« Previous | Main | Next »

On the programme tonight:

Eddie Mair | 15:03 UK time, Tuesday, 30 January 2007

technology

Comments

  1. At 03:17 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Ah, good to see Bill Thompson coming in, no doubt to talk about Vista. I always find his column on the Technology section of the BBC News site interesting.

    Myself? I won't upgrade to Vista until it's necessary. I think most businesses will be the same. I was only "bumped up" to XP last year when my laptop was replaced. I'm always a little leary of upgrading until I've seen the OS/Program is stable for a good 6 months minimum. Better to stick with a well protected XP machine for the moment, until I'm sure that Vista is secure and worth it...

  2. At 03:18 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Paul Gledhill wrote:

    Is it me or is the pm blog sphere having a few (more) technical difficulties?

  3. At 03:23 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Technology? And you think that's worth a link? What about Tony Bennett?

    Oh, and newsletter arrived in Sussex at 15.21 today, for the record.

    Double Oh: What DID happen to the Blog, Eddie? Why did I (and I know for a fact I'm not alone) find Sept. 26th postings on the main page for - well, for quite a while?

  4. At 03:27 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    So what is it that you usually use?

  5. At 04:04 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    Who is Tony Bennett, as mentioned in the newsletter?

  6. At 04:17 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Paul (1) certainly very, very slow loading new postings. But at least they do then appear quite quickly.

  7. At 05:32 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Chrissie the Trekkie wrote:

    I'm with Fred.

    No way are MS getting any of my hard-earned until the darned thing is well proven over 6-12 months. Possibly longer.


    And anyway, the office has only just started upgrading to XP!

  8. At 05:34 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Fifi wrote:

    John W (5) : Tony Bennett is the younger, better looking brother of ISIHAC favourite, Gordon.

    Oh, and he croons a bit.

    Fifi

  9. At 05:41 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Gillian wrote:

    But still out of order, Anne P.(6 at the moment!)
    Paul is now number 2. This is my first posting today, at 17:16pm, so fingers crossed...........

  10. At 05:55 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Roger wrote:

    Interesting comments on the new Windows "Vista" release today. The word "cynicism" cropped up a number of times in the discussion with Bill Thompson.

    Please excuse my own cynicism on the subject but can anybody explain why "Vista" costs $100 (£52) in the US but an astonishing £100 in the UK?

  11. At 06:03 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Piers Meynell wrote:

    A more critical look at Vista would be welcome.

    Yes it has pretty interface, but its what's going under the hood that is more of a concern, that users are paying the price for content protection that Vista enforces, which seems to be the principal reason for the release.

    Whether you choose to purchase Vista or not, you'll be paying a premium for hardware upgrades in the future and support for alternative open source operating systems will be threatened as manufacturers are forced to keep the specs of their hardware under wraps if they want it to work with Vista.

  12. At 06:03 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Glyn wrote:

    The first critical security update for Vista shipped a couple of weeks ago. Good job Microsoft rewrote the whole thing from the ground up. ;-)

  13. At 08:52 PM on 30 Jan 2007, Bill Thompson wrote:

    Glyn, that hurts... but you're right, Vista has bugs and will need security fixes. In fact they are already working on the first Service Pack for the summer. But so does Mac OS, so does Linux - we don't yet do a very good job of writing bulletproof code. That doesn't mean Vista won't be widely adopted or indeed successful - but I'll keep crawling over it and trying to keep Microsoft honest, just as I try to keep everyone else honest.

  14. At 11:30 PM on 30 Jan 2007, gossipmistress wrote:

    Ha! Just been listening again (well listening for the first time actually - I'm not that keen) and not many people can say they've dropped Marlene Dietrich in favour of Lord Levy!! I wonder what she would have thought?

  15. At 11:35 PM on 30 Jan 2007, gossipmistress wrote:

    Ha! Just been listening again (well listening for the first time actually - I'm not that keen) and not many people can say they've dropped Marlene Dietrich in favour of Lord Levy!! I wonder what she would have thought?

  16. At 01:21 AM on 31 Jan 2007, Rufus A B wrote:

    Roger (10)

    Postage, packing, insurance and idiot tax?

  17. At 04:03 AM on 31 Jan 2007, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    Excellent Blog. I think we are having excess changes.

  18. At 08:30 AM on 31 Jan 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    They exchanged the Marlene Dietrich piece for Lord Levy.

    A bad deal all-round I'd say....

    Bad Eddie. Naughty Eddie.

    Si.

  19. At 08:43 AM on 31 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    For the hell of it, and having a good spec computer, I downloaded the compatability checker for Vista yesterday. It appears my pc would support it, but the list of software that would have to be uninstalled was depressing. And it included the security pack that I pay (a significant sum) for provided by S*mant*c.

    Am I alone in wondering if this is yet another attempt at anticompetitiveness?

  20. At 08:49 AM on 31 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Now, Eddie, I want a little word with you. And don't forget that I'm Big Sis here, so this should not be rushed over lightly.

    I have noticed that you have, yet again, disturbed your night's sleep to post in the wee small hours (okay, it was on a different thread, but - you know you did, no denials now ....). Either that or you were out on the tiles again, spending your hard earned cash on chips.

    As one of the many froggers who gave considerable thought (not to mention time) to trying to solve your insomnia the other day, I feel I must remind you that you need to sleep. Blogging is not a good cure for insomnia (others may, I know, disagree), it is for addicts. I should know, shouldn't I? :o)

  21. At 09:23 AM on 31 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Somehow, this posting got lost, but I think the comment is one of public interest, so I'll repost:

    Re Vista: For the hell of it, and having a good spec computer, I downloaded the compatability checker yesterday. It reported that my pc would support it, but the list of software that would have to be uninstalled was depressing. It included the internet security pack that I've already paid upfront for provided by a MS rival.

    Is that a coincidence? Perhaps not.

  22. At 01:28 PM on 31 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Shame, really, that technology is again letting us down on the Blog.

    But - well, that's technology, isn't it?

  23. At 01:39 PM on 31 Jan 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Big Sister (21) tried following your example downloading the compatibility checker but all I get when I run it is that the web service is busy! I guess you shouldn't have advertised it :-)

    ***and now I'm getting our old friend error 502! ***

    ...and now I'm flatly 'not allowed to post comments'

    ...what on earth did I do?

  24. At 02:27 PM on 31 Jan 2007, Mac User wrote:

    Welcome to my world!

    Piers (11) is right. And it's not just hardware. Worry less about the price of Vista...In Apple-land, upgrading from Mac OS9 to OSX requires more processing power (new box, lotsa money) and all the software needs upgrading (loads more money) cos the old stuff won't run on it...And OSX wasn't stable till OSX-3, whilst upgrading to OSX-4 causes more problems...

    As a designosaur I've stuck out with OS9, but now 50% of websites are so javascripted up (including this one) I can't view them properly cos I'm not running the right software...Can't download any stuff from the BBC site etc etc...can't use i-tunes...can't this, can't that...

    Any froggers out there Mac users/experts?

  25. At 02:29 PM on 31 Jan 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Anne: Have tried to post a shortcut to you which worked for me, but I don't think the mods will allow it through. But, basically, go to the MS website and follow Vista links and you'll see they have an upgrade advisor.

  26. At 05:59 PM on 31 Jan 2007, Mac User wrote:

    I've just been in a very hot room with some techies who referred me to the recent criticism of VISTA by Peter Gutmann which MS is hurriedly addressing...Go to:
    http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Epgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
    or google Gutmann...Think this is what Piers (11) must have read...Gutmann's strapline: "The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history"...

    The techies also told me Mac OSX-4 is a great improvement on OSX-3 (contrary to what I said previously) and that OSX-1 was complete rubbish...and that was released around 4 years ago (I think)...So, Chrissie (7) you're right to wait! The word on techie/trekkie street is that Vista will prove hugely unpopular and bomb...

  27. At 12:28 AM on 01 Feb 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    I reckon if we all ignore it it will go away and we can stick with what we've got until we actually need something bigger and better. Or have I just become an ostrich?

  28. At 12:49 PM on 01 Feb 2007, RJD wrote:

    Ap (27)

    Anybody who visited this thread and automatically paged down to and read the (your) final posting (as I usually do) without first reading the earlier ones would really worry about you.

  29. At 10:27 PM on 01 Feb 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Oh now RJD, you know well that I have posted far stranger things than that -- but I see what you mean...

  30. At 12:26 AM on 02 Feb 2007, Valery P wrote:

    Mumble, mumble, don't know if I can be bothered any more.

  31. At 06:12 PM on 01 Mar 2007, tom foxall wrote:

    i would like to say that the mp who said no one had a pay cut in agender for change is a lier ask any ambulance technition i for one had a cut of £1,000 a year tell him to eat that
    one of many angrey techs

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.