backtop

Software Windows XP Retirement Postponed, Again
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - December 22, 2008 1:09 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 83 comment(s) - last by Cypherdude1.. on Dec 29 at 9:39 AM

  (Source: XFuture Blog)
Microsoft again extends Windows XP retirement showing OEMs and consumers still not fond of Vista

Windows XP has been a huge hit in the netbook market. It's strange to see Microsoft's older operating system still being more popular with many users than its newer Vista OS. If Microsoft had its way, XP would have been retired long ago and all Windows-based notebooks and netbooks would be running Vista by now.

Despite what Microsoft wants to see computer maker's use, the software giant has offered Windows XP alongside Vista since the launch of its newest OS. The software company has announced the retirement date for the XP operating system in the past, which was to have been June of 2008.

So many consumers and computer makers wanted to continue using Windows XP in low cost netbook systems that Microsoft extended the June deadline for retirement. The final cut off date was set to be January 31, 2009 after postponing the June deadline earlier this year.

Microsoft has now announced yet another delay in retiring Windows XP from the market. BBC News reports that Microsoft has announced that it will continue to allow Windows XP to ship until May 30, 2009. The catch is that vendors have to submit their XP sales forecasts by January 31, 2009.

Microsoft will allow the vendors to take shipments of XP based on their sales forecast through May 30, 2008. Microsoft still says that the next operating system, Windows 7, won’t be offered until late 2009 or 2010.

Despite that claim, ASUS has stated that it expects to offer netbooks running Windows 7 by mid-2009. The new May retirement date would jibe well with ASUS' claims of Windows 7 netbook availability.

Again extending the retirement deadline for XP is a sign that consumers and OEMs are still resistant to Windows Vista. Much of the issue is with netbooks where the little machines aren’t large enough to offer hardware powerful enough to provide a robust Vista experience.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Vista SP2
By blppt on 12/22/2008 1:29:21 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I am finally pretty close to satisfied with Vista since installing the SP2 beta. Aero almost feels downright SNAPPY now, even this beta seems to be solid as a rock. Still eats up too much memory for my taste, but I guess with 8GB on x64, thats less of a concern for me than it would be for people with 2GB or so.




RE: Vista SP2
By Chadder007 on 12/22/2008 4:29:18 PM , Rating: 5
Its supposed to eat up memory for SuperFetch. It just loads programs into memory that are used frequently. It will instantly free up memory needed if you open another program that needs more.


RE: Vista SP2
By blppt on 12/22/2008 8:49:30 PM , Rating: 1
I disables ReadyBoost and Superfetch before I even installed SP1. Not a factor.


RE: Vista SP2
By 67STANG on 12/23/2008 1:34:52 AM , Rating: 5
Just change Vista's name to Mojave already...everyone seems to like that OS better. =)


RE: Vista SP2
By Bremen7000 on 12/28/2008 2:43:24 AM , Rating: 2
Moron. Enjoy your 8GB of free RAM.


RE: Vista SP2
By Omega215D on 12/23/2008 7:11:03 AM , Rating: 2
The same thing goes for my Apple MacBook. When I start it up there's a lot of RAM free. Over the course of the day opening and closing programs free RAM drops while most of it stays Active or Wired. And OSX seems much better after getting 2GB of RAM.

I believe Vista does the same with the RAM and releases it when a program calls for more memory. With 3GB of DDR RAM and a Socket 939 Opteron at 2.4GHz Vista is just as good as XP, not really sure if anything needs fixing. I enjoy how Vista resizes everything when the monitor resolution increases so there's no more tiny icons like with XP.


network
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/22/2008 11:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
all I know is throwing in a single Vista computer to an otherwise working Starcraft multiplayer setup screws everything up. I'm holding off on this one indefinitely




RE: network
By StevoLincolnite on 12/23/2008 1:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
I agree StarCraft was the turning point back to Windows XP for me as well.

However it wasn't Vista's fault per-say more along the lines of Intel and it's poor drivers, all my Blizzard games (Including WarCraft 3, Diablo 2 etc) would blue screen and crash the entire system with the latest drivers on my Intel x3100 IGP. - Some manufacturers need to pick up the ball with there drivers.


RE: network
By The0ne on 12/23/2008 3:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
And as such, that's why some (I think there's a lot more) users are going back to XP. The support in the driver arena is sourly lacking.


RE: network
By Omega215D on 12/23/2008 7:14:32 AM , Rating: 1
I find that using XP drivers allows some of my stuff to continue working under Vista. I even have a program bought back in the Win 98SE days that still works with Vista.

Only thing that wouldn't work was Nero 6 but that was Ahead Nero's fault by not patching it and forcing me to buy 8 or 9.


Incompatabilty
By Tombpsyco on 12/22/2008 3:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about most others here but I go by the saying, "If it ain't broke Don't Fix it." I have a coupla machines that can run Vista, but I already have XP Pro an Home on them. My Dad has Vista on his Laptop an it won't talk to the XP machines with out cutting to much security on all comps. So until they make Vista more compatible I see no need to upgrade or justify the expense.




RE: Incompatabilty
By kyleb2112 on 12/22/2008 10:54:29 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I just spent a couple frustrating hours trying to get my brother's Vista laptop to print over my XP-based wireless network. The "solution" is to ignore the Find New Printer dialog, set up the printer as "local" (though it's over wireless) and manually type in the network path to the server. In other words, the solution to such a basic task is beyond 99% of home users, and counterintuitive enough that experienced users have to look it up.

The debatable benefits of Vista are completely overshadowed by these every day hassles. Must be nice to have your product pre-installed on nearly all new computers rather than left to sink or swim on its own merits.


vista vs xp
By frozentundra123456 on 12/22/2008 8:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
I have no great problem with Vista,but I see no great advantage over XP. I like to play games, so DX10 should be the killer ap for Vista, right??
However, I have yet to find a game that will run acceptibly in DX10 mode on my comp with a mid-line core2 duo,3 gig of ram, and an ATI HD2600 pro video card. (I know the comp is lame, but times are tough). Even when I run in DX 10 mode, the visuals are only slightly better, but the framerate is awful.
I thought DX10 was supposed to be so much more efficient and give great visual quality. I am not sure Vista itself is too resource hungry, but DX10 sure seems to be.




RE: vista vs xp
By Alexvrb on 12/22/2008 9:50:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I thought DX10 was supposed to be so much more efficient and give great visual quality.

Wait, where did you read that a DX10 rendering path would be faster than DX9? Especially when they increase the eye candy through use of DX10 features. I need to find this person/site/publication and find out where they're getting their drugs. That must be some powerful stuff. Crack? Buffout? Superadine?

The 2600 Pro is a dog by today's standards. I'm not saying you should rush out and buy a new graphics card, not everybody has the cash to run the kind of hardware they want, this I understand so very much. But furthermore, even when it was new it was mid-grade, so its support of future DX10 titles was always a joke in my mind.

To be fair, this is typical of the very first mid or low-end cards to support a major new DirectX revision. When the first mid-grade DX11 cards come out, they may seem decent. But by the time games start coming out with DX11 rendering paths, will these same cards have the oomph to put out good framerates in DX11 mode, especially if the game has a DX10 path you can use instead?


RE: vista vs xp
By Quiescent on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
This thread seems incomplete
By amuryo on 12/23/2008 3:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
One microsoft's warrior has come out (mr omnicronx of course)
Now where is Tomz!

We need you!




RE: This thread seems incomplete
By Omega215D on 12/23/2008 7:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
Spivonious is posting so that makes 2 Windows Warriors. I myself have no preference because OSX, Vista, XP and Ubuntu are in use in my systems.

I also still fire up an old HP Pavilion running Windows 98 SE from time to time. I'm afraid to go into the basement to bring up the Commodore and an old Mac.


By crystal clear on 12/22/2008 2:37:45 PM , Rating: 3
MS has no choice but to continue selling WinXP as there is a huge demand & potential for netbook sales with WinXP inside.

Reading this report will give you an idea about its growth & future growth potentials.

AUSTIN, TEXAS, December 8, 2008—Despite what is looking to be a rather dismal fourth quarter for the PC industry as a whole, one very bright spot has emerged. The mini-note PC, also called netbook, category grew at more than 160% Q/Q in Q3’08 as most of the top tier PC brands have now entered the market. Asus, which had essentially created the market in late 2007, lost significant share as Acer surged to the top spot, capturing more than 35% of this market.

http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displays...




The last line of MS defense...
By Yaron on 12/22/2008 2:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
I have Vista 64bit installed on several Quad PCs in the office.
All those PCs have new Video cards (4850, 9800GTX+, 8800 and 260).

They run fine. No major issues. But Vista is somewhat heavy on the hardware and the interface is sometimes weird.

I am looking forward to Win7 and Snow Leopard. 2009 should be an interesting year for these two OSs.
If they get the interface on 7 right and it will be stable, snappy and with no major issues it will be a great win (for MS and all of us PC users). If they don't, it is the beginning of the end for MS. The pressure on Apple to release Mac OS X to the rest of the market will be huge and with Steve'o retiring in the next two years or so (it looks like it), I am not sure Apple will be able to stand the pressure.

Oh, well... wishful thinking ;)




By ggordonliddy on 12/22/2008 8:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
> Despite what Microsoft wants to see computer maker's use

Shane , do you really not know that there is no apostrophe in the plural word "makers"?

Why the hell do so many people think that you stick an apostrophe in every plural word?




You Know It's Funny...
By Quiescent on 12/22/2008 10:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone is commenting on the article, but not that creepy Mr. Beans dude peaking at us! HE IS SO CREEEPY!




I have XP.
By amanojaku on 12/22/2008 1:36:29 PM , Rating: 1
My girlfriend has Vista. I see no difference, really. Support 'em both until Windows 7, then phase out XP and finally Vista support. Operating systems are getting to the point that the architectural differences are transparent to most of us, so as long as the OS is stable, fast and secure few of us are going to be able to make a decision on anything other than looks.




"MS completely rewrote ..."
By DatabaseMX on 12/22/2008 4:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
"MS completely rewrote the networking stack, the sound stack, created a new hardware-based graphics API (WPF), locked down the kernel, added promotable admin rights, put IE in its own sandbox, redid the way memory is managed, added IO priorities, seriously improved wake-from-sleep time, etc."

Ahhh ... so what? Was that necessary?




ms should
By rudolphna on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: ms should
By DASQ on 12/22/2008 1:23:18 PM , Rating: 3
Well the idea of 7 is that it will entirely replace both Vista and XP in terms of speed and features, so XP will be nothing more than legacy software.

I personally don't see that happening. Even OSX gets heftier and more hardware intensive with each revision.


RE: ms should
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/22/2008 1:27:44 PM , Rating: 3
I have nothing against Vista either -- on the right hardware.

On a whim, I installed Vista on my MSI Wind last week to see how it would run. It was gawd awful. Everything was so slow. It took longer to boot, applications opened slower, and navigating the OS was unbearable -- and this was with an upgrade to 2GB of memory and a 7200 RPM HDD installed. No wonder netbook manufacturers won't touch Vista.

I put up with it for about three days before going back to XP Home.

Sweet relief :)


RE: ms should
By deeznuts on 12/22/2008 1:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
I have what I would consider "right hardware" and vista still doesn't run like I would like. QX9700, 4GB ram etc. Yeah it runs fine, but the damn thing was so quirky I put XP back on it, now it runs like a freaking dream relatively.

Someone tell me what I'm doing wrong when I unzip using Vista, it takes forever. But with the same file and Winrar, its done before I can blink?

I thought Vista would mature. Just like when XP came out some of us resisted and stayed with Win2k but then XP grew on us. I don't see the same happening with Vista, and I wanted to like Vista. Hell I got it for free. But it just never ran right ...


RE: ms should
By AnnihilatorX on 12/22/2008 1:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's something to do with Vista IO handling, I thought that's fixed with Vista SP1


RE: ms should
By othercents on 12/22/2008 2:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
I run 8gigs of RAM in my desktop which is the only configuration I have found to run well for me. There is occasional glitches which a reboot fixes. However my laptop with 4gigs of RAM is still running XP because the machine just likes it better.

Other


RE: ms should
By omnicronx on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: ms should
By BillyAZ1983 on 12/22/2008 5:47:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Windows 7 will be the mature version of Vista, which is the reason why many people equate 7 to being Vista SP2. For reference, Windows 7 is slated for release 3 years after Vista, SP2 for Windows XP was released in 2004, or 3.5 years after the release of XP.


True, but upgrading to SP2 (or 3 for that matter) in XP didn't cost me the full price of the O/S.


RE: ms should
By deeznuts on 12/22/2008 8:05:53 PM , Rating: 3
It may be a waste of money (don't cry for me, I got the chip insanely cheap) well not really. I didn't spend much on the machine at all. Its an IP-35E Abit, which of course is no longer going to be supported, by that's beside the point.

Vista just didn't do it for me, and I had it for free, as I stated. Not pirated, but through work. What wall are you referring to? What can I do on Vista, I cannot do on XP? You said non-gaming performane, so spill it.

I like how people rated me down for telling the truth. I don't care about ratings, so no feelings hurt, I just find it insanely funny. I will be checking out 7 when it comes, but for now, Vista doesn't cut the mustard. I have a XPS 1330 though, and it still has Vista on it. I deal with it, but it's still not what I prefer. And I'm not the only one.


RE: ms should
By Quiescent on 12/22/2008 10:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I agree with you. However, I use XP 64bit, which generally handles memory usage better and supports more RAM. I use Fruity Loops Studio and 3rd party VSTi plugins, and I can say that the performance between both XP and XP 64bit are significant, but I tend to have a keen eye on even the most subtle amounts of performance differences. Many people still think XP 64bit is trash, but again, I know it's not. I have it on my computer, my father's business computer, and my boyfriend also uses it and puts it on computers he sells to others.

However, the big problem that I see with Windows is OEM Windows. I DESPISE ANY OEM Windows install. I have seen some REALLY FREAKIN' weird problems that occur on every kind of OEM install you can think of. With just a regular install there are no real problems. The stability is there, unlike in an OEM install. So we must take this into account as well. Because OEM installs tend to be a little messed up.


RE: ms should
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 2:56:27 PM , Rating: 1
Were you trying to run Aero? I have a dual core Atom PC, but with a ati HD2400 videocard. If I just use the integrated graphics its unusable with Aero, but with the videocard it runs great, I really cannot tell the difference in terms of performance between XP and Vista (I turn off superfetch and indexing because I only have 1 gig of ram).

I do agree with you though, at the moment with the feeble integrated video that come with all netbooks, its just not possible to have a good Vista experience while using Aero. I know you can disable it, but when XP looks better than Vista, it kind of makes it pointless.


RE: ms should
By noirsoft on 12/22/2008 6:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Conversely, I installed Vista Home Premium on my AspireONE, and it ran just as well as it did with XP. This has the stock HD and an upgrade to only 1.5 GB RAM. An upgrade of the Intel video driver and Aero even runs. The only downside is shorter battery life, but I'm plugged in 99% of the time. I wonder how much is a difference in the hardware between the MSI and the ASUS, and how much is user perception of "slowness"?


RE: ms should
By nah on 12/22/2008 1:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they should have both XP AND Vista


sensibly said..


RE: ms should
By Screwballl on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: ms should
By DASQ on 12/22/2008 1:40:35 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds like you have many issues that really aren't just "Vista crap, XP good". If you NEED the newer C2D's or a quad core to run Vista "right", you're doing something very wrong.

"Major software issues" also sounds ridiculously ambiguous.


RE: ms should
By retrospooty on 12/22/2008 2:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
I agree its not the 65nm C2D's fault, it is likely some other hardware/driver related issue on the PC's in question.

Vista is OK, but there are still alot of problems with it. It runs fantastic on some PC's and buggy as hell on others. Just because it works great for you (and me too), doesn't mean that it works great fot everyone, and its NOT all user error.


RE: ms should
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 3:20:14 PM , Rating: 4
Vista should run perfectly on a new PC with drivers designed for Vista.

I've fixed plenty of bad Vista installs, and 90% of the time the problem lies with pre Vista hardware or user error.(whether that be not updating to the latest service pack, not getting recent video drivers etc etc..)

Its not all user error, but most of the time it is. Although I am not surprised, I went through the same troubles when upgrading my friends to XP.


RE: ms should
By AnnihilatorX on 12/22/2008 2:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Vista doesn't need fast CPU. What it needs is at least 2GB RAM, and a capable graphic card, or alternatively turn off Aero.

It actually runs faster on my PC than using XP on the same PC. I have 4GB of RAM. The way vista caches programs makes frequently used program launches quicker than XP. But it only works if you have much RAM.

There are only 4 things which drawn me into Vista rather than XP. I'd like to add DX10 but I don't see the benefit yet:

- Quick start menu program launch by pseudo match of what you typed
- Renaming files with known file type extension unhidden automatically excludes the extension part
- Much better 64 bit support
- Good memory management

Yes some of the UI bit quite minor. But once you get used to it however small it is hard to go back.

I still would like to see much better media files integration. It sucks for handling anything other than wma and mp3. It doesn't read tags in flac for example and there's no easy way to enhance support, like you can easily add support like thumbnail previews for video files.


RE: ms should
By Mitch101 on 12/22/2008 2:24:16 PM , Rating: 1
Mostly the same here for me.

I am not sure what people are doing with Vista to have so many problems with it. Im baffled. Even the other people I know running Vista don't have issues with it either.

I Run Vista 64 Ultimate and have 6 VM's Running both from VPC and VirtualBox (Ubuntu and Debian) on my Vista Box and performance is still excellent even with them running. I run an Intel Core 2 just download the AMD64 version of VirtualBox and it works.

I have not had a single game not play in Vista even older ones don't have any issue with Vista and this is Vista 64 running 32bit games.

Most of my applications definitely load faster because they are pre-loaded.

In Vista I can have many more IE/Firefox tabs open than I could in XP.

Fro video codecs I use the AceMega Codec pack and use the Windows Classic video player or I run VLC. These are all 32bit codecs running on Vista 64 without an issue.

No one should be complaining about UAC because you can turn it off.

The only problem I had with Vista is that it didnt have drivers for some of my hardware. Specifically my Scanner and video capture card. Both of which I actually can use inside a VM/VPC of Windows XP. The scanner is from the day XP was released and the video capture never really had good driver support to begin with.

There isn't anything I could do in XP that I cannot do in Vista. Sorry I am confused to what the problem is other than a little learning curve.


RE: ms should
By Pirks on 12/22/2008 2:39:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I have not had a single game not play in Vista even older ones don't have any issue with Vista and this is Vista 64 running 32bit games.
Try Manhunt and see your rosy glasses somewhat shattered then :P


RE: ms should
By Mitch101 on 12/22/2008 2:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
Download the no cd patch.

Its one of those annoying games that wants the CD in order to play. I would say that's an issue with the developer doing this not the OS.


RE: ms should
By Pirks on 12/22/2008 3:03:00 PM , Rating: 3
No cd patch doesn't help. Try again ;-)


RE: ms should
By Mitch101 on 12/22/2008 3:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Worked for me.


RE: ms should
By Mitch101 on 12/22/2008 3:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like some people had to do a Hex Edit.

As a vista user with no experience in hex editing I thought i'd give this a go but not get my hopes up. Surprisingly enough I actually got this to work.
Firstly I downloaded XVI32, a free hex editor. Its small and fairly well lay out.
Once I had downloaded that all I had to do was unzip it and it was ready to go.
Next I moved the manhunt.exe file I was trying to modify into the same folder the editor was in so I could modify it properly.
Then I opened the file and a whole bunch of numbers came up where there were blank boxes before and after a bit of research I found out what they represented and stuff.
Then I went to the address tab at the top and clicked "goto" (alternately press ctrl+g).
Then I selected the hexadecimal option and left "go mode" as absolute.
Then, in the box underneath hexadecimal I typed 08DE.
This took me to a box containing 6A (sounding familiar)
From there I just typed in 2A, saved the file and exited the editor.
Then I moved the file back to the game directory and it worked!


RE: ms should
By Pirks on 12/22/2008 3:20:47 PM , Rating: 1
See, some people just had their rosy glasses shattered like I said above ;-) That's not to mention that you forgot to turn off NX bit in Vista kernel. You must have had it disabled before.


RE: ms should
By anotherdude on 12/22/2008 3:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
I play a bunch of games on Vista, it works like new money as a gaming platform.


RE: ms should
By anotherdude on 12/22/2008 3:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
Previous post didn't take my changed title 'ok, my manhunt colored glasses are shattered'.


RE: ms should
By omnicronx on 12/22/2008 3:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the game just has a Windows version check. Thats shoddy coding, not the fault of Vista. How you can code something without the thought that perhaps there could be another version of Windows is beyond me.


RE: ms should
By Pirks on 12/22/2008 4:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds like the game just has a Windows version check
Windows version check that requires NX bit to be turned off? Are you trying to make a lame joke or what?


RE: ms should
By anotherdude on 12/22/2008 6:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well fixing it couldn't be that hard to do now could it? Considering pretty much every other game works. Hard to see how you can blame Vista for this insignificant anomaly.


RE: ms should
By amuryo on 12/23/2008 3:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well fixing it couldn't be that hard to do now could it?


Finding no cd crack..., turning NX bit off, Some hex editing for some people

No sir, of course it's not hard for you to do (or for average DT user maybe), but unless the people is quite know what they doing, I bet average joe that play this game doesn't even know what's the meaning of hex editing, nevertheless doing it.


RE: ms should
By anotherdude on 12/23/2008 6:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
You missed my point. The fix for the user is too complicated but it should be an easy patch for the maker of the game. If other games work fine why not this one, what is so different?

It's an anomaly. A bummer for Manhunt players for sure but beyond that I hardly see this as a significant drawback for Vista.


RE: ms should
By The0ne on 12/23/2008 3:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
1. you can run more VM because you have more memory with Vista64. I run Unbuntu, Fedora10, Vista Ultimate 64 on XP and they're not slow. They may be better with more memory of course, but that's a xp limitation. Therefore, I think comparison wise, it's not really a good way of doing it.

2. You don't have all games and the same configuration as all users out there. I wouldn't mind using Vista but the only game I play, FFXI, crawls when I have 3+ windows open. I can open 4+ in XP with no performance hit, kinda like what you see in your VM's.

3. How many tabs are you talking about here? 100? And you can open this much because you have how much memory now? Lower it to the same level and make another comparison?

4. UAC is simple that you can turn it off. Correct. What you fail to mention is that most users won't be able to find it to turn it off in the first place. That and knowing that Vista sets your performance to save battery.

5. "There isn't anything I could do in XP that I cannot do in Vista." And vice versa, hence the hesitation with so many users.

So except for more memory to aid in some of your VM's and firefox tabs, I really don't see a compelling reason for anyone reading your post to discredit either XP or Vista.


RE: ms should
By Cypherdude1 on 12/29/2008 9:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
To anyone who might read the comment posted by Mitch101 , do not use the Ace Mega codec pack. The last version was 6.03 and it hasn't been updated in over 3 years. No further development is being done on the Ace Mega codec pack. It also seems to cause problems with Adobe Premiere:
http://www.moviecodec.com/topics/6413p1.html

If you need a codec pack, try using the K-Lite Codec Pack instead. They seem to update this pack once a month:
http://www.codecguide.com/

quote:
Fro video codecs I use the AceMega Codec pack


RE: ms should
By Pirks on 12/22/2008 2:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It sucks for handling anything other than wma and mp3. It doesn't read tags in flac for example and there's no easy way to enhance support, like you can easily add support like thumbnail previews for video files.
You should also add braindead implementation of the media library sharing in Vista's WMP to your list of Vista's problems.

Once you got at least one public network on your PC - that's it, moronic WMP sharing service tells you to buzz off 'cause there is a public network present, OMG it tells me, I can't share your library to your private home networks, 'cause there's this public network here and it scares sh#it outta meeee mamaaa boohooo...

The Redmond f#ck who designed this "feature" should be fired from MS and sent to work for Apple.

It's the morons like this MS "feature designer" who are responsible for people switching to Macs. No stupid lying El Jobso ads would achieve this, if Redmond morons were not "helping".


RE: ms should
By Davelo on 12/22/2008 9:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's it. Vista only makes sense if running the 64 bit version. That way you can feed it all the ram it needs.


RE: ms should
By teflonbilly on 12/23/2008 2:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
With the price of ram now who cares?

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82...

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82...

8 gigs for less than $100 cdn. Can anybody complain about needing more memory right now and be taken seriously?


RE: ms should
By Screwballl on 12/22/2008 8:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds like you have many issues that really aren't just "Vista crap, XP good". If you NEED the newer C2D's or a quad core to run Vista "right", you're doing something very wrong. "Major software issues" also sounds ridiculously ambiguous.


How about "Windows reliant services failing to start after 3 months..." is that a little less ambiguous?
These events have all happened on hundreds of machines both before and after SP1, these are only a few recent examples:
Event Manager failed to start.
All ports except 80 locked down.
Windows Update unable to connect on a persistent always-on internet connection.
Unable to install or run 32-bit software on a 64-bit Vista installation.
Networking reset every 30-60 seconds regardless of type of connection (tested with both dialup and LAN connections).
Vista using its own PnP settings to kill routers (did this with Linksys, Netgear, Belkin, and Cicso routers. Luckily a firmware flash using tftp tools got them working properly, only to have Vista kill them again).
Refusal to allow ANY antivirus program to install (Norton, AVG, Avira, NOD32, even Microsoft OneCare) yet when hard drive was removed, it came up clean in a batch anti-virus test using 20 different scanning engines.
Logon.dll is corrupted.
BCD boot record modified, please reboot (Vista based rescue attempts failed, would not allow any Microsoft OS to boot or install from CD/DVD, only got it back by using Ubuntu then reinstalling Vista).

and more... there are just off the top of my head.

All of these problems happening in less than 6 months of being installed. Yet home and office systems running XP SP2 and SP3 have been running for 6 months to 6 years without a single problem relating to OS issues. XP was NEVER this bad even when it was first released, the only issue it had was DOS/FAT32/FAT16 reliant software not working properly for the first few months.

Is that less ambiguous for you? I did not feel like typing out all this crap just to make a few "Vista good/XP mediocre" nazi types happy.


RE: ms should
By DASQ on 12/23/2008 10:41:35 AM , Rating: 2
Vista kills routers? You're telling me Vista somehow damages the firmware of routers? You don't think this would be some kind of major issue with, well, you know, every single user? Or maybe it really is just you.

Windows Update also fails (every now and then...) in every Windows version, not just XP. It has never been perfect. Ironically, many of those problems happen in XP as well. I haven't had logon.dll problems since the early days of XP SP2, but I had it many times nonetheless.


RE: ms should
By mmntech on 12/22/2008 2:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
I have Vista Home Premium 64-bit running on my Macbook (Late 2008). It runs fine as far as I can tell but I have to say that after using it on my own system, it met a lot of my expectations, not in a good way. It also gives me a chance to contrast it with OS X. The computer runs hotter and uses more RAM and CPU cycles when using Vista. I turned most of the visual effects off to free up some memory and speed. Battery time is also less under Vista. That said, I haven't seen much of a difference in the software I run on it. There's really not a heck of a lot of difference between Vista and XP when it comes to functionality. Aeroglass is pretty much useless. After using both OS X and Ubuntu for a while now, Microsoft's operating systems just feel horribly antiquated. It's just not worth upgrading to Vista if you haven't already because it just doesn't offer anything useful that XP doesn't have other than DX10 and slightly enhanced built-in security.


RE: ms should
By Spivonious on 12/22/2008 2:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Those stats are not applicable. That's simply the OS of users visting w3schools.com, not total marketshare.


RE: ms should
By Screwballl on 12/22/2008 8:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong... you need to think before inserting foot into your mouth...

Who do you think reports to w3schools?

They have this line on their page:

"(The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures)."

If the numbers are too far off then they find out why the numbers are off theirs slightly, to closer match the usage with other places. So this is not just a few thousand people visiting one website.

The numbers reported correspond to others sources very closely.

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php - 72.91%

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2008/November/os.p... - 74% (rounded)

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-m... - 75.1%

Daily Browser stats:

http://www.webreference.com/stats/browser.html

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

Some show as low as 72% others show over 75% so the numbers are pretty much within a +/-2%.

My point was that XP is holding on for a reason, because Vista does not work properly and people do not like it.


RE: ms should
By Azsen on 12/22/2008 2:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well I would disagree with that statement. There's no way you need quad core and 4GB+ of memory to run Vista nicely.

I run Vista Ultimate SP1 on a two year old Core Duo 1.66Ghz notebook with 1.5GB of RAM and a Mobility Radeon X1600 (128MB RAM). It runs fine, not too much difference from XP and better looking. I can play Half Life 2 on it at the same resolution & details as XP. I can even play Crysis on it at 1024x768!


RE: ms should
By ummduh on 12/22/2008 3:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
My issue with Vista was how hard it was on my hardware. Just doing basic system-level type stuff (moving files, opening new explorer windows, etc..) was enough that my system fans came on a LOT. With XP they don't come on unless I'm actually doing something worthwhile.

It ran fine, physically, but I didn't like the beating it gave my comp for no real reason. E2180@ 3.0GHz.


RE: ms should
By zerocool84 on 12/22/2008 6:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think most of the problems with Vista is PEBKAC. Before I installed Vista64 I made sure everything in my system had Vista64 drivers before I installed it. I had to buy a new wireless network adapter cus my old one didn't have drivers for it. That was it. Vista64 SP1 has been nothing but good times for me. The security pop-ups are a little annoying sometimes but it's for security so I let that pass. Everyday apps run faster and I haven't noticed any performance difference in games from XP -> Vista64.


RE: ms should
By The0ne on 12/23/2008 3:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
I highly doubt your claim. Please post some FPS benchmark so we can see what you think is good enough for you. My old laptop at work is a dell 350M and it doesn't play most games well at all, low FPS. My newest laptop, vostro 17" with 8400M doesn't either, and that's with tweaked video drivers.


RE: ms should
By walk2k on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: ms should
By Spivonious on 12/22/2008 2:15:58 PM , Rating: 5
WTF?

MS completely rewrote the networking stack, the sound stack, created a new hardware-based graphics API (WPF), locked down the kernel, added promotable admin rights, put IE in its own sandbox, redid the way memory is managed, added IO priorities, seriously improved wake-from-sleep time, etc.

This is all in Vista. If anything, Windows 7 is Vista with a fresh coat of paint.


RE: ms should
By grampaw on 12/22/2008 2:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft just doesn't get it. Current sales figures show that the trend is toward Netbooks - small, reasonably priced portables with simple OS, primarily to access the internet. MS seems to still think people want expensive supercomputers in a laptop with all software on board. XP has a brighter future than Vista, and who knows about that vapor-ware Windows 7 (i.e. what is it? how will it work? when will it come out?) Doesn't MS have any marketing people tuned into reality??


RE: ms should
By Spivonious on 12/22/2008 2:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 is vaporware??? The Beta is rumored to be coming out next month. MS continues to say late 2009, but everyone in the industry is predicting April. Judging by the stability of the alpha builds released so far, I can believe it.


RE: ms should
By mmatis on 12/22/2008 9:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
You should understand by now that for Microsoft, "Release" is Alpha, "SP1" is Beta, and "SP2" is true Release.

Sane people don't touch anything from Micro$oft before SP2.


RE: ms should
By anotherdude on 12/22/2008 3:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
netbooks are hot ATM because people already own desktops and laptops, no way the netbook is replacing them any time soon, if ever, it's just another niche.

Anyway 7 IS coming soon and works fine on netbooks and will be finer still as netbook hardware just gets better and better in no time flat - 7 is the one OS which will rule them all and finally kill XP and fine tune Vista to where it should be.


RE: ms should
By rudolphna on 12/22/2008 6:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention because netbooks are dirt cheap compared to standard desktops and laptops, which I think is the real reason they are so popular.


RE: ms should
By Cypherdude1 on 12/29/2008 9:39:32 AM , Rating: 1
I agree. Why can't Microsoft sell BOTH XP AND Vista? Why should Microsoft care which O/S people buy as long as it still is Windows? The only thing Microsoft is doing is angering their customer base.

BTW, I don't know why people voted your post down. This must be mob mentality gone awry.

quote:
if Microsoft wanted to gain some brownie points, they should have both XP AND Vista


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki