backtop


Print 120 comment(s) - last by whynot.. on Apr 23 at 1:35 AM

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer reflects on Windows Vista

Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system has been on the market for consumers for a little over a year now. During that time, the operating system has seen its fair share of both praise and criticism.

As is customary with Windows operating systems that have been on the market for roughly a year, Microsoft recently released the first Service Pack for Vista. Service Pack 1 (SP1) addressed a number of shortcomings with the operating system and rolled in a number of hotfixes and patches that have been released via Windows Update over the past year.

Now that Vista has had some time to establish itself in the marketplace and receive a fresh boost of energy with SP1, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is now reflecting on the operating system.

"Windows Vista: A work in progress," said Ballmer to a crowd of Microsoft MVPs in Seattle. "A very important piece of work, and I think we did a lot of things right, and I think we have a lot of things we need to learn from. Certainly, you never want to let five years go between releases. Can we just sort of kiss that stone and move on?"

Ballmer went on to add, "It turns out many things become problematic when you have those long release cycles. The design point, what you should be targeting. We can't ever let that happen again."

Ballmer also noted that there are plenty of happy customers of the Windows Vista operating system as well as Windows XP. He remarked that he has received emails from staunch supporters of the Windows XP operating system, but declined to give any indications that Microsoft would go any further than its intention to provide Windows XP Home to ultra-low-cost PCs (ULPCs) until June 2010.

Windows Vista has been in the news quite frequently in the past few weeks. A week ago, David Cross, a product manager responsible for designing Vista's User Account Control (UAC) exclaimed that Microsoft designed the feature to "annoy users".

More recently, Microsoft's Eric Ligman went off on a rant over the inference that Microsoft purposely included a loophole in Vista to allow consumers and businesses to install a full version of the operating system with an upgrade disc.



Comments     Threshold


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

Aren't they all though??
By SpaceRanger on 4/18/2008 1:12:43 PM , Rating: 5
Most software projects whether it be OS or Application, are "works in progress". Rarely do you see OS projects die off after 1+ years...




RE: Aren't they all though??
By SectionEight on 4/18/2008 1:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
MS Paint and calculator are probably the only programs that haven't been updated in a long time. Those and software that isn't being supported/is superceded by new programs/maker is defunct. Even games now are WIPs with bugfixes and new content in patches.

While I like some WIPs (I like my OS and games to work), some are just a pain; Acrobat Reader has become too bloated for what I need it for (I am aware of 3rd-party readers).


RE: Aren't they all though??
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 1:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I believe Paint was updated with XP SP2, just 3-4 years ago :)


RE: Aren't they all though??
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/18/2008 1:36:22 PM , Rating: 4
There are still people who don't use Paint.NET? :)


RE: Aren't they all though??
By oab on 4/18/2008 4:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, people who only use paint to take screenshots and don't do any "real" image manipulation.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By darkpaw on 4/18/2008 4:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I actually still use MSpaint for just this purpose. Works great for quick screen pastes.

For any manipulation I use GIMP for windows.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By Hare on 4/19/2008 4:11:27 AM , Rating: 2
irfanview FTW :)

Launches in 0.01sec, can do wonders + batch runs.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By omnicronx on 4/18/2008 7:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
Paint.Net is a great tool :)
I like it almost as much as the gimp (on nix that is)


RE: Aren't they all though??
By SectionEight on 4/18/2008 1:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
That may be true, but they didn't make it into some monstrosity that loads itself in the background at startup yet takes 30 seconds to open, checks for updates every 20 minutes, and uses 2 GB of disk space. That is why I still use it for the majority of my quick photo editing.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By Clauzii on 4/18/2008 3:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
What program are You referring too??

Photoshop CS on AMD XP2400+, 1GB RAM starts from 40 GB Maxtor in 20 sec. (5 sec. if it's closed and opened again). And it takes 200 MB on the HD. And updates can be disabled.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By wordsworm on 4/18/2008 9:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That may be true, but they didn't make it into some monstrosity that loads itself in the background at startup yet takes 30 seconds to open
For fun, I timed how long it took paint.net to open. Result... 4 seconds. CS2 took about 8 seconds. In either case, I hardly call that a monstrosity. Neither of them prompt me for an update. So, maybe your version is different than mine... hard to say.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By Shining Arcanine on 4/19/2008 8:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
Are you hearing what you are saying? A 4 second startup time for a program is ages!

I have no clue how you can consider that to be acceptable.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By JoshuaBuss on 4/20/2008 7:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
are you hearing what you're saying?

you really get that annoyed at having to wait a few SECONDS? Really??

wow.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By Kougar on 4/18/2008 8:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Vista updated MS Paint again. They took out a few steps, making it quicker for users to just open, paste, and save screenshots.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By eyebeeemmpawn on 4/18/2008 1:46:05 PM , Rating: 5
The Engineer's creed: If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By Clauzii on 4/18/2008 3:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man a six, please! :)


RE: Aren't they all though??
By homerdog on 4/18/2008 6:52:10 PM , Rating: 3
6


RE: Aren't they all though??
By darkpaw on 4/18/2008 6:00:24 PM , Rating: 4
OSX is a work in progress too, at each milestone pay Steve Jobs $129.00.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By 777 on 4/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Aren't they all though??
By just4U on 4/18/2008 9:14:08 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah but you have to factor in the cost of the mac as well. In general I am sure you'd still save by splurging on the Ultimate Edition and comparable hardware.

(Not that I'd recommend Ultimate, Premium is fine)


RE: Aren't they all though??
By darkpaw on 4/18/2008 10:47:32 PM , Rating: 5
All the Vista haters seem obsessed with that $400 copy of Ultimate (retail), when Vista works just fine for $100 copy of Premium (OEM). Aren't options great? Oh yah, I forgot Apple fans prefer having their decisions made for them.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By 777 on 4/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Aren't they all though??
By retrospooty on 4/19/2008 10:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you there... One comment against either and you are labeled a fanboy. Both OS's have good and bad points. I have Vista ult, XP-home and a Mac mini with Leopard on it. After all is said and done, I use Vista for my everyday computer, its OK, now that its been well patched up over the past year.

I have to say the Mac with Leopard is allright, but the UI just doesn't impress me as it does some others. I forced myself to use it for a month or so and just couldn't see any real benefits of it over MS. But at least I gave it a try.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By darkpaw on 4/19/2008 11:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
I actually think OSX is a decent OS too built on a solid base. My real beef with Apple is how they act as a company and the extremely smug users.

Anyone that pulls out the Vista is $400 whine though has an agenda.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By 777 on 4/19/2008 5:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry you've come across smug Apple users, I personally haven't met any yet. Everyone I know that uses Mac's typically uses both a pc and a Mac and are not smug at all. Half of them are computer geeks and the other half seem to just like a Mac better.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By JoshuaBuss on 4/20/2008 7:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
where do you live?

i don't know anyone who owns a mac who doesn't feel at least a LITTLE smug about it.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By 777 on 4/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Aren't they all though??
By 1078feba on 4/21/2008 10:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
Never used an Apple, so I have no feelings about their hardware/OS either way.

But I have a general distate for Apple as a company based on those incredibly arrogant Apple commercials, you know, mac guy vs pc guy. They are, without a doubt, insulting and completely disingenuous. Most of the more shallow Mac users, particularly the tech-ignorant ones, see those and seem to think that gives them some sort of moral high ground to look down their collective noses upon us unclean pc users. Can be ignored mostly, but after a while, it gets quite annoying, especially when 99% of said smug Mac users think "RAM" is a Peruvian Andes mountain goat.

Not only that, but how Apple has treated their own loyal customers lately with the iBrick, etc., is disconcerting to say the least. Every time I come across an Apple user with an attitude, I usually smile and say "BOHICA.", and go merrily on my way.

This isn't to say that Apple's products don't have any redemptive value, they do. It's just pretty tough to be even remotely tech savvy and knowingly swallow Jobs' BS.


By StevoLincolnite on 4/19/2008 3:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
Even the Home Basic can have stuff like Aero and what-not enabled with only a Registry tweak ;)
Microsoft only "Disables" the features not removes them, thus saving development time, which means us tweaker can get those features for less.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By cmdrdredd on 4/19/2008 7:46:07 PM , Rating: 1
When Apple updates their OS you have to buy the new one, which is every 1-2 years. How long was XP out for? Much longer than that. Apple milks you a bit at a time for new features that are pretty useless for me.


RE: Aren't they all though??
By 777 on 4/20/08, Rating: 0
Ballmer's Picture
By phatboye on 4/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ballmer's Picture
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/18/2008 1:37:26 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Ballmer's Picture
By Natfly on 4/18/2008 2:14:49 PM , Rating: 1
I'm going to have that printed as a poster


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By amanojaku on 4/18/2008 2:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Oh $h1t that scared me!


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By phatboye on 4/18/2008 3:25:09 PM , Rating: 3
Now that is just gross.


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By shaw on 4/18/2008 3:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
2nd most awesome thing next to Ballmer's "Developers" music video.


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By Clauzii on 4/18/2008 3:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Agree 100!


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By Kensei on 4/18/2008 8:44:31 PM , Rating: 3
Is it just me... Ballmer bears a striking resemblance to Uncle Fester from the Addams Family? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Fester


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By just4U on 4/18/2008 9:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
You know, that one picture there makes me think.. He'd have looked good as a borg! :D


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By phxfreddy on 4/20/2008 2:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
You should get a Ballmer Plushy Doll made and sell it. I am sure it would make me fall asleep faster at night knowing Teddy RuxBalm was there at my side. When I feel sad he can make monkey noises and do the monkey dance. woooooooooo woooooooo....get on your feet.....and lets not forget you can get a free lifetime supply of Steve Ballmers Bag Balm that will keep your apple sack supple at: http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/steve-ballmer-b...


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By AmazighQ on 4/18/2008 1:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
yes yes and your a beauty queen, right? <sarcasm>


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By phatboye on 4/18/2008 3:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Better looking than Ballmer that's for sure =)


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By phxfreddy on 4/20/2008 2:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
to guys maybe. But as soon as the girls find out he has a billion and is a powerful CEO.....Ballmer is alot better looking.


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By walk2k on 4/18/2008 4:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
DEVELOPERS!! etc....


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By royalcrown on 4/20/2008 9:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, if I was that mega rich (trump too) I'd buy me some damn hair...lol. Ballmer does have 1 huge heed eh ?


RE: Ballmer's Picture
By royalcrown on 4/20/2008 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
He could totally fill in for peter boyle on everybody loves raymond...lmao !


What's wrong with five year releases?
By Mr Perfect on 4/18/2008 1:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with five year releases? Sure, MS won't make money on upgrades, but it makes it simpler for everyone else. Pretty much every PC we've bought between 2001 and June of this year is XP. Having one common OS across all of the PCs in the company, regardless of age or specs, is fantastically simple.




RE: What's wrong with five year releases?
By AmazighQ on 4/18/2008 1:48:26 PM , Rating: 3
2001-2007 ain't 5 year. its 6-7 years

your at a company, company's are advised not to use Vista yet. cause its still 'under work'.
Buy Vista business and install it on all the PC's and your problem is solved.


RE: What's wrong with five year releases?
By anotherdude on 4/18/2008 2:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone really think MS meant to offend or inconvenience customers with UAC? It might have that effect but to suggest over and over again that MS was trying to 'annoy' us is just silly. Stop the madness. Some things are more important than a few hits.


RE: What's wrong with five year releases?
By Pirks on 4/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's wrong with five year releases?
By oab on 4/18/2008 4:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
Wintel? You must be a mac-snob from '98 who is still annoyed that the iMac came out and messed up your PowerPC/Performa product lines


RE: What's wrong with five year releases?
By Panurge on 4/18/2008 5:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is actually in how the configuring would work. If you allow some setting to bypass UAC, then UAC itself will not serve the primary purpose it was designed for: protection.

Let's say there's a bit that allows you to bypass UAC for a given program. What's to stop that bit from being set by malware makers? They can now install programs with no user intervention, which means the UAC served no purpose.

Now, I agree UAC could use some refining. Things sometimes have too many prompts. Trying to delete an item from the start menu shouldn't take three full prompts to do. But configurability is tough to do without compromising the protection.

Personally, I have maybe a couple prompts a week on my system. My system is also far more stable than it was with XP. I'm extremely happy with Vista overall. OSX, on the other hand, I've just started trying for the first time, and am not a fan of it.


By Pirks on 4/18/2008 7:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you allow some setting to bypass UAC, then UAC itself will not serve the primary purpose it was designed for: protection.
This is still better than forcing users to turn off UAC completely, which a LOT of people do these days. What's the point of designing an annoying feature that people quickly learn to turn off in order to get work done without being annoyed? Why not design it in the way that allows users to fine tune it so that it still keeps system protected while being much less annoying?
quote:
Let's say there's a bit that allows you to bypass UAC for a given program. What's to stop that bit from being set by malware makers?
What's the problem with always asking for admin password no matter what when this bit is to be changed? Is it not safe enough or what?

P.S. Finally! At least ONE DT reader who's not dumb and fanatical! Panurge, don't leave this thread please :-)


Work in Progress
By NerdHerder08 on 4/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Work in Progress
By phatboye on 4/18/2008 1:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously have no idea how long it takes to make an operating system.

All operating systems are a work in progress, Not just windows but GNU/Linux, FBSD, Solaris and even Darwin yet all of these OSes have been in development for over 10 years.


RE: Work in Progress
By KernD on 4/18/2008 1:30:44 PM , Rating: 3
I've never seen an OS that isn't, thats why there are patches and version. It's an evolutionary process, just like all the iteration of so many applications.


RE: Work in Progress
By ok630 on 4/22/2008 1:33:51 AM , Rating: 1
Die painfully okay? Prefearbly by getting crushed to death in a garbage compactor, by getting your face cut to ribbons with a pocketknife, your head cracked open with a baseball bat, your stomach sliced open and your entrails spilled out, and your eyeballs ripped out of their sockets. Fucking bitch


RE: Work in Progress
By NerdHerder08 on 4/18/2008 2:47:12 PM , Rating: 1
What I was referring to is the fact that they spent that much time on a product that is arguably more error-prone than it's previous product. I bought a new laptop with Vista Ultimate on it, I had to put XP on it because I couldn't deal with the Network File access speed. It would have been different if it wasn't a known issue. I believe that any company that knowingly releases a product that has that sort of easily reproduced issue (along with so many others) is not doing right to the end user. I understand that software is constantly evolving and changing, I have developed productivity software for years and am constantly adding new or re-designing features. While just about every program will have bugs, it's up to the programmers and QA teams to make sure that the product operates correctly and that is performs well within the specified computer hardware requirements.


RE: Work in Progress
By Pottervilla on 4/18/2008 4:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
I use Vista, and find it very stable and efficient.

From Paul Thurrott:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_road...
quote:
If 2003 was the apex of excitement for Windows Vista, 2004 would reverse that trend quite nicely. We wouldn't know it until a year later, but in 2004, Microsoft hit a wall with Windows Vista, requiring the company to literally drop much of the work it had previously done and start again from scratch.

Microsoft just messed up with Longhorn. 90% of Windows Vista hails from 2004 and on.

That put Microsoft into a tough position. They could rush Vista to market, and suffer from less dependability, or wait until Vista was ready, only to have hardly anyone buy it since XP was good enough. As it is, Microsoft has caught quite a bit of both.


Tired of hearing about vista.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 4:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone knows you can't judge a Windows OS until its second service pack. I'm so tired of all the Vista hype on this website when everyone knows this happens EVERY TIME an MS OS comes out.

Seriously whats with the hype, speculations, and conjecture ? Wait for Service Pack 2 and everything will be fixed. But then I guess you would have nothing to write about..




RE: Tired of hearing about vista.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/18/2008 7:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone knows you can't judge a Windows OS until its second service pack.

No. That idea only came about with XP. All prior versions of Windows did not need a second service pack to be useful. Only a few of them even had a second one anyways.


RE: Tired of hearing about vista.
By Screwballl on 4/19/2008 10:31:16 AM , Rating: 3
Windows 2000 - 5 Service Packs (well 6 if you count XP, 7=SP1, 8=SP2)

Windows 95 - 3 service packs (OSR aka 95a, OSR1, OSR2 aka 95b)

Windows 98 - 3 service packs (OSR1, SE, SE OSR2)

Almost every Windows OS has had minimum 2 service packs since 95. The ONLY one that did not was (more or less) dead as soon as it was released (Windows ME) and they still had 1 Service pack.
Granted, "Service Pack" is a new term but since the Win95 days, these major releases are the modern day equivalent to a Service Pack.

An OS is judged based on its current or released status. XP was just an upgraded Windows 2000 and was stable but had issues with certain software due to NTFS vs FAT. Still, XP has been the best overall and most stable out of the gate of any OS ever released by MS.
By comparison, Vista is Windows ME Version 2


By JoshuaBuss on 4/20/2008 7:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
i dunno about that.. ME was virtually useless and was pretty much just a re-work of 98, while vista works for a great deal many of users and is a totally new product.


Duh.
By SiliconAddict on 4/18/2008 11:48:10 PM , Rating: 1
Vista is Microsoft's OS 10.0. As if OS X was some wonderful product out of the gate. Microsoft has a good foundation with Vista to refine and build on. SP1 is a good start. SP2 should be better and Windows 7 which will again be a refinement of Vista will simply continue the trend. How if MS fucks up and decides to make 7 a rental OS as rumors are suggesting....well that is another matter.




RE: Duh.
By cmdrdredd on 4/19/2008 7:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Apple has done so many updates to OS X and all of them required you to purchase a new edition. Much more money that you spend on Windows over it's lifespan.

Again, it's Dailytech providing another uninteresting Microsoft bashing article.


understatement of the century
By FXi on 4/19/2008 3:11:12 PM , Rating: 1
I'd liken this comment to saying "the Titanic might have a few water issues"

Overall the world is thoroughly unmoved by Vista. Writers compare it to the infamous "ME". Apple is still writing memos to thank MS for building such a crock. It made Apple's year. A "work in progress" implies they are "working on it" which from the looks of SP1, doesn't seem very impressive, yet again!

64 bit into mainstream hands is about the only tangible change.

This guy is going to show up in famous quote books 50 years from now :)




RE: understatement of the century
By 306maxi on 4/20/2008 7:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
The only writers who compare it to ME are boneheads and people who merely want to whip up hysteria.

ME doesn't work. It crashes. It simply does NOT work at all. You so much look at it strangely and it crashes.

Vista is stable. Vista is nothing like ME.


Ballmer for President
By thartist on 4/18/2008 4:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't he look in the picture like the typical scene un movies where in the whitehouse someone says

"Mr. President!"...




uac
By omnicronx on 4/18/2008 7:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A week ago, David Cross, a product manager responsible for designing Vista's User Account Control (UAC) exclaimed that Microsoft designed the feature to "annoy users".
Is UAC even activated or useful for that matter when running on a domain? I mean a domain user basically has the same rights and privileges of UAC anyways right?

It seems UAC should only be turned on when your little brother or sister is going to be using your computer. I can not say how many times my sister has screwed up a computer in my house just because she likes to click things.




2 cents
By AlmostExAMD on 4/18/2008 8:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
I have had Vista from day one, Why everyone is complaining is beyond me.
I'm guessing its probably the same people who complained about problems with xp when it came out. lol

It's all relatively the same, And once u have figured out all your driver and 3rd party incompatibility problems there aint much wrong with Vista in my opinion.
Being a tech head i go rush out and buy the latest greatest gear for my comp, Of course there is a chance it isn't even supported yet but it does eventually.
Like XP before it, Vista will shine once SP2 sorts out all the problems.
One thing i do like about Vista is it is by far the easiest Winows OS in terms of setting up and configuring networks, The amount of problems I had with xp was annoying, Vista just seems to configure it all itself and it works,Good for us amatuers at home.
Only downside so far for me( I'm sure it may just be a driver or 3rd party app) is rundll32 crash when it tries to view thumbnails in folders,I have all my folders set to thumbnail view.




dissapointing
By rudy on 4/19/2008 2:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
Personally the long 5 year release cycle makes me feel like it is worth it to pay for an OS it also gave people time to really stabilize it. If they shorten the time frame I will be less likely to adopt early if at all. I may skip generations of OS.




By crystal clear on 4/19/2008 2:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
If its graded as work in progress then expect Microsoft extend the XP OEM deadline.


As reported on another site-

While Ballmer stopped short of saying that Microsoft will extend the June 30 deadline for OEM sales of Windows XP, he did say that Microsoft has a large number of users on both Vista and XP, "and as long as those are both important options, we will be sensitive, and we will listen, and we will hear that," he said.

"And I know we're going to continue to get feedback from people on how long XP should be available. We've got some opinions on that," added Ballmer



http://www.crn.com/software/207400689;jsessionid=0...

quote:
"A very important piece of work, and I think we did a lot of things right, and I think we have a lot of things we need to learn from. Certainly, you never want to let five years go between releases. Can we just sort of kiss that stone and move on?"


The quote should be rephrased to reflect the truth.

I think we did a lot of things right, plus a lot of things WRONG-yes we bungled it completely from start to finish & we need to learn from.

No crime committed in admission of your mistakes & learn from them & ensure they never happen again.

AMD's CEO always says that & gets away with it.

FIRE a few subordinates to satisy the shareholders & analyst,then carry on business as usual.

Yes we have 2 O.S. to choose from (XP & VISTA) they are both here to stay for a longtime & we got to live with them for the next few years.

Use the system that suits you the best & stop complaining & MOVE ON.

As for VISTA-

Yes we have the SP1 but as Ballmer said "Windows Vista: A work in progress,"
so await S.P 2 till its graded

"Windows Vista: A finished product,"

Hopefully SP 2 will solve all the remaining flaws/glitches.

If you need an update to fix a previous update,then its certainly a sorry state of affairs.

You release a fix to solve one set of problems only to create another set of problems.

All very elegantly termed as "compatibility issues".

In short you need a PRE UPDATE to an UPDATE & POST UPDATE to an UPDATE.

SP 1 to fix issues in VISTA & SP 2 to fix issues in SP 1 & VISTA.

Is it a Work in Progress Edition or a Mistake Edition ?




Honesty
By royalcrown on 4/20/2008 9:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of the frustration would be alleviated if they just had 1 sku, the full install, from wich you could upgrade or clean install and charge 200-220 for it instead of friggini $489.00 when it first came out. I only counted ultimate because who would want a 200 dollar lesser version overt the ultimate one ?

This is for the ppl btching and moaning how badly it runs: It ran great on my chaintech skt600 with 1 gig of ddr400 and an ATI radeon 8500le with 128 mb, it ran even better and looked great when I slapped a 7600gs in there. The only prob I ever had was my MIC not working because via won't write a prober driver for a 686b southbridge. I think that as long as ppl have enough ram and don't go using that 512 crap that best buy gave them, or buy HP it runs fine. Not saying it is perfect, it's way too expensive and that only magnifiees customer dissatisfaction. That and stupid OBVIOUS errors like the file copy FIASCO, that should never have been missed, not an obscure case there !




"between the lne reader" says:
By Screwballl on 4/19/2008 10:09:50 AM , Rating: 1
Steve Ballmer's speech was feed into a new linux program that can take the words they say and translate it into things they really mean. Lets have a look:

* said: Windows Vista: A work in progress
* meant: Windows Vista: Beta

* said: A very important piece of work, and I think we did a lot of things right, and I think we have a lot of things we need to learn from. Certainly, you never want to let five years go between releases. Can we just sort of kiss that stone and move on?
* meant: It really is useless to the community, I think we made loads of money off it, we now know how to shaft more people from their money. We will starting calling Service Packs the next version of Windows and charge money for it (like Apple).

* said: It turns out many things become problematic when you have those long release cycles. The design point, what you should be targeting. We can't ever let that happen again.
* meant: We actually got it right after XP's SP2 but letting it go that long really hurt our pocketbooks. Why charge $100 for a final product when we can charge $200 for a beta product, it just makes sense.

* said: there are plenty of happy customers of the Windows Vista operating system as well as Windows XP. He remarked that he has received emails from staunch supporters of the Windows XP operating system...
* meant: There are plenty of happy customers using XP, and those that are happy with Vista have been successfully brainwashed by our FUD. We couldn't have so many happy with XP, so we had to fix what wasn't broken. The best way to force people to give us more money is to stop support of what they want to use. By limiting usage to ULPCs, we can force people to go with something they do not want to.




Microsoft
By Mir on 4/20/2008 3:42:48 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft has been fading for quite some time due to its lack of innovation and its flawed leadership. If the Steve were not a trusty crony and former classmate of Bill, he would probably be running a chain of discount marts. To many of us, he is a profound embarrassment and an embodiment of situational ethics.




I'd Say
By Ammohunt on 4/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'd Say
By arazok on 4/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/18/2008 1:40:53 PM , Rating: 4
If you are waiting for something that you are going to visually see you are going to be waiting for a very long time.

Vista looks alot like XP for a simple reason, to reduce change shock. As similar as it is in layout, graphical effects aside it still suffered unjustified ridiculous criticism on the basis of being different.

If you don't know what the under the hood changes and benefits of Vista are, it is because you have chosen to take the ignorant route and base your evaluation on what you perceive rather than going out and actually learning what it has to offer. Or even worse what you read from web know-it-alls that slam Vista for non existent problems or weak criticisms.

I use Vista and have since launch, I love it's features, speed, usability, and would be hard pressed to put up with using XP again.


RE: I'd Say
By Ammohunt on 4/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/18/2008 5:04:10 PM , Rating: 3
I understand your desire to pull comments out of your ass on the ever popular "I am a tech" platform. However that BS doesn't fly anymore.

You see so am I, and I am quite familiar with the benefits that Vista offers myself or clients for that matter. There are plenty of people in the same field that populate these forums that are of the same stance.

Sorry guy, but you don't get a free pass on the I'm a self proclaimed expert ticket to bash operating systems anymore. Guess what, there are people that have used and are indeed quite familiar with Vista and find it to be an excellent product.

Don't even start with me on the everyday hardware BS, you just come across looking like a chump yet again. You would be hard pressed to put together a computer at this point that couldn't run Vista problem free. If you are thinking of popping a couple hundred dollars to upgrade a three to five year old heap to Vista then the only thing I can say is, you're an idiot. End of story.

The computer I type this response at is a single core athlon 3500+ with a 6100 series nvidia IGP, and 1 gb of ram. It is a total POS. It also runs Vista basic flawlessly.

I'll add you to the list of the other "I'm a tech" morons who have afflicted the users of this forum with being subject to their self proclaimed "wisdom". Do everyone a favor, take your biased fantasy based evaluations of products you know nothing about and keep them to yourself. Don't infect the rest of the web with your contagious stupidity.


RE: I'd Say
By eye smite on 4/18/2008 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Vista machine from HP with a 5600+ and 3 gigs of ram. It runs fine. What I don't like is how much hardware you need to run the OS as quickly as XP runs. I can run programs as well in XP with 1gig of ram as fast as Vista home premium with 3 gigs. I've worked on peoples systems with home premium that had 2 or even as low as 1 gig of ram and they literally crawl. Vista's not a bad OS once you get used to the quirks, but it's need for more hardware is not appealing to me. I have 7 computers here with XP home, pro and media center 2005 editions, 4 of which are between 3 and 4 yrs old, and they load and run the OS and apps as fast as my Vista machine. MS really needs to come out with something that has more appeal and less garbage in it than Vista.

As far as you bashing and downplaying the other poster, I can sum you up in one word....Poser.....or Pretender. I mean, your opening sentence says volumes about you pertaining to a butt and skat fetish. Please save that for the political forums you rant on. Thanks for playing.


RE: I'd Say
By Pryde on 4/18/2008 7:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
Right from the start of windows ( and most other OSs ) every new update to windows has had increased system specs.

Do you expect your 3-4 yr old machines to run a new game on high quality. So why do you expect a new OS to run on those machines flawlessly with all features enabled.

Problem I see with Vista is that you have to tweak it alot to get it to preform well on low spec machines and that most people don't know ( and shouldn't have to ) how to properly configure for the best performance.

Here some help for low spec Vista Users
http://www.tweakvista.com/Article38662.aspx
http://www.tweakvista.com/Article39073.aspx

All about Vista
http://www.winsupersite.com/vista/#reviews
There are many things alot of people do not know about vista because they are not going on in front of you ( like aero ).


RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2008 2:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you expect your 3-4 yr old machines to run a new game on high quality. So why do you expect a new OS to run on those machines flawlessly with all features enabled.


Not the same really. Gaming requirements rise exponentially based on the PC hardware at any given time. Because everyone wants a better looking, more realistic, oohh ahhhhh fest when we play games. Plus, in a lot of cases, game programmers use HIGHLY inefficient code.

Its obvious Vista coders used the same policy on the OS as one does a game. Which is mistake. Oh well, everyone has a 5gz cpu with 10 gigs of ram, so we'll make it run good on THOSE systems. Laziness pure and simple. Its easy to code when you can assume everyone has a great PC, then you don't have to go through line for line and optimize what you did. Plus you can pig up the OS with tons of crap app's that honestly don't have any business being bundled with an OS as the default installation.

I'm confident SP2 will have a lot of performance fixes for Vista. Bet a more streamlined default install of Vista could of fixed a lot of these perceptions. Instead of having to go back later and " tweak " Vista to get it to run right.


RE: I'd Say
By eye smite on 4/20/2008 8:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Say umm, you totally missed the point. Why is it necessary for MS to keep bloating windows with more code and more crap so that it takes 3 gigs or more of ram to effectively run Vista? Did you miss that point? I think you did. I really think you totally missed that point, and I bet you've got at least a dozen arguments as to why it's necessary. I'll just present one. If MS was more efficient with their script, you know wrote the code right the first time, there wouldn't be a need for such a bloated OS now would there. Face facts, they bloat it and make it sloppy and don't even care if the cusstmer is happy for one reason. It forces people to go and buy a new computer, now lets see you argue that.


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/19/2008 1:05:38 AM , Rating: 3
I guess you come from another universe where operating systems have been requiring lesser hardware to run for the last 20 years.

Honestly do people like you that spout this crap even listen to yourselves when you do it? Have you been looking at the same industry over the years as everyone else? Were you one of the same dips that screamed windows98 forever when the "horribly bloated" XP came out? Crazy it required 256 megs of ram minimum to run well, blasphemy. Back then 256 megs of ram was a substantial cost compared to ram now. What is it 20 bucks for 2 gigs? yeah thats killing people to add ram.

If you want to be lean do everyone a favor and go back to windows95 and be done with it. Hey! it comes on a single cd and you can probably get by with a mere 128 megs of ram, awesome.

I can sum you up quite easily too. Yet another web know it all who knows nothing.


RE: I'd Say
By gradoman on 4/21/2008 1:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
Lol. For the computer illiterate it's a mystery. They don't know wtf they need to make their system run faster, let alone go and purchase it and install it on their own and therefore need some enlightenment.

I could post you a video of my friend's HP DV2000 series laptop. It's only just over a year old and boy does it f*cking crawl with Vista. I'm begging him to buy an extra GB of RAM for the damn thing.

I don't know how HP decided anyone would get anything done with his comp's configuration and Vista. :(

Thank God I know something


RE: I'd Say
By RIPPolaris on 4/18/2008 5:50:19 PM , Rating: 3
After having Vista at home I seriously hate having to deal with XP at work. Vista is much easier, and even faster, in most areas than XP.

Note: I am not a 'fanboi', and I have nothing to gain by people using Vista. It's just better for me than XP.


RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 5:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't know what the under the hood changes and benefits of Vista are, it is because you have chosen to take the ignorant route and base your evaluation on what you perceive rather than going out and actually learning what it has to offer.


I honestly don't know, or care, what your talking about.

Its called an OPERATING SYSTEM. XP operates my system just fine. I don't need an OS to come with burning, ripping, streaming, recording, video encoding, decoding, virus scanning, spyware scanning, CD covers, daily reminders, scanning my MP3's 30 times a second to make sure its legal, UAC reminders etc etc. I have software for all that.

What benefits ? You just can't list any. Don't tell us we need to go out and learn the benefits, you opened your mouth so please educate us.

I'm not an MS hater. Quite the contrary. I just see nothing compelling about Vista what-so-ever. I don't have a DX10 video card, and even if I did theres still no games that exploit the best features of DX10. I don't need the software bundles because I already use 3rd party software thats BETTER. And I don't really care for an OS that monitors my media and tries to make sure its " legal ". Thats not what an OS's job is.

Xp is more stable, supports more hardware, has WAY less bugs, and there are no performance issues like Vista. What planet are you living on buddy ?


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 5:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly I have zero patience for anyone with web access that has the nerve to claim ignorance. You have the benefit of unlimited information at your fingertips and you need me to educate you on the features of Vista?


I think you missed my point. There simply are no benefits over XP. See I was fine with your rant except you tried to imply Vista was somehow better than XP, and claimed people should go find " the benefits ". If your going to make a claim you should back it up.

I'm not anti MS or anti Vista. The only OS I have ever used for my personal computers were Windows OS, well and DOS a very long time ago. There is just simply nothing compelling about Vista to make XP users switch. Especially now that they have already announced a Vista replacement " Windows 7 ".

Your using Vista and enjoy it. Well I think thats great. But don't claim the rest of us are missing out Captain Cryptic.


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/18/2008 5:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
No one asked you to make a switch.

Saying Vista offers nothing that XP doesn't is asinine.

Let me repeat asinine.

If you are going to walk around talking like a complete moron you are going to get called on it. The good old days of strolling around making stupid statements and having them believed as gospel, about something people have had a year to use and determine the benefits of themselves, are over.

If you want to find out the benefits of Vista go use it. I did, I've found the benefits to myself and I love it. Read, do something get off your ass basically and do SOMETHING other than making up crap based on what you have read from other people just like you on forums.

Theres another OS after Vista? oh my god you have broken the news of the century! Oh wait duh of course there is. It's called progress. It was known that there would be followups to Vista before it was even released. Guess what, there will be a successor to Windows 7, and to that. Welcome to progress. 2010 is quite a ways off by the way, and the chances of that release date being pushed back to more like 2012 are high to say the least.


RE: I'd Say
By Pryde on 4/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 8:10:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp

quote:
Not that I would expect an idiot like you to read


I read every word. I find it convenient you picked a review from a " SuperSite for Windows " fan site however. And I don't think I need to go any further into it than that.

And again, find a quote where I said Vista was " crap " or " garbage ". I didn't. You, like the other fanboi, are over reacting to the extreme on this.


RE: I'd Say
By xeroshadow on 4/22/2008 4:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
I read the entire article at http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp and can honestly say the only feature I find compelling is the 64bit capability but until my video editing app does the same, I'm currently getting the majority of those features. Windows defender, ESET NOD and Firefox are all doing fine as security goes. If I want more performance, I can spend better money on a new WD 640GB or Raptor drive. I can get another 2GB of RAM.

What the hell is Pryde arguing here? Didn't anyone read this? Did someone read the quote "More problematic, over the past five years, many of Windows Vista's best features have been jettisoned".

The reviewer didn't overly flaunt the new OS but came away seeing both sides of the coin "If you step back too far, it doesn't look very impressive at all: It's like XP with a spit-shine. But if you get too close, it's easy to get lost in the seemingly never-ending lists of new features."

Fine, I can accept that but I'm still not sold that I NEED to update because I'm in the same group as the one Paul Thurrott mentions. One of his main points is under the heading "Good enough: The problem with Windows XP". When it comes to emailing, word processing, gaming, surfing the net and video editing, I can still do it all on XP with no complaints on performance or compatibilities.

No one has still yet to tell me why I NEED this O/S or what I can accomplish with it that I CANNOT with XP. Just as much as they complain about Vista bashers, I'm complaining that none of them have mentioned any details. It's just a bunch of mumblings and a lot of shouting how great it is. You want me to spend money, you will need to do more than that.


RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 8:00:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Saying Vista offers nothing that XP doesn't is asinine.


I didn't say that. Is it compelling enough and bennefitial enough to ignore the cons and take the plunge ? No.

quote:
If you are going to walk around talking like a complete moron


You sure like personal insults don't ya. Because we all know insulting the other guy is the path to victory.

quote:
Theres another OS after Vista? oh my god you have broken the news of the century! Oh wait duh of course there is. It's called progress. It was known that there would be followups to Vista before it was even released. Guess what, there will be a successor to Windows 7, and to that. Welcome to progress. 2010 is quite a ways off by the way, and the chances of that release date being pushed back to more like 2012 are high to say the least.


Could you get any more condescending ? Point is theres just no reason to go to Vista now if you have a choice. Xp will more than suffice until Windows 7 comes out. There is NO core feature its holding back on the modern PC. Name ONE thing that I'm missing out on by waiting for Windows 7 ?? NOTHING thats what.

I still find it funny after all this your being so cryptic about exactly what it is that YOU like about Vista. I can't go out and " get off my ass " and research your opinions. I can't read minds.

Your acting like a rabid dog pushed in a corner. I said I'm no MS hater, but your reacting like I insulted a family member.


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/18/2008 8:33:29 PM , Rating: 1
I'm acting like someone who has no patience for the circus of complete stupidity that surrounds Vista criticism. Statements like the ones here fall in that category.

I've heard it all, and I have had some very fun face to face conversations about Vista because the wall of Internet anonymity doesn't apply there.

So many times I have had people think they were going to get on the Vista hate bashing bandwagon with me and immediately throw out the "man that Vista sucks" bomb at the mere mention of it's name. Countless times I've asked really? why does it suck and watched the sputtering and backpedaling begin.

You see people can't just play the arrogant ignorant game of rattling off stupid sound bites about DRM or mac commercials they watched, or stupid forum posts about it with a straight face when you are looking them in the eye. Inevitably the answer comes back, well, uh because it's so buggy and slow.

This leads to the standard have you used it? question. Not once have I gotten a yes to that from someone, it's always well.. my brother in law, or well.. my friend Jim said..

Same handed down word of mouth utter crap from people that have never used the product.

You can indeed get off your ass and look into all the other features Vista has that XP does not and you will find exactly what I like about it. I have given my opinion many many times and wasted time on paragraphs of text and you know what? Not going to do it anymore. The features of Vista are common knowledge, I refuse to waste my time outlining them for some half wit that is going to inevitably retort with "but it's buggy and slow, you need a 27 gigahertz computer with a million gigs of ram to even boot it (cue mouth breathing here)"

So sorry, no thanks, you can do the work yourself, read the reviews, quote get off your ass and learn for yourself. In the process stop wasting everyones time with pure and complete nonsense.


RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 9:35:51 PM , Rating: 1
Well I guess I have to stoop to your level to get through to you, so here goes. Pal, I think you need to get some tampons, because your bleeding all over the place here.

I didn't say " Vista sucks ". I didn't say " its a hardware pig " So those 3 paragraphs you wasted about your geek rl tough guy act don't mean anything. And by the way your talking here, I actually believe you would get " in someones face " over an OS. Kudos to you !

Although if people actually have told you " vista sucks " a countless number of times, maybe that should clue you into something ? Just because your happy with a product does not mean a majority of the End Users are. I think if you actually took your own advice, pulled your head out of your ass, and looked around you would notice a HUGE majority of Vista users are unhappy with the product so far. I personally think, and have stated on this very article, that I believe Vista SP2 will fix all the major issues. But that does not change things right now, today.

Believe me, I HAVE checked the reviews. Because I did, thankfully I didn't make a bad purchase and get Vista. I was simply trying to get you to validate your opinions, which you still cannot.

Savage, your projecting. Your uptight and butthurt about all these " countless " arguments, both here and in real life, about Vista. And your lashing out and anyone that even appears to be " anti Vista ". I'm no shrink, but its clear to me if you wasted 3 paragraphs detailing your struggles while carrying the flag for Vista that you have some issues.


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/19/2008 12:51:53 AM , Rating: 1
You want to talk about wasted space, maybe you should look in the mirror.

I think you should join the church of Scientology if you are going to be giving self help sermons like that everywhere you go.

Here is a newsflash for you, I don't have to validate my opinions for random web Vista bashing geek #345134. I've wasted quite enough time pointing out the benefits of the OS in other threads to see that it is a complete waste of time rehashing features that everyone already knows only to have it wasted on yet another anti Vista ranter.

Consider it the equivalent of, yes there are benefits to using Vista, so shut the hell up and stop wasting time posting falsehoods about a perfectly functional OS that yes, many people use and like. You don't get a free hall pass anymore to take the Vista sucks, or Vista is too slow bandwagon without being called on it.

Try to think outside your own little bubble for a moment and give your head a shake. Realize that you are not the only person being addressed or for that matter were not the person originally addressed on this topic. So yeah, read a bit and you will indeed see there are posters above pulling the "I'm a tech and Vista is slow and sucks and killed my dog" routine.

I'm tired of reading it, so you will excuse me if I tell people to shut the hell up about all their "you can't turn UAC off" "it's slow with 4gb of ram and uses it all up" "no modern computer can run it" nonsense that gets spouted up and down the message boards by uninformed little pseudo techs that think they know something.


RE: I'd Say
By mongrelchild on 4/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'd Say
By JoshuaBuss on 4/20/2008 7:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shut up, stupid. Your condescending posts bring nothing to the table in terms of useful information.


hahahaha! Oh, the irony!


RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2008 1:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You want to talk about wasted space, maybe you should look in the mirror.


Okay that was just honestly uncalled for. And whatever credibility you think you have just gets thrown out the window when you think an argument about a piece of software justifies personal attacks.

I'm pretty much convinced your several times younger than me and don't have the maturity to face apposing arguments without lashing out like a child. This is Daily Tech, keep that stuff in your Yahoo chat rooms where it belongs.


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/19/2008 11:16:01 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't engage someone in a debate over whether water was made up of hydrogen and oxygen or not.

Therefore I wouldn't engage someone in an argument as to whether Vista has significant improvements over XP.

I would however tell the person that feels water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen to stfu and stop wasting my time.

Do you get the theme yet? if you plan to spout nonsense about clearly established facts that are available to anyone who isn't too lazy to go read them, then you are going to be called on it.


RE: I'd Say
By omnicronx on 4/19/2008 1:40:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Certainly, you never want to let five years go between releases.
I think you are missing the point, MS let people get too cozy with Windows XP.I am sorry to tell you but eventually to take advantage of new hardware we will have to change many of the components under the hood that you may not deem 'an important change'. I know many people consider the hardware they have now satisfactory, but our Windows experience could be much better, it is just going to take time to get there, and it is not going to happen instantly.


RE: I'd Say
By Chudilo on 4/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 8:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example you know how your PC virtually halts when you copy a 2gig+ file? (Doesn't happen in Linux). You know how your whole PC halts when something crashes (Not a problem with a good OS). You know how those fancy windows effects get sticky periodically while there is a lot of other stuff going on (feels like a slow frame rate in a game)It doesn't happen in Linux with BETTER and more advanced visual effects.


I have played with Linux and I have noticed this. Windows has some quirks and is a pretty poor memory manager. One of my biggest pet peeves is when you put in a CD or DVD and the whole OS grinds to a hault for 4-5 seconds while its reading the disk. Argh, why ? That does not happen in Linux.

I kinda agree with some of your points. But I just don't think its fair to directly compare Linux to Windows. But yes, Windows could do things A LOT better.


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/18/2008 8:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
My computer doesn't halt when I copy a large file, It most certainly doesn't halt when something crashes (yep you are thinking about XP there Vista does not halt when applications crash.) It doesn't halt when I put a CD in, and it most certainly never has window effects that get buggy or sticky.

I have however tried just about every release of Ubuntu that has come out along the way. It does indeed crash particularly when you are playing around with the extremely beta level so called "better" looking cheezy wiggly windows compiz effects.

Get a real computer, not a 6 year old p4 with 256 megs of ram first off. Don't base your definition of Windows on a spyware infested XP machine with 100 different applications running in the system tray like 99% of the average family's home PCs out in the wild today.

I run a e6600 core2 system with 4gb of ram and Vista ultimate 64, let me tell you everything runs smooth. Not just smooth but f-ing smooth. I multi task, play windowed games while burning DVD's and browsing web pages all while using the Aero interface to mouse over my other windows and live preview them seamlessly. It has been an excellent experience, one that truly has made me appreciate Vista and how well it really does work contrary to the complete BS stories floating around out there.

You can keep XP and you can keep Ubuntu too, Vista works perfectly and it's just the beginning. Bring on 8 and 12 core processors with 8 gigs of ram or more and the future is awesome to think about. You keep plunking away trying to glean some life out of that old heap with 512 megs of ram and feel good about using ubuntu and I'll be in my corner happily multitasking on my 8 core Nehalem rig with 8 gigs of ram next year at this time and loving every minute of it.


RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 9:38:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vista works perfectly and it's just the beginning.


Now I KNOW your drinking the Koolaid. Or sniffing glue. No OS works perfectly. None. Never have, and never will.


RE: I'd Say
By AssBall on 4/19/2008 12:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get a real computer, not a 6 year old p4 with 256 megs of ram first off. Don't base your definition of Windows on a spyware infested XP machine with 100 different applications running in the system tray like 99% of the average family's home PCs out in the wild today.

I run a e6600 core2 system with 4gb of ram and Vista ultimate 64, let me tell you everything runs smooth. Not just smooth but f-ing smooth. I multi task, play windowed games while burning DVD's and browsing web pages all while using the Aero interface to mouse over my other windows and live preview them seamlessly. It has been an excellent experience, one that truly has made me appreciate Vista and how well it really does work contrary to the complete BS stories floating around out there.



Unlike yourself, the the people using your "99% of average family PCs" are NOT going to justify A several hundred+ dollar Vista system upgrade so they can stroke their e-peen on DT and have an "excellent experience".


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/19/2008 2:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the thing you don't seem to get, that no one seems to get.

They don't have to upgrade.

Anyone that upgrades an older heap of a computer to try and run a modern OS is wasting their time and being an idiot. No one is asking anyone to buy ram, a video card, and stuff it in some aging p4 and pop a couple hundred bucks for Vista.

Vista is for people that are buying a new machine (and yes come june of this year you will be getting Vista with that new machine.)

No you do not have to even purchase an expensive machine for it to work just fine. You could put together a $500-$600 computer thats going to be just great running Vista, and the average non power user could enjoy that system for the next 3-5 years.

So explain to me why you think everyone is advocating joe user go out and spend $3-500 upgrading some flaming heap of a computer to Vista? Upgrading the OS has almost never made sense on an older computer. It didn't make sense with XP it doesn't with Vista.

Point of fact, grow up and stop reaching for ideas just to flame an OS. In the next two years after XP is no longer sold with new machines this June all you Vista whiners are going to look VERY silly.


RE: I'd Say
By AssBall on 4/19/2008 3:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
They'd have to purchase a machine for it to work fine, was my argument. "Average non power user" doesn't need new hardware , so Vista still isn't making sense for them. If you need a new system to play games, then your looking at a more expensive setup and a different story altogether. Justifying a $1000 gaming console that you have to upgrade every year is probably even tougher for the Average Joe, if even a PS3/XBOX.

quote:
several hundred+ dollar Vista system upgrade


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/19/2008 11:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Back and forth you go with the circular argument.

You do NOT need a 1000$ + computer to run Vista. And every Joe user that decides to get a new computer after June is getting Vista. People in that category barely know what an operating system is, they just buy a computer under one circumstance, usually their old one completely failing (and 99% of the time losing all their data in the process).

When every new PC sold is sold with Vista for the next 3-5 years till you *maybe* see the Windows 7 holy grail all the little Web Vista detractors are hoping for, the numbers will look quite different. And the people that talked nonsense will look stupid.

I for one am glad Microsoft is forcing the hardware envelope. It creates progress. Like those $20 2 gig ddr2 kits? I sure do. How about the fact you can go out and buy a sub $200 video card and actually play and enjoy 99% of the games on the market for a change. I like that too. The faster software pushes the hardware world along the better. It's called progress.


RE: I'd Say
By AssBall on 4/20/2008 3:03:22 AM , Rating: 1
So first you say people are not going to have to upgrade, and now you're saying everyone is going to upgrade in 3-5 years. But I have a circular argument...? I shall elaborate further then.

I understand your other points and I agree with them but not everyone is crazy about buying computer hardware all the time like you and me. I am having a geat experience with my 4GB Intel Vista Box too. However my parents use an old celeron with integrated graphics, 512MB and windows xp daily and are content. Not everyone with an older set up maintains it like shit and is clueless about how to fix it when they have something break.

And what about the other side of the world, where people also use computers but their countries GNP sucks... force them on Vista too? I doubt it....

Since I am not convinced that the average person can "get more work done" with faster hardware and newer software, I also would question wether pushing the envolope is "progress" when it costs consumers who get no value out of it. It's great from a technology standpoint but I wouldn't be so sure from a consumer standpoint. Hoping to see this trend level off a bit actually.

Lets say a car you get in the next 3-5 years is gonna have more safety features, more electronics, and a better ride. Thats not going to stop me from replacing my 10 year old one that gets to work fine.


RE: I'd Say
By SavagePotato on 4/21/2008 9:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
I said no one has to upgrade.

It is you that has it in their head that buying a new computer pre loaded with Vista is upgrading for Vista. Upgrading means going out and buying Vista upgrade and trying to put it on their existing machine. Try to have just a tiny bit of comprehension please.

It is natural for people to buy a new computer at some point, and those that do so after June will be getting Vista, they won't be paying any more than they did for their last XP computer, in fact probably less. Yes that's right you can get a $500 computer running 1 or 2 gb of ram using an IGP and Vista works just fine. It is just the hardcore detractors perpetuating a fallacy that you need a quad core with 4gb of ram to "run" an os.

The world of computers is not the world of cars, and thankfully. The faster it advances the better. The sooner they bring out insane high end parts the faster they drop in price, and the faster the middle range where most people, even enthusiasts purchase hardware at drops.

If you are content with the world of hardware moving slow I say get out of the way, and bring on the 12 core processors for the masses. It's good for computers, and best of all it's good for computer gaming. As the reasonably priced mainstream computers have better hardware gaming sees the most help. Tell me another time in the last 15 years you could have a $500 computer and throw a sub $200 graphics card in it and actually play most games.

The comparison to cars is just stupid. Cars cost $35000 computers start at $500. Even if you bought a little Sunfire at $15000 or whatever they cost it is a completely different situation. Are you really so hard done by that a $500 computer has to last 10 years? I am just finishing up payments on my vehicle which I doubt is going to be something I keep for 10 years even, so why would anyone keep a computer that long. I'll tell you why, they have the same mentality now as they did when computers were $4000 for a 386. Wake up times have changed.


RE: I'd Say
By mongrelchild on 4/19/2008 11:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
Get my X-fi working in linux and I will consider it. Get MP3s playing out of the box and I will consider it. make it so I never have to edit stupid xorg.conf again and I will consider it.

XP on a dual core screams.

You like linux, that's fine, but an OS is a personal choice. For me, NT4 on my ftp (pentium 200!!), 2000 on my file/media server and XP on my main machine works just fine.


RE: I'd Say
By Aloonatic on 4/21/2008 4:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
The reason why Vista doesn't look that different to XP is because Microsoft are waiting for another company to come up with a new idea that they can copy and then call their own.

I don't know why people on here get their knickers in a twist so easily about all this?

Personally, I just treat Vista as XP SP4, which you have to pay for, which to be honest, isn't really that unreasonable.

XP's been around for a long time and seeing as no software has any moving parts it will never "wear out" so if it works well (as I find that it does) you can't really expect MS to keep updating it for free?


RE: I'd Say
By 1078feba on 4/21/2008 10:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
Barvo.

I have a $400 copy of Vista Ultimate sitting at home on my desk's shelf, waiting for my next hardware upgrade. Unfortunately Vista doesn't play well with an nForce 4 board and Creative sound card. But when I did install it, both x64 and x86, for the short time I had them installed, I loved it. Vista seemed really robust. Fresh install time was approx 1/4 what it takes to install XP. Hard/software conflicts that would have crashed XP just made Vista hiccup, then spit out a quick pop-up letting me know what had happened and what caused it. UAC was easy to disable, and it seemed to me that the games I normally play didn't lose much, if any, speed.

I am very much looking forward to upgrading and finally getting a chance to tinker with it.


RE: I'd Say
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 8:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Frankly there is nothing in Vista that i have seen so far that is worth upgrading from XP


Ditto.


RE: I'd Say
By whynot on 4/23/2008 1:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
I have no idea why some posts get rated down. The level of fanboyism on tech sites is insane.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki