Having recently bought a docking station for my notebook, I thought that I would have it easier interfacing with Vista. Now the booting process takes forever due to all the USB devices I have hooked up to my notebook.
My Vista experience has been good so far, but that might also be from the hundreds of megabytes in updates that I have downloaded. Now with SP1 out, another round of updates has started, with almost 200 megabytes in updates, from the notebook manufacturer, having been done on top of the SP1 installation, which include video, network, sound and other types of drivers.
Closing the Door to Microsoft Vista – Business Week
General Motors GM may take a detour around Vista, the latest computer operating system from Microsoft MSFT. The automaker has encountered so many speed bumps getting Vista to work on its machines that it may just wait for the next version of Windows, due in 2010 or 2011. “Were considering bypassing Vista and going straight to Windows 7,” says GMs Chief Systems & Technology Officer Fred Killeen.
Alaska Airlines (ALK) is among companies that see diminishing value in running the latest Microsoft desktop technology when so many applications are available via a Web browser. “There’s no business value in us continuing to chase that upgrade cycle,” says Senior Vice-President and CIO Bob Reeder. So as PCs need replacement, the airline buys Vista-equipped machines for its roughly 2,000 office workers from Dell (DELL), then exercises its right to downgrade the machines to XP. About 8,000 PCs used mostly by gate agents and airport crews run a variety of older Windows versions. Reeder says the company plans to skip Vista.
As a side note, yesterday I slipstreamed SP3 into a Windows XP installation CD. The last time I performed the slipstreaming operation, with a Celeron 366 PC, the process took forever. With my notebook (2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo), burning the new CD took longer than slipstreaming SP3 into the XP core files.
# 27 pedro
“#25 preventive theft. That shows what a conformist you are. Keep rationalizing”
Pedro. Let’s examine your statement.
“if you go to any computer store anywhere in Canada and the US, the only software guarded by lock and key behind bars is MS soft.”
Not true. Some stores do some don’t. Some store lock up all games too. CompUSA didn’t lock it up in my neck of the woods. Now larger retailers that are not really computer stores like Best Buy and Frys have differing policies depending on the location.
“That speaks volumes of how affraid, paranoid and how much disdain MS has against its customers.”
How would locking up the software, which is not a MS policy, Show disdain for customers? What do they have to be paranoid or afraid about other than theft?
# 29 Wretched Gnu
“can somebody please explain to me why anybody would want to “upgrade””
64 bit memory addressing.
Superfetch
Drivers are user mode instead of kernel mode. This prevent full out system crashes for bad device drivers. AND YES IT WORKS!!!!
Two way Firewall. (This only applies to people that don’t user 3rd party security apps.)
The new search abilities are nice.
In my opinion networking Vista requires no knowledge at all. It set itself up. I didn’t have to do anything. It saw everything and set it up for me. While that was not necessary it was however nice.
# 31 andy
“there’s no reason to upgrade. you get less performance for the same hardware, and there are no must-have features. ”
Not true I get better performance on many apps. The entire Adobe Production suite for example.
“file-copy was actually SLOWER than xp before an update patch.”
So? It was fixed! I get 240 MB sustained on my file copies. I do however have a Raptor RAID 0 setup.
# 32 Wretched Gnu
“I could just install my perfectly functional and consistently virus-free XP on the new machine, and it will run *faster* than with Vista”
Some things yes others no. Depends on what you run.
# 33 pedro
“Oh no, they don’t. Those are empty boxes. The “cage” is either below the rack of empty boxes or close by at another aisle.”
Again depends on the store and the location. I find that the software policy is unbiased. They either do that with all or none.
#32
You could make the same argument about moving from 2000 to XP.
I’ve found that I can’t really see any speed difference between XP and Vista on my machines (Athlon 64 4200/2GB RAM/Radeon X700 and a Q6600/4GB RAM/Radeon X1900XT). I probably was getting a few extra FPS under XP, but programs launch faster under Vista.
Vista is better at allocating tasks to multiple processors, Superfetch actually puts my memory to use, it’s more stable, it’s more secure, software backwards compatibility is excellent (you do lose 16-bit support in the 64-bit version, but you can still use DOSbox), and I like some of the new/updated stuff. Vista Media Center and the Vista version of Windows Movie Maker are great, and the new DVD maker utility is nice, although it needs some work. Aero is nice, too. It’s also the first great 64-bit OS as I mentioned in my last post.
Vista is fine. I’ve met a lot of people who slam Vista, and then, when you ask them specifically what they don’t like about it, you almost always get the same answer…
“I’ve never actually tried it, but everybody says it sucks.”
Perhaps that was true a year or more ago. I run Vista 64 on modern hardware, and I am very happy with it.
It looks a little nicer, all of the new panels for configuration are much more helpfull, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the speed of it.
SKL
Well, the Vista folk make a good case; except that I need exactly none of the features or fixes mentioned.
One of the following is true, but they can’t both be: (1) Vista takes up far more system resources than XP, and therefore eats up more resources; (2) Vista does not take up more system resources, and therefore does not eat up more resources.
The question of whether the silly toys that come with Vista are worth the bloat is a matter of preference. But I have no idea why people think that a vast increase in resource-consumption is an indication of an advance in tech. Wouldn’t the opposite be true?
#38
Vista does not eat up massive amounts of system resources.
Most of Vista’s memory use is Superfetch, it caches frequently used programs in memory so they open faster. Vista’s actual memory footprint without Superfetch is about 150 MB more than XP. Both OS’s run fine with 1 GB of RAM, and both are capable of running on 512 MBs (although I wouldn’t put less than 1 GB in any desktop, regardless of OS).
# 40 pedro
pedro. Your implication that MS is forcing stores to lock it up is just ridiculous. You offer no evidence to support it and deny the obvious fact that when things are locked up at stores it is to prevent theft. You also make false claims that MS Windows is the only software locked up in certain stores. They lock up CPUs too. Does that mean Intel and AMD are trying to hide something? It is about theft and nothing more. To claim otherwise just makes you look more stupid than you are. Your claim is dumb and you know it!!!! What do they have to gain by locking it up other than theft protection? Someone looking at the packaging? What could they possibly be hiding? You can’t install it at the store.
They have nothing to hide! You can cruise over to where they sell PCs and look at Vista installed all you want. How would locking up the sales package be hiding something?
You are so driven to be anti everything that you are starting to foam at the mouth. You have no evidence and no knowledge of Vista. You are shooting off your mouth and nothing but dribble is coming out.
“Like you said, people are just thieves that get their software from torrent sites & from store lifting.”
Are you saying that you are unaware of the fact that people commonly steal software over bit torrent or are you denying that it happens? I bet I could find over 1000 seeds for Vista on bit torrent today alone. I think even that is underestimating what is out there.
# 38 Wretched Gnu
“Well, the Vista folk make a good case; except that I need exactly none of the features or fixes mentioned.”
Then don’t buy it! I bet you don’t need most of the features in XP either but I bet you have that installed instead of Windows 2000 or 98 don’t you? WHY?
“The question of whether the silly toys that come with Vista are worth the bloat is a matter of preference. ”
Sorry but 64 bit memory access is not a silly toy. Neither is superfetch. They seriously increase performance on the appropriate hardware
You keep using XP. Better yet why not just run DOS it probably does everything you need. You don’t need that pretty Windows interface do you?
J: The fact that each OS iteration, including XP, has all kinds of bloat that nobody needs — in addition to some things you do need (although I have yet to see what Vista contributes to this category) — does not answer the primary question: shouldn’t we evaluate tech “advance” in terms of smaller and leaner?
#43
“shouldn’t we evaluate tech “advance” in terms of smaller and leaner?”
Not necessarily. Software developers have to strike a balance between speed, features, and ease of use. If we followed you’re criteria we would all still be using a command line interface. It’s also important to keep in mind that computers are continuing to become more powerful. When Windows 95 came out is was incredibly demanding for computers of the day, more than Vista is to the typical low-end desktop today. A computer that met the minimum requirements of Windows 95 (an Intel 80386 and 4 MB RAM) was almost unusable. A typical low-end Pentium 4/Athlon 64 machine with 512 MBs of RAM would be fine as an office machine with Vista.
Vista does add a lot of new features, but it’s mostly under the hood. It’s a more stable and secure operating system, and as I’ve pointed out it’s not much more demanding than XP. Now that the drivers have matured Vista’s performance is nearly the same as XP.
# 43 Wretched Gnu
“has all kinds of bloat that nobody needs”
You don’t “need” to use a computer at all. Hell until the late 80’s early 90’s most people didn’t own a home computer and we all got along just fine.
How do you know what people need or want? Maybe you don’t need it but people like me do. 64 bit memory addressing is extremely advantages’ to what I do. Under XP you are limited to 2 GB for your apps. That means 1 app or 10 at a time. You only get 2 GB for all of them. I on the other hand with a lot of 32 bit apps can have 4 GB for each one. With 64 bit apps I can have as much memory as I have left over after the OS. This is a HUGE issue with productive people who run 4 or 5 apps at a time. Under XP the same system will slow down considerably due to lack of memory when you open a bunch of memory sucking apps at once. Every app you run that isn’t an OS service uses part of that 2GB under XP your email app and all those background apps like QuickTime and Virus software and I have seen people with a lot of background apps installed using almost 1 GB. That would leave you with only 1GB to run all your apps. Not the case under Vista 64. They all get their own memory assuming you have the physical hardware.
Microsoft has to supply an OS to the masses so yes there will be all sorts of stuff that a lot of people don’t need or want. They tried to separate Vista into different packages but we see how that turned out. People got confused.
>>Vista isn’t so bad after all… as long as
>>you are not paying full price for it.
Well, for a product that a multi-billion-dollar juggernaut has been working on for six years, that’s not saying a hell of a lot.
Other than the 64-bit memory addressing (ceaseleslly pimped by “J”, which almost nobody that gets Vista rammed down their throats has access to), I haven’t seen one reason why anybody would move from XP to Vista.
Kind of pitiful, when you think about it. I’ve been using M$FT products since DOS 2.0, and of all the “upgrades” they have ever put out, Vista is the least bang for the most buck that I’ve ever seen. I’m just glad I have my OS X and Linux machines too….
I’m using 32 bit Vista right now on a Toshiba laptop with 2 gigs of RAM. It works fine. I disabled Aero Transparency simply because I don’t like translucent windows. Otherwise, all other Vista/Areo features are enabled. The only problems I’ve had with Vista are with third party drivers that weren’t written properly for Vista. As the drivers were upgraded, my system got more stable.
The SP1 upgrade worked fine once I learned the trick (from Microsoft support no less) of temporarily disabling third party resident programs during the upgrade.
I might switch to Vista 64 once I can get 64 bit versions of all my applications, but haven’t seen the need to do so just yet.
#46
“I haven’t seen one reason why anybody would move from XP to Vista.”
Maybe for the improved security and stability? Maybe for the new memory management that improves application launch speeds? Maybe for the nice interface? Maybe for the 64-bit features (which do allow for vast performance improvements)? Maybe for the better multiprocessor support/affinity management? Maybe for the better multilingual support?
Why do you use windows XP over Windows 2000? The only noticeable difference is the interface. Ubuntu 8.04 uses more memory than XP and I don’t see people bitching about it.
>>As the drivers were upgraded, my system
>>got more stable.
Hey, great. Maybe by the time M$FT is ready to release Windows 7, Vista will almost be up to par with XP!
The point here isn’t that Vista is ALL THAT AWFUL, it’s just clearly no better than XP. And in most ways, it’s worse (I’ve been using it for over a year, with all the patches and upgrades). And this is what we’ve waited six year for, and are expected to pay hundreds of bucks to “upgrade” to?
>>Why do you use windows XP over Windows 2000?
Because new computers came with it, and it’s too much of a pain in the ass to install a new OS.
Other than that, there’s seldom a reason to “upgrade” to a new M$FT operating system on a computer that’s already working.
As to your other points, they’re either just plain silly (the “nice interface”, which I think sucks, btw) or inapplicable for most users (the 64-bit memory thing).
#47
You can use 32-bit applications under 64-bit Vista. You just need to make sure that 64-bit drivers are available for all of your hardware. Hardware manufacturers have to make 32 and 64-bit Vista drivers to be certified by Microsoft, so just about everything that works on 32-bit Vista should work fine with 64-bit Vista.
The only thing you lose is old 16-bit application support. Dos programs can still be emulated under DOSbox.
# 46 Turd
“which almost nobody that gets Vista rammed down their throats has access to”
Really? That’s funny I just went to the websites of Dell, Bestbuy, Frys, Microcenter, HP, Toshiba and Boxx. They all offer Vista 64. So much for no access to it.
There are plenty of other benefits to Vista besides 64 bit memory access. However 64 bit memory access compared to 32 bit is a HUGE F’ing thing!!!!! You act as if it is no big deal but it is a HUGE deal you are just too inexperienced to realize it. Somebody_Else has pointed out several others that affect the end user but you keep with your anti MS mantra. Keep blaming them because you can’t make it work right. Meanwhile the rest of us will enjoy the increased performance and productivity.
# 50 Turd
“or inapplicable for most users (the 64-bit memory thing).”
Please tell me why you think it is inapplicable? Since 2004 Intel has been shipping 64 bit capable CPU’s to the general masses and AMD since 2003. Every chip in Intel’s and AMD line today and for at least a year or two is 64 bit capable. So how is it inapplicable for most users? Is it that they don’t realize they have it? As Somebody_Else pointed out 64 bit runs 32 bit apps and so far I haven’t seen any app of a large user base that doesn’t work. All 32 bit apps enjoy their own 2GB of memory instead of sharing. Many 32 bit apps have the advantage of the very own 4GB of ram. Isn’t that nice? 4GB per application if you want. Wow there is no advantage to that at all! What a waist of money! Who needs that much RAM? Hah!
# 52 pedro
“#41 I presented the same proof you provided about how good vista is.”
You took that long and that’s the best you could come up with? LOL
My view of Vista is my opinion and it doesn’t require proof. You however claimed that MS hides their software from the public and forces stores to lock it up. That is not an opinion. You don’t like MS so you make up false rumors and then attempt to spread them. Too bad for you that this latest one is so blatantly false that everyone can see right through it. Hiding a box with a CD makes no sense when the OS is running on PCs in the same store. The only reason they do it is to prevent theft.
Pushy, “J”, pushy.
As to your comments, pffft. Do you work for M$FT public relations, or something?
I use Vista, a lot of people I know use Vista, and the concensus is “it sucks”. Sure, if you spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking it and turning off some of the silly frippery (like Aero), you can make it run about as well as XP. So that was worth six years and hundreds of dollars??
As to your claim that your Vista system boots in 22 seconds and reboots in under 40, I’m a little skeptical. Even the Vista fanbois admit that boot/ reboot times with Vista are interminable.
And as to the locking up of software, Ped’s right. Every place around here that sells software has most of the stuff right out on the shelves (the expensive software in in a plastic lockbox). The M$FT products, though, just have empty boxes. You have to go to the counter to get the actual goods.
Quit being so pushy, especially when you’re so often wrong.
#54 Turd
“Do you work for M$FT public relations, or something?”
LOL no. I don’t think I would be good a public relations. lol
“I use Vista, a lot of people I know use Vista, and the concensus is “it sucks”. ”
That’s funny because I know a lot of people that love it. If so many people you know think it sucks why are they still running it? Please don’t say that their job makes them. That is such a lame excuse. With all the Vista bashing I have a hard time swallowing that bullshit line.
“Sure, if you spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking it and turning off some of the silly frippery (like Aero), you can make it run about as well as XP.”
Not true at all it runs as good as XP or better right out of the box assuming you are not using crappy hardware with the crappy drivers.
“As to your claim that your Vista system boots in 22 seconds and reboots in under 40, I’m a little skeptical. ”
Don’t be. I have a 4 drive Raptor RAID 0 for a boot drive and a dual Xeon quad core and 16 GB of RAM. Like I said XP booted fast too but not as fast as Vista. My apps under Vista start instantly! Under XP they take 1 or 2 seconds. Granted most people dont have such machines but on the same machine Vista boots faster. That is all that counts.
“Even the Vista fanbois admit that boot/ reboot times with Vista are interminable.”
Yeah anti-Vista folks claim a lot of things too. Doesn’t make it true.
“And as to the locking up of software, Ped’s right. Every place around here that sells software has most of the stuff right out on the shelves (the expensive software in in a plastic lockbox). The M$FT products, though, just have empty boxes. You have to go to the counter to get the actual goods.”
Not true at all!!!! Bestbuy puts empty boxes on the shelf for all their games. The Microcenter downtown here sells Vista right on the shelf. I know because I bought it there. So does the Frys out in the burbs right there on the shelf not an empty box. That same Frys however does lock up Xbox 360 and WII games. Not to mention Pedro claimed it was MS that made them do it. It is a theft protection not because MS doesn’t want people to view the box before they buy it. That is an absurd claim!!
#54
Does typing M$FT make you feel good? Do you expect anyone too take you seriously? Based on your responses you sound like you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.
The anti-Vista people are so full of it. It makes me sad.
Everyone asked for a more secure OS. Microsoft delivered it, plus all the things we’ve talked about: better memory management, great system search, updates to media programs, a nice new optional interface, etc.
It’s slightly slower than a 5 year old operating system on current hardware. Get over it.
“It’s slightly slower than a 5 year old operating system on current hardware. Get over it.”
Sold!
>>I have a 4 drive Raptor RAID 0 for a boot
>>drive and a dual Xeon quad core and
>>16 GB of RAM.
Snore…. You’re making my point for me, “J”. Maybe if one wants to get some tricked-out system that only a true pocket-protected geek would own, Vista may run as well as XP.
However, the vast majority of people in the world are using what you would sneeringly refer to as “crappy hardware” (you know, like a brand new machine with 2 or 3 gigs of RAM and a prominent “VISTA READY” sticker on it), and the thing runs like a pig in molasses.
Why should someone who uses their computer for regular everyday apps (word processing, spreadsheet, database, email, web, basic graphics) and was doing just fine with XP and a 3-year-old computer with 512M RAM be expected to go out and get a system like yours, just to keep on doing what they’re doing? And (in the case of Office 2007) to learn a whole new interface as well? This was worth six years’ wait, hundreds of dollars, and the loss of most of the cool features that were promised for “Longhorn”?? Sheesh.
Most people don’t want to spend every waking moment and every last dollar getting their computer to do what it did just fine 3 years ago. Their computers are just tools to get things done, not an end unto themselves.
>>That’s funny because I know a lot of
>>people that love it.
Have they written any reviews in legitimate tech publications that I could read? Or are they like the “silent majority” …. they’re out there, but they just don’t say anything?
>>Please don’t say that their job makes
>>them. That is such a lame excuse.
Why is that a lame excuse? The only people who seem to be running Vista (other than masochists and sweaty-palmed geeks) either do so because they are forced to use it at work (although most businesses have wisely chosen not to “upgrade”), or they were hoodwinked into “buying” it on a new “Vista ready” machine. In both cases, it’s either a big pain in the ass, or simply NOT POSSIBLE to upgrade back to XP. I’m hard-pressed to think of a single person who actually went out an BOUGHT Vista off the shelf. That contrasts with OS X, where plenty of people (myself included) went out and BOUGHT copies of Panther off the shelves, because it actually offered something over the previous OS, worked well on existing computers, and didn’t require that you devote your life to making it run properly.
# 58 Mister Mustard
“Snore…. You’re making my point for me, “J”. ”
Once again with you massive ineptitude you missed the point. On that same system Vista boots faster. So your claim that Vista boots slower is false.
“However, the vast majority of people in the world are using what you would sneeringly refer to as “crappy hardware” ”
I have pointed out many times that the systems that run Vista well do not have to cost that much. I guy here has a system that cost around $2000 that runs it perfectly. It has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with picking quality equipment. That comes from experience and knowledge of the industry.
“you know, like a brand new machine with 2 or 3 gigs of RAM and a prominent “VISTA READY” sticker on it”
Name the machine! There must be a reason it runs like shit. Or maybe it is user malfunction.
“Why should someone who uses their computer for regular everyday apps (word processing, spreadsheet, database, email, web, basic graphics) and was doing just fine with XP and a 3-year-old computer with 512M RAM be expected to go out and get a system like yours”
They shouldn’t! I never said they should. Vista in my opinion is like Windows 2000 and XP was to Windows 98. It was for serious users who actually needed more than the average user.
“This was worth six years’ wait, hundreds of dollars, and the loss of most of the cool features that were promised for “Longhorn”?? Sheesh”
Yes. I think the feature that Vista offers were worth the wait. You do not and that is fine. DON’T USE IT!!!!
“Most people don’t want to spend every waking moment and every last dollar getting their computer to do what it did just fine 3 years ago.”
Oh please! It doesn’t cost that much as many professionals here have already point out.
“Have they written any reviews in legitimate tech publications that I could read? ”
Have the people you know “personally” written any reviews in legitimate tech publications ?
“Or are they like the “silent majority”
Most people are the silent majority because they don’t care what you or any other misinformed people say. They know from experience that it is a very good OS. You and people like you are experiencing collective effervescence because you smell blood in the water.
“Why is that a lame excuse? The only people who seem to be running Vista (other than masochists and sweaty-palmed geeks) either do so because they are forced to use it at work ”
It is lame because if it was such a poor OS it would be costing those companies tons of money in lost productivity and any company that would force its employees to use something that did that would be out of business quickly. Simple business concept.
“In both cases, it’s either a big pain in the ass, or simply NOT POSSIBLE to upgrade back to XP. ”
Bullshit!!!! Every machine that runs Vista is down gradable to XP and if it performed so poorly it would be cheaper to replace the OS than continue to lose productivity. You should start looking for a new job because if your company continues to make decisions that cost them money they will be out of business soon. If Vista was any more difficult than XP and offered nothing more I wouldn’t have put it on my equipment here.
” I’m hard-pressed to think of a single person who actually went out an BOUGHT Vista off the shelf.”
You should look up sales stat before saying such stupid things.
“That contrasts with OS X, where plenty of people (myself included) went out and BOUGHT copies of Panther off the shelves, because it actually offered something over the previous OS”
The truth comes out. You are a Mac Fanboy! That’s ok I like OSX too.
After Leopard’s release, there were widely-reported incidents of new Leopard installs hanging at boot with a blue screen. It also doesn’t run on slower PowerPC G4’s. G3’s forget it never going to happen!!! Why should those people who still have them have to upgrade their hardware to use it?
Oh and lets not forget the Finder Data-Loss Bug! wow that one is fun huh?
#60 pedro
“the guy that takes his opinions as realities has acknowledged that his are just opinions.
When did you acknowledge that?
“Thanks for letting us know you have no proof that vista doesn’t suck.”
Sorry but the burden of proof is on you not me. You are the ones making the grand claims.
“because you admit you only have opinions”
Yes unlike some here i.e. pedro Turd
“MS sells only their OS installed on PC’s and not boxed and b) MS seels OS’ only.”
Not true! If it is prove it!!!
“And I agree, they fear customers. ”
Your just agreeing with yourself. How hard is that?
“They show it in many a way”
Give a verifiable example please.
“They’re thieves. like your torrent opinion refelcts.”
What? You need to read that again because I think you translating wrong.
“Why bother going to that store if they can have it P2P?”
Yes many people feel that way. Do you have a point?
“No. he doesn’t work for MS. He’s like a macfan. Just as naive and almost as smug.”
Thank you pedro. You have placed me above your arch nemesis. The macfan. truth be told I am not a fan of Apple or MS. I use what they sell but that doesn’t make me a fan. I disagree with both companies operating policies.
“Nor that you cannot instal a service pack because the service pack is not properly coded.”
Must be you! It installed fine here 8 times.
“Nor that you cannot instal a service pack because the service pack is not properly coded.”
“Must be you! It installed fine here 8 times.”
I’m up to 56 installs and counting on new machines (using the stand alone download). 🙂
I haven’t received any calls from customers having trouble getting it from Windows Update.
How can I slipstream SP3 onto a Windows XP disc? My HP notebook didn’t come with an XP install disc. In fact I don’t know of ANY major-brand computers that ship with XP install discs. They just come with a “restore” disc, if you are lucky.
So, how does slipstreaming work? Do you have to go out and buy a 2nd copy of XP just to do that? And where can you buy it anyway, it’s not for sale any more.
I Google ‘Vista’ and ‘problem’ and get 4,510,000 hits — and the crack-smoking M$ apologists say we’re bashing Vista? There’s nothing wrong with it? Sheesh!
Considering what the totally incompetent, plagiaristic, I-want-what-you-got, banned-in-some-states/countries, never-out-of-court, lying, greedy, monopolistic Micro$oft corp heaped on innocent people everywhere, no wonder the entire world hates America. Does it for me anyhow…
If you people want to keep paying for the privilege of being used as crash-test dummies, you can have my seat too. Now where’s my nearest Mac store…