backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 185 comment(s) - last by rupaniii.. on May 25 at 9:41 AM

One writer/analyst is speaking out blasting XP "holdouts" and lauding Windows Vista while comparing XP to a crummy airport terminal

Don't like Windows Vista?  Love Windows XP?  Well columnist/pundit Rob Pegoraro with Fast Forward, carried by The Washington Post, doesn't like your attitude.  Having heard a wealth of criticism for Vista and praise for XP, Pegoraro said enough is enough in an impassioned article detailing his stances on the XP vs. Vista debate.

There have been many recent reports of both consumers and particularly businesses rejecting Vista and waiting for Windows 7 to upgrade.  Despite Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates bragging of "strong sales" in the consumer sector, OEMs are pushing hard for Microsoft to extend Windows XP's life.  If they can't convince Microsoft, they're going to offer it anyway, even if not officially sold by Microsoft anymore, via certain loopholes such as downgrade privileges.

Downgrades?  Rubbish, says Pegoraro.  Pegoraro, a strong Vista supporter, states, "By the strictest definition, Windows XP has been dead since January 30, 2007 -- the day its replacement, Windows Vista, arrived in stores and XP promptly vanished from most new computers."

Pegoraro doesn't think that Vista is a bad product.  He points out that Vista does have its issues, "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products", and acknowledges that these factors have driven strong XP sales.  He mentions that in Q1 2008, XP sold 87 million copies worldwide, according to IDC analyst Al Gillen, while Vista sold 132 million copies worldwide.

Pegoraro also pointed to the slipping of the Microsoft end-of-life deadline for XP from January to June, under manufacturer pressure.  And Pegoraro brings up the wealth of online "Save Windows XP" petitions, lead by a massive one hosted by the tech magazine InfoWorld

He points out that XP was not exactly beloved by all when it was Microsoft's flagship product, and he accuses the public of changing its tune when presented with Vista.  While running XP on existing systems is logical, he argues that on new home computers it is ridiculous not to run Windows Vista.  He states, "It's another thing to say that on a new home computer, Vista is so unacceptable for mainstream use that you'd be better off with its predecessor."

Security is one major flaw in Windows XP, which is blasted by Pegoraro.  He points out that even with three service packs and other smaller updates regularly released, Windows XP still needs to multiple security programs to safely connect to the internet.

With a bit of sarcasm, Pegoraro comments, "XP is not something that needs to be "saved," as if it were some architectural triumph in need of historic preservation. It's not an Old Post Office or a Union Station; it's more like that crummy midfield terminal at Dulles International Airport, a once-serviceable structure that outlived its utility years ago."

Most things that are wrong with Vista are also wrong with XP, he argues.  Again, not shying away from controversy he comments, "And that, in turn, helps explain why Apple is selling so many Macs."

Vista is easier to use without configuration he argues, which in the end is another mark in its favor.  He argues that most problems with Vista were fixed with its first service pack and third parties are jumping on board.  As an aside he blasts those third-parties that haven't jumped aboard saying, "If they haven't, they probably never will. Presumably, those dead-enders are uninterested in any new sales to the customers they've ditched in this way."

Is Pegoraro a fan of XP on small computers like the ASUS Eee PC?  Not so; while he says he can see the appeal, he argues Linux or other operating systems are much better for the purpose.  He states, "But the builders of these little laptops don't have to choose between obsolete or sluggish Microsoft software. Faced with those unappealing options, many of them are instead loading the more efficient, free and open-source Linux operating system, which happens to perform many everyday tasks just as well as Windows does."

Finishing on a controversial note, Pegoraro adds, "If you're unhappy about Vista, don't get sucked in by the misguided nostalgia for XP. Root for the success of non-Windows computers. Or buy one yourself. Nothing attracts a company's attention like taking your business elsewhere."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The man is right
By 306maxi on 5/19/2008 4:49:14 PM , Rating: 4
If you don't like it then don't use it. There are millions of people like myself out there who are all too happy to use Vista. Me personally? I think Vista sucks so I'm waiting for Windows 7 which will probably suck and be bloated so I'll wait for Windows 8 but I hear that's got lots of DRM so I'll wait for Windows 9 but that has got a fancy interface so I won't go for that either. Windows 3.1 for me it is then!




RE: The man is right
By Cherish on 5/19/2008 4:56:10 PM , Rating: 5
LOL! :-D
Indeed, it's pretty funny to read people who are waiting for Windows 7. I bet they hope it will be Windows XP in disguise.
I honestly doubt it would be any lighter. Who's gonna need it in an age of octacores and 8 GB of RAM on a basic PC?


RE: The man is right
By PontifexMaximus on 5/19/2008 5:23:48 PM , Rating: 4
While I agree with you based on past experiences with Microsoft products, Bill Gates is actually touting Windows 7 actually will use lower power, take less memory, and be more efficient than Windows Vista.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/spee...

Condensed analysis here:
http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archi...

Of course, Bill always has the knack for making these vague, empty promises that never quite materialize.


RE: The man is right
By BladeVenom on 5/19/2008 5:37:24 PM , Rating: 3
You mean like in 2004 when Bill Gates said the spam problem would be solved in two years.


RE: The man is right
By Ringold on 5/19/2008 8:25:27 PM , Rating: 4
Bill Gates was close; 2004 + 2 = 2006, but gmail didn't go completely public, according to wikipedia, until 2007, but I got an invite fairly early.

Spam problem? Solved!


RE: The man is right
By Gholam on 5/20/2008 4:38:34 AM , Rating: 4
You mean the same gmail that's functioning as an open relay for anyone with half a clue?


RE: The man is right
By othercents on 5/20/2008 5:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, gmail has made it easy. We just block anyone with a gmail account and our spam problem has gone away.

Other


RE: The man is right
By Strunf on 5/20/2008 6:22:55 PM , Rating: 1
Your spam and all your contacts that use gmail...


RE: The man is right
By Samus on 5/21/2008 2:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
anyone using gmail for business is a lost cause. grow up and get a real mail service.


RE: The man is right
By Elementalism on 5/20/2008 8:22:24 AM , Rating: 1
The only thing Google did was filter your spam mail into a box. Something that could be accomplished years earlier with othe products. They clearly havent figured out the spam issue though. Becuase 99.9% of the stuff in my gmail's spam folder shouldnt have even arrived to my mailbox. Of all the email's I have had over the years. My gmail is the most spam ridden of them all.


RE: The man is right
By Integral9 on 5/20/2008 9:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe that's a sign you should stop subscribing to all those get rich quick and male enhancement catalogs... I know they are tempting but they never work and shrink your balls...


RE: The man is right
By plinkplonk on 5/20/2008 12:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
no it's a sign that websites he/she has signed up for intentionally, maybe even this one, have been selling his information...not that he/she wants to get rich quick


RE: The man is right
By mondo1234 on 5/20/2008 3:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Bill G. imply that the solution to spam was to charge 1 cent for email so it would be cost prohibitive to send spam?
I am sure none of that money would find its way to his pocket.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.c...


RE: The man is right
By javiergf on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By Oregonian2 on 5/19/2008 7:59:21 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think he said 640K would be enough, I think he said that 640K is enough. Which at the time it was. At the time it was more than enough. Like saying now saying "3GB is enough" in terms of memory on a 32-bit processor. It is.

Processors then had a 1-MB (20 bit) address space accessible in 64Kbyte chunks. The 8086/8 model.

It also didn't take a megabyte program and gigabyte OS to say "hello world" on the screen.


RE: The man is right
By xsilver on 5/19/2008 10:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
With 4gb of ram and a dual core proc I can only get "hello wo" on the screen!

Im missing out!
Time to upgrade to 8gb and quad core

/end joke

ps. who's to say that 640k isnt enough if you decide to do word processing in DOS?


RE: The man is right
By goku on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By PrinceGaz on 5/20/2008 12:43:21 AM , Rating: 3
640K was more than enough to run DOS WordPerfect 5.1, which was a very capable word-processor package used and liked by many people.

In its day, DOS WordPerfect was pretty much the industry standard, but WordPerfect for Windows was a bug-ridden mess which led to its demise and Word becoming dominant. There are rumours about why WordPerfect for Windows was so bad, most of which involve Microsoft and their using non-public Windows calls with Word for Windows not available to WordPerfect.

Bill Gates never actually said anything about 640K being enough for anybody, only that it was enough for now and in the near future (which it was).


RE: The man is right
By Cherish on 5/19/2008 6:57:23 PM , Rating: 4
A new Windows that requires less than a previous one?
No way, I believe it when I see it.


RE: The man is right
By afkrotch on 5/20/2008 12:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Windows ME was released after Windows NT and Windows 2000. It required less. It was also complete trash.


RE: The man is right
By Crassus on 5/21/2008 3:51:03 PM , Rating: 3
And it belonged to the 9x family, as opposed to the NT family. Apples and Oranges.
(I am not implying that ME was good in any way.)


RE: The man is right
By just4U on 5/21/2008 5:50:53 PM , Rating: 1
It wasn't trash. It was just short lived is all. I found it to be a better OS then Win98SE. While I tinkered a bit with win2k, I pretty much stuck with WinMe until XP came out.

I bet you 95% of the people who say it sucked never owned the damn thing to begin with and have no clue about what their talking about. The rest were either not literate enough with computers or just more comfortable with what they were using at the time.

Same holds true for Vista. <shrug>


RE: The man is right
By bldckstark on 5/23/2008 1:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
I had several ME computers. ME sucked. 98SE was way better. If you migrated from 98 to ME it carried over many 98 drivers. If those drivers got trashed, there was no way to restore them unless you re-installed 98 then ME again. It was very unstable and highly likely to become corrupted.

Many people agree that ME was the worst OS Microsoft has ever produced. Win2K was the best OS at the time, and is still pretty good even by todays standards.


RE: The man is right
By Quiescent on 5/24/2008 10:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
I did an upgrade from WIN98SE to WinME... I had to act fast after one week of use to save my Win98se and downgrade quick! WinME was making everything including explorer.exe crash.

I also went to a school with WinME on every computer, including the server. Each and every computer would, at minimum, have 3 system files error out at start up.

I never imagined I would have gotten more BSoDs on WinME than Win98SE. It was outrageous and scary. I didn't have an extra harddrive to save important files in case my computer completely crashed beyond fixable, and I've had that happen with Win98se after trying to attempt a 7 day uptime and somehow everything just died. (Needed to reformat)

So yes, I can speak for myself on behalf of WinME failure. Every computer I saw with it on were trashed beyond hope. And it was not PEBKAC either.

As far as I know, WinME was an attempt to put two extremes together with DOS and NT. But perhaps I've learnt wrong in why there were so many bugs in the OS. You have no idea, your eyes have been covered by whool.


RE: The man is right
By Quiescent on 5/24/2008 10:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
Correction on my behalf. I had Win98 at the time, because I didn't need wireless just yet. I had to upgrade to Win98se for wireless support.


RE: The man is right
By robinthakur on 5/20/2008 6:24:40 AM , Rating: 4
I think that there's currently a long overdue correction which will take place for OS bloat. It is blindingly obvious to most people that an OS should not take up the kind of space, or consume the overheads of RAM and CPU cycles which it does. I'm not talking about Super-fetch. I understand the way it is meant to work. I don't think UAC should be junked just because the general public have no idea what secure computing actually is.

Even XP was a bit of a hog and bloated by unnecessary and unoptimised features. Still at least MS released a lite version of it. If anyone's ever used NLite and seen how small you can get an install down for Xp or even Vista you've seen what can be excised if you don't need it. To not do this with Vista was a real mistake and allowed them to be blind sided by linux etc where although they offer nothing like the usability or compatibility of Windows, they do seem to do an awful lot more with limited resources and are more secure. Hmmm. I myself use Vista Ultimate and Leopard but have wide experience with Linux.

Vista is somewhat different under the hood and offers a new interface which is pretty nice looking but really isn't anything special that would convince most people that they need twice the RAM and CPU power that they needed before for XP to run it.

Perhaps MS could try giving you the option of a stripped down version when you install it with "power user" settings automatically enabled or standard bloated pap for the regular baboons.


RE: The man is right
By just4U on 5/21/2008 6:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't understand peoples problems with ram usage... If I have 2Gigs of ram I want it to be used not sit there doing nothing. From what I understand Vista takes advantage of that ram but free's it up when you ask for it via another program that requires it.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

The same holds true for other hardware... why get more powerful systems if nothing needs it? Heck most systems would fly on win95 right now if the hardware was supported but you don't see us all jumping on that bandwagon.


RE: The man is right
By larson0699 on 5/22/2008 1:40:52 PM , Rating: 1
What a fascinating, wasteful mentality.

You have 2 gigs of RAM for the apps that need it, like archiving, encoding, and games.

That it's *there* doesn't prompt the necessity for constant 100% use. It's electronic. Give it a break.

I see this guy being first in line for Bloat 7 because of its 4-dimensional interface stressing his 16-core CPU 100%. What a tool.

robinthakur OTOH has a point concerning what's essential in the OS vs. what's trash. And nLite helps greatly in that respect.


RE: The man is right
By AndreasM on 5/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: The man is right
By hadifa on 5/19/2008 6:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The designer who decided that backspace would now be "back" instead of "one folder up in the directory structure" should be shot repeatedly.


Am I missing something, in XP backspace is "BACK", or at least that's what I think.


RE: The man is right
By fromthewoods on 5/19/2008 7:10:09 PM , Rating: 3
The man is right. In XP "Backspace" = "Up one dir"

In Vista "Backspace" = "Back"

I, for one, love the new bread-crumb style file navigation.


RE: The man is right
By Etsp on 5/20/2008 12:30:17 PM , Rating: 3
I like it a lot, however, there is still need for a static "up a level" button, as the breadcrumbs may end up too long to fit on the address bar, so you don't have access to the folder you want to get to until you go up a few levels. It is much easier in this case to have a static up a level button, instead of clicking on the bread crumb, repositioning the mouse, click again, reposition again, rinse and repeat. It should not be a replacement for the up a level button!.


RE: The man is right
By plinkplonk on 5/20/2008 12:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
this is ridiculous, blasting a feature of vista because you are too lazy just to use a mouse and navigate there yourself, GOD FORBID you lose 3 seconds of your life.


RE: The man is right
By AndreasM on 5/20/2008 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
God forbid indeed. Maybe we should go back to pen & paper, who cares if it's less effective.


RE: The man is right
By Klober on 5/20/2008 5:52:49 PM , Rating: 1
/smack

First of all - a feature? And what is the purpose of this "feature" when it does the exact same job as hitting Alt+[left arrow] (i.e. Back)? Windows Explorer is just IE in a different role (basically anyway), and as such many (if not most) of the IE hotkeys also work for Windows Explorer. Not to mention half the mice sold nowadays have back/forward buttons, which also work in both Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer, and makes this change even more redundant.

Second - it's not laziness, it's efficiency. For many of the mundane/simple tasks I would rather use keyboard shortcuts because they are static, whereas when using the mouse the placement of whatever you need to click on varies. You go right ahead and keep right-clicking Computer, clicking Properties and then clicking Device Manager - I'll hit Windows+R, type devmgmt.msc and hit Enter. We'll see who gets there first. ;)

In short, personally I don't need two hotkeys that do the exact same thing and agree with AndreasM. Change Backspace to what it used to be - Up One Folder! It was so much more useful back then.


RE: The man is right
By Shawn on 5/24/2008 7:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
Vista doesn't use IE for it's explorer like XP did.


RE: The man is right
By thebrown13 on 5/19/2008 7:14:52 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, Aero is terribly ugly.

Wtf planet do you live on?


RE: The man is right
By SamuelW on 5/20/2008 4:52:49 AM , Rating: 3
Compiz, which despite having a public image as just being eye candy is much more useful than Aero.


RE: The man is right
By glitchc on 5/20/2008 9:23:22 AM , Rating: 2
We live in an interesting world where one software designed to make your windows look pretty is touted to be more "useful" than the other.


RE: The man is right
By JoshuaBuss on 5/20/2008 4:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think compiz was ever developed just to 'look pretty'. Effects like transparency and scale offer invaluable utility.


RE: The man is right
By glitchc on 5/21/2008 9:28:41 AM , Rating: 1
And that utility would be?


RE: The man is right
By crimson117 on 5/23/2008 2:35:46 PM , Rating: 3
It's not only invaluable, it's indescribable.


RE: The man is right
By AndreasM on 5/20/2008 10:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
On planet Earth, sadly. The only reason Aero looks nice is because XP looks horrible compared to it. This isn't some kind of Mac flame either, as I have never seen OS X nor used a Mac for longer than five minutes.


RE: The man is right
By kensiko on 5/19/2008 7:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
For the backspace, you should try a mouse with 5 buttons. It's necessary once you get used to it.


RE: The man is right
By AndreasM on 5/20/2008 10:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
I try to avoid using the mouse as much as possible, it's so much slower compared to the keyboard. Sadly Microsoft seems hell-bent on neutering all the keyboard shortcuts. :/


RE: The man is right
By sabrewulf on 5/24/2008 4:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
Up one level in Vista is ALT+UP. trying RTFingM next time, sheesh.


RE: The man is right
By phxfreddy on 5/19/2008 6:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
I like the part about USE WHAT YOU WANT. How about we all vote by using what we want. ...oooh wait ...that IS what we are doing. How about I use XP....oh wait...I AM!


RE: The man is right
By GoodBytes on 5/19/2008 7:14:23 PM , Rating: 3
If I recall correctly, when Win2000 was out, people HATED IT because about nothing worked on it.next year MS re-package it with a theme, log-in screen, and move things around, JUST to say it is different, and released it and people were happy (in the sense that stuff runs on it (it was still complained the same way as Vista now). The reason for this it is just that companies made WinNT supported applications, and after a year, you actually had new software versions that worked under XP.

What I am trying to say, is that Windows 7 will probably be a repackage Vista, nothing more. And if Vista get adopted quiet nicely by the time Windows 7 will be out, Microsoft might turn it as SP2. By that time, everyone will have 64-bit CPU's, 2-3Gb of RAM, specially that they are extra cheap now, and a video card that can draw a cube or two.


RE: The man is right
By goku on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By RedStar on 5/20/2008 4:33:50 AM , Rating: 1
win2kpro was not ready for gaming until sp 2 --when it finally could use direct X.

I have used win2kpro until 1 year ago when i switched to vista. I refused to go to XP since it was a "sidegrade".

Now people using XP are saying the same thing about vista.

*waves vista flag*


RE: The man is right
By EODetroit on 5/20/2008 10:33:54 AM , Rating: 4
I still have Windows 2000 on one of my computers... saying it sucked for games is idiotic... it was great for games due to networking that actually worked, and it still works great for games to this day. I still run WoW on it, and I can't think of anything that isn't one of those "Vista-Only" games that DOESN'T run on W2K.

The only thing Windows 2000 doesn't have that I actually miss in XP is the Picture and Fax Viewer. If it wasn't for that I could honestly say XP is no better than 2000.

As for Vista... I don't see the need to pay Microsoft more money in order to slow my computer down and do absolutely NOTHING better than XP. I don't give a DAMN what some writer at the Post says, he has no influence over me... and in 15 minutes when I forget about his article he'll go back to being someone I'll never think about ever again.


RE: The man is right
By tjr508 on 5/20/2008 11:11:44 AM , Rating: 2
I only use XP over win2k because of the WIA service for cameras.


RE: The man is right
By Eri Hyva on 5/20/2008 5:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Irfanview has been around since 1996 :)
http://www.irfanview.com/

I really liked Windows 2000, too.

PS

Did you know that you can play WoW perfectly with Linux?
http://appdb.winehq.org/index.php

And Photoshop CS2 and so on...


RE: The man is right
By goku on 5/20/2008 12:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about, Windows 2000 debut with a perfectly working version of Direct X. I know this because I have the RTM release of Windows 2000 which has no service packs or updates of any kind and I can tell you, Direct X games work fine on that system. The games that don't work are the ones that still don't work for what ever reason, but it's not because Windows 2000 didn't include Direct X.

Think of it this way, why would they forget to bundle Direct X in Windows 2000 if Windows NT came with Direct X? Yes you heard right, Windows NT DID have a version of Direct X.


RE: The man is right
By ultimatebob on 5/20/2008 7:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's not how I remember it. I remember all of the IT folks that I knew loving Windows 2000 when it came out, because:

* It was easier to use than NT 4, but was just as stable.
* It was almost as easy to use as Windows 98, but was FAR more stable.
* It was the first Windows OS where plug and play actually worked correctly most of the time.

Personally, Windows XP didn't add much except a prettier interface and better wireless support as far as I'm concerned. It wasn't any more stable, and wasn't more secure than Windows 2000 until Service Pack 2 came out.


RE: The man is right
By just4U on 5/21/2008 6:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
yeah I remember people saying that you didnt have to go thru hoops to install a driver on win2k (as compared to NT 4)

XP was/is noted for the mass exodus away from 9x. That's was it's main role... which it accomplished in flying colors.


RE: The man is right
By drunkenmastermind on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By eye smite on 5/19/2008 11:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
This guy sounds like a drama queen wanting attention more than anything else.


RE: The man is right
By destrorexe on 5/20/2008 8:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
"Is Pegoraro a fan of XP on small computers like the ASUS Eee PC? Not so; while he says he can see the appeal, he argues Linux or other operating systems are much better for the purpose." i agree windows and windows products alike are screwing around to much, we need to go back to the original operating system LINUX!!!


RE: The man is right
By Emily on 5/23/2008 4:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, my laptop came with Vista, but I was also provided with XP Pro should I want to 'downgrade'. I decided to give Vista a fair shot, and for most part, I am indifferent from an usability point of view. I did find something to nitpick the other day though: when associating a given file to a given application using the 'Open with' menu, put the program under the 'Recommended' section. However I could not a straightforward way to remove it out of the Recommended section after making a mistake, and ended up having to remove it from the registry.

It's a small thing, but it did bug me and it surprises me that something so basic and previously working fine failed after the 'update'.


Break things for the better
By LyCannon on 5/19/2008 6:21:58 PM , Rating: 5
I think that if you are going to break things, break them all the way. Can anyone tell me why there is a 32-bit version of Vista?

The majority of software vendors had to do some serious updates *especially* hardware vendors. How difficult would it have been to change thier code to be 64-bit?

Next, who many CPU's that were sold upon Vista's release, that were truly ready to run Vista (With Aero) that are NOT 64-bit?

So again, why is there a 32-bit version of Vista, Or Server 2k8? I don't remember the migration from 16 to 32 bit taking this freaking long...




RE: Break things for the better
By DEredita on 5/19/2008 7:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I been running Vista 64-bit for 8+ months, and been happy with it. It's just unfortunate that HP seems to be the only major computer vendor selling Vista 64-bit systems. I think Dell should also be selling them. I set up Vista Business 64-bit on an Optiplex 745 (E6600 Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB of ram), and it runs flawlessly.


RE: Break things for the better
By RogueSpear on 5/19/2008 10:50:35 PM , Rating: 3
The OptiPlex 755 (don't know about the older 745) has offered Vista x64 as an option for quite some time now.


RE: Break things for the better
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2008 7:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
Just ordered a bunch of new parts and order Vista Business x64 myself. I wanted it for the backup tool that it comes with.

And even Dell is spotty with 64-bit availability. I was looking at laptops last night and while one model would offer 64-bit another wouldn't. I personally wouldn't get 32-bit Vista because to me its pointless. 64-bit is the future. And generally regarded as more stable since all the drivers have to be Microsoft certified. Plus with 4GB of RAM being $70, why not use 64-bit so you can utilize it all?


RE: Break things for the better
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/19/2008 7:14:05 PM , Rating: 4
Actually it did.

Windows 95A, B, and C.
Windows 98, 98SE.
Windows ME.
(All 16/32bit hybrid systems)

Windows NT, 2000, XP were the only fully 32-bit systems but they were able to execute 16-bit code still. Only Vista cuts out the 16-bit application capability (about freaking time).


RE: Break things for the better
By Oregonian2 on 5/19/2008 8:14:04 PM , Rating: 3
1. Is it really good that you can't run 16-bit apps in Vista? Is there some joy in seeing an app not be able to run?

2. Can't vista run a virtual OS (with software that Microsoft provides for free) so that one can still run 16-bit apps on one's Vista machine (sorry if this might make you sad, if true)? This feature is the only one that is making me consider going to Vista at some point (although to run some Vista incompatible apps made by companies no longer with us).


RE: Break things for the better
By Ringold on 5/19/2008 8:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
As someone who still thinks Stars! was the best 4x strategy game ever made, I wish they'd kept some sort of way to easily run 16bit software, short of using a virtual machine which may be what I have to do if I want to play it again.


RE: Break things for the better
By MBlueD on 5/20/2008 2:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
I second that (all of it :) )


RE: Break things for the better
By Moishe on 5/20/2008 8:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yes... I still whip that game out now and then! I would think there would be a 16bit virtual OS built into every new MS OS.


RE: Break things for the better
By mathew7 on 5/20/2008 3:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can't vista run a virtual OS (with software that Microsoft provides for free) so that one can still run 16-bit apps on one's Vista machine (sorry if this might make you sad, if true)?

Yes, but you will need an OS with another license in the virtual computer.
In 64-bit OS, 32-bit apps are run in a virtual machine, as were 16-bit apps in 32-bit OS. MS just ditched the 16-bit VM because they would have to reoptimize it for 64-bit.


RE: Break things for the better
By BikeDude on 5/20/2008 8:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
No, MS "ditched" 16-bit support because new cpus running in AMD64 mode do not provide support for 16-bit VMs. XP64 doesn't run Win16 apps either. There's just no support for that in the CPUs. A more correct statement would be that MS did not bother pouring resources into 16-bit emulation that very few people need. (there are already existing products out there that will do that!)

Sidenote: Window handles in 32-bit Windows are still 16-bit (upper 16-bit goes unused) so that Win16 apps share the same handles. Win64 now uses 32-bits of the 64-bit handles.

Sounds strange if Vista32 dropped Win16 support. But I haven't tried Vista32, so I would not know.


RE: Break things for the better
By mathew7 on 5/21/2008 3:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, MS "ditched" 16-bit support because new cpus running in AMD64 mode do not provide support for 16-bit VMs. XP64 doesn't run Win16 apps either.

That is not true. It has nothing to do with x64, as the 16-bit emulation is the same for 32-bit as for 64-bit. Your BIOS is actually 16-bit (if not 8-bit, like in 8086). You can still run DOS (8-bit mode) on x64 CPU. That is what backward compatibility means. And that is the difference between AMD64/EM64T and Itanium. Also 16-bit setup programs still run in x64. I saw somewhere a press release that setup programs are the only 16-bit apps supported because of their widespread use to deploy 32-bit apps.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/20/2008 9:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. I use it myself. I have Vista x64 Ultimate installed. I also have Virtual PC 2007 installed (Free from Microsoft website). Inside it I have an installation of XP SP3, and 2000 SP4. Older 16-bit apps seem to run more favorably in Win 2000 than XP.


By PhoenixKnight on 5/19/2008 8:22:02 PM , Rating: 3
What about XP x64? That didn't have support for 16-bit code, either. Not that XP x64 was really worth using, though...


RE: Break things for the better
By TheOtherBubka on 5/19/2008 10:25:37 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with Oregonian about MS and where they went wrong. When Apple introduced OS X, they made sure those who had older software weren't "left out" for some period of time until the software should have a new version available. So in my humble opinion, MS should have provided full XP compatibility into Vista 64 similar to the way Apple did with OS 9/OS X. Too complicated? MS could have also provided a translator similar to FX32! or provided XP on a separate boot partition to ensure backward compatibility for their customer. It's not like it would have 'cost' MS much to provide XP together with Vista. I think the most difficult thing would have been for the hardware vendors to ensure they would have both drivers included.


RE: Break things for the better
By JCheng on 5/20/2008 2:49:33 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Break things for the better
By BikeDude on 5/20/2008 10:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
Apples and oranges.

Most of the apps that stopped working, stopped working for a reason. Usually those apps install their own device drivers (e.g. copyprotection schemes, hooks to OS system calls to intercept viruses or similar). Antivirus applications are notorious for installing system hooks. Well, guess what?

NT was found to have several serious security holes. Unfortunately these were used by benign apps like disk defragmentation apps and AV products. Rather than fix the hole, MS opted for backwards compatibility. Now, with Win64 those device drivers need to be rewritten anyway, so now MS felt they had ample opportunity to fix that old security hole...

That is the major reason the antivirus vendors are complaining. They feel they can't find proper ways of implementing real-time monitoring, and thus bitch about MS not providing them with the old security hole.

Regular XP applications rarely pose much of a problem with Vista. MS spends a lot of resources on backward compatibility and often break their own documentation in order to provide the user with apps that still work. Most mistakes happen in third party apps, and there are (unfortunately) many compatibility hacks in the OS to make sure they continue working (despite being poorly coded to begin with).

If anything, Microsoft spends too _much_ time on backward compatibility! :(


RE: Break things for the better
By homerdog on 5/19/2008 9:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Next, who many CPU's that were sold upon Vista's release, that were truly ready to run Vista (With Aero) that are NOT 64-bit?

The Core (not Core 2) processors didn't do 64bit. No clever "Vista Ready" marketing could fix that, so Microsoft gave us a cool 32bit version. Alright I'll take off my tinfoil hat now...


3rd Party Support
By isorfir on 5/19/2008 4:48:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
its incompatibility with some older products

Some older? That's an understatement. Vista came with my laptop and I used it for awhile, it's really not that bad. But too many things just didn't work or required work arounds. I was tired of waiting for Vista compatible fixes for things that I knew worked in XP.

That coupled with no real reason to stay with Vista is why I downgraded. I suspect I'm not alone.




RE: 3rd Party Support
By Cherish on 5/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: 3rd Party Support
By inighthawki on 5/19/2008 5:59:44 PM , Rating: 3
Out of curiosity, can you name some programs? I've heard a lot of talk about mass incompatibility, yet I've used vista since early beta versions and have yet to have one program not work, and I've used quite a variety of programs. Unless we're talking about software from like 10 years ago that people are too lazy to update...

I'm not trying to start an argument, I just seriously want to know some programs since I have yet to run into any...


RE: 3rd Party Support
By jvillaro on 5/19/2008 6:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. I would really like to know what is giving people a hard time. I haven't had any problems but I would like to know to be able to give other people a heads up when they ask.


RE: 3rd Party Support
By mathew7 on 5/20/2008 2:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
1. Since Windows has such a widespread platform, there are (were) small SW companies that made some SW for a few customers. They probably got banckrupt, but the customers still need to use those apps (used to it or don't have the money to rebuild them with a new company). Now, if that app worked with XP, they could buy a computer any time (until Vista). But if Vista breaks it, then that company will surely rely on Vista downgrade.
2. The transition from 2000 to XP cannot be compared to XP->Vista. That's because the transition 2000->XP also includes 98->XP. Do rememeber that not many gamers used 2000, because of some issues (lag is the bggest). XP was the NT kernel with 98 game-support. It took time, but anyone familiar to 2000 could configure it. Also, the 2000/98->XP transition was during the Megahertz race, where you could see performance improvements immediately (a 6-months old computer with 2000 ran noticeably slower that a computer with XP). Also, the HDDs were transiting from 5400rpm->7200rpm.
In the mean time, the total number of computers multiplied . So now, you have a small processor speed increase, HDDs do get performance, but nowhere as the 5400->7200 transition, and you start getting worried about power consumption. So the Vista vs XP performance penalties are much higher that 2000 vs XP.
3. Mobility...when you buy a laptop, you want it to start it and start using it. Standby solves this for any version but creates another problem: it consumes power. I had a P233MMX laptopt with 64MB RAM that would stay in standby 2 weeks with a 50% battery charge. Now, with my new C2D 1.8GHz 1GB RAM laptop, if it can keep standby for 1 week on a full charge I'm "happy". Hibernate helps the "standby" power consumption, but increases the "start using time". Also, sometimes I dual-boot with linux, and the OS start-up time is a very big concern to me.


RE: 3rd Party Support
By Shawn5961 on 5/19/2008 6:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sort of curious about that as well. I've used Vista since the public release, and I've only found one program that doesn't work. But that's an x86 to x64 compatibility issue, not an XP to Vista issue.


RE: 3rd Party Support
By fromthewoods on 5/19/2008 7:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
The only software that I have run into that "used to be" incompatible with Vista were things like VPN clients and Antivirus software: eg. Nortel Contivity Client, Cisco VPN Client, McAfee AV 7...

The difference with these programs are they usually make far reaching changes in the OS unlike your typical applications which usually just work in Vista.


RE: 3rd Party Support
By Plague421 on 5/19/2008 7:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
My clan and i have had some problems running ventrilo and America's Army at the same time, for example ventrilo would still run but would not allow you to communicate back while America's Army was maximized. i would have to minimize the game in order to say anything. We found a work-around for it (disabling UAC was a start) we had run both programs as administrator. And we still have the occasional random server kick from punkbuster for "inadequate OS privileges". Most of the problems were resolved after the new ventrilo was release and after the new patch for the video game, but those are a few examples of program compatibility i never had with XP.


RE: 3rd Party Support
By aos007 on 5/19/2008 9:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
How about TightVNC? Older versions of Quicken? Even Microsoft's own Outlook (2002 won't even work). Until recently, iTunes. Some hard drive benchmarking programs or popular cpu/fan temperature/speed reporting programs. Or some programs that do work but don't integrate nicely into the shell (such as Xplorer2, a popular file manager).

The attitude of Vista evangelists hardly helps. When one of the updates broke Windows Mail - a quite functional application that SHIPS WITH VISTA, people on Microsoft forums just said to switch to "WIndows Live Mail" as regular one is "obsolete" anyway. Really, now. Which by the way I had to after I switched BACK to XP after 8 months of 64-bit pain in the ass so that I don't lose all the new email.

And let's not even start on the fact that about 80% of programs that DO work are 32-bit only...


RE: 3rd Party Support
By Etsp on 5/20/2008 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
TightVNC's issues happened because Microsoft improved the security around how services run, and so TightVNC running as a service doesn't work, as it doesn't have privileges, however running it in user mode works just fine(think you still need to disable UAC though)


RE: 3rd Party Support
By Wagnbat on 5/19/2008 6:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
3rd party support is up to the vendors. BUT, it's up to Microsoft to convince the vendors that it's the next best thing.

I remember when XP came out, I went and got a machine. I then bought a $300 Brother Multi-Function printer for my new setup. It wouldn't work with XP. I called brother and said "Hey, this is your current rig. How come it doesn't support XP?", and they basically said "XP isn't worth writing custom drivers for. Use the nerfed XP native drivers". In plain english, I was unable to print in the highest resolution the printer supported, was not able to use their scanner software, and a couple other things. The printer worked, but not in the manner a $300 MFC at the time should have.

Again, the vendors need to see the future and where the money is. Right now with the economy the way it is, dealing with the "every driver has to be WHQL certified" issue that used to exist, and some vendors getting special treatment from Microsoft while others got none left a lot of people, even companies who didn't directly have dealing with MS with a sour taste in their mouth.

MS is wholly to blame for the current iteration of Vista in every aspect. INCLUDING 3rd party support. Take a cue from Sony. They had to hire IBM CELL designers to go to 3rd party companies to help explain how to program for the PS3. Not the best, but embracing 3rd party support makes the PC experience better for everyone.

That's why we own PC's right? Because we want access to 3rd party stuff without paying an arm and a leg for it (*cough*mac*cough*).


RE: 3rd Party Support
By theurge14 on 5/19/2008 7:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is to blame for every non-working 3rd party product that has a "Certified for Windows" sticker on the box.


RE: 3rd Party Support
By BikeDude on 5/20/2008 8:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
Any examples of "Certified for Windows Vista" products that do not work?


RE: 3rd Party Support
By jvillaro on 5/20/2008 4:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think he can't find one.
Just to clarify, a sticker that says "Certified for Windows" would not be the same as "Certified for Windows Vista".
For the second the application would tested extensivly so I doubt that it would fail to work if it had a logo.

And just in case i'm talking about software not the infamous Visto logo fiasco on laptops...


RE: 3rd Party Support
By DEredita on 5/19/2008 7:07:14 PM , Rating: 3
Please name the software that doesn't work for you? I've tested dozens and dozens of various software products at work (I'm a Software Coordinator), and only found that SAS 9.1.3 doesn't work, because of the way the installer is written.

Also, Adobe is specifically working on their Creative Suite 4 (64-bit) to work exclusively with 64-bit Windows (Vista). From what I have read, there will not be a 64-bit version for the Macintosh. :(