch mac for repair. He has had it for about two months and the firewire port died. Not bad for $3000.

Goldcoaster - should have dual booted vista and xp for backwards compatibility with software.

There’s nothing wrong with Linux!

I find Vista slower than XP, but others swear Vista is faster.  I am still in the learning curve here and haven’t learned all the details.  It’s better than last week, but I still have a ways to go. 

Again, the guy that built this system says that about every three years you need a new system if you want to stay current.  So, you do what you know you need to do.  You certainly are a lot smarter than I am at this.

Microft, Apple or Linux—when the time comes, you’ll know which way to go. If I’m looking to buy a new machine, a Mac might be a good idea. If I’m looking to get more reliable software without buying another machine, I’d probably go with Linux.

The only issue I have with Macs is the cost.

I say dump the MSFT/Wintel platform.  Vista was truly a mistake by these guys - allowing a buggy, inferior product to hit the streets.  As with most public companies, they allowed WallStreet to determine their release, not when the product was ready.

I say go for the Apple - bought my wife one for her birthday (she’s a Mac bigot, but has put up with WinTel for the last few years) and she loves it.  And I have to admit, if you like “pretty” shiny things, you can’t beat it.

BTW, I’m just glad Microsoft doesn’t make cars, drugs, fire hoses, WMDs, etc. — because if they did, there’s be a high probability we’d all be dead by now

My laptop runs vista and honestly, I have no complaints. I really don’t notice the difference from XP aside from the aesthetics and navigation. I’ve only installed a few software packages of which only one could be classified as resource intensive.

I’ve run Suse and Red Hat Linux on the desktop ( off and on ) for a couple years each. The only reason for going to XP was because of changes in desktop machines.

I can’t say that I have any preference at this point. They all have their pros and cons. It really just boils down to personal choice.

I’ve never tried a Mac. Perhaps someday I may when I decide that I have the money to plop down. a Linux machine or a Windows machine is still the choice for me given the cost of a Mac.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I am probably going to do another post on my decision or lack of one very soon.