backtop


Print 136 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on May 13 at 7:04 AM

After being missing for a week, the service packs are back and ready to upgrade your OS (if you use Windows, that is)

While XP may be nearing its end of life, it still enjoys a large user base and remains a strong seller.  Thus many customers were thrilled when XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) came out, offering a wide variety of improvements. 

Unfortunately it had a compatibility issue with Microsoft Dynamic RMS -- a program for small to medium businesses -- which caused Microsoft to decide to pull the pack, leaving users in the dark.  A similar problem was found in Vista SP1, and while Microsoft did not pull Vista SP1, it halted its automatic distribution.

Well happy days are ahead, as both Vista SP1 and XP SP3 are back in action.  The packs went live on Tuesday.  The XP SP3 is available here.  Microsoft solved the MSD RMS issue with a hotfix, which can be had here.  Microsoft suggests you install this hotfix before installing XP SP3 to avoid issues.

The third service pack weighs in at 316 MB, for those interested.  Over 1,100 hotfixes/patches are included in the pack.  Also included are new features, among which are the handy Network Access Protection and Black Hole Router Detection.

Most will agree that while the delay of XP SP3 might be slightly embarrassing for Microsoft, the company did a remarkably good job of fixing the problem quickly and getting the packs back online.  The whole process only took a week, lying to rest customer fears caused by Microsoft failing to disclose when the packs would be available again.

Windows Update is also back to automatically distributing the pack once again.  Users who disabled the feature can re-enable it to get the pack automatically without any effort.

Microsoft recently announced that it will likely plan to stick to its June 30th end of life date for XP.  However, many manufacturers will continue to support it after the date.  The new XP SP3 provides one more compelling reason for users to enjoy this mature operating system, which has been fine tuned over the course of three major service packs. 

Some users have expressed that they plan on using XP until Windows 7 comes out in 2010.  While this approach certainly isn't for everyone, those users and the many IT users who deploy XP will be pleased that the service pack is once again available.



Comments     Threshold


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

By DEVGRU on 5/7/2008 11:03:02 AM , Rating: 4
Ok, I'm not a business major. Hell, I never even finished college. I work in IT!

I understand that Microsoft wants people to move to Vista. I get that. But even my basic, rudimentary knowledge of the business world tells me that if your company makes a product that millions of people around the world still want, YOU SHOULD KEEP SELLING IT .

I mean we all know how much Microsoft apparently hates making money. If I was a shareholder, I'd be pissed!




By Motoman on 5/7/2008 11:07:46 AM , Rating: 5
The problem, mein freund, is that keeping XP on the shelves and selling it alongside (i.e. instead of, effectively) Vista is tantamount to admitting that Vista is teh suck.

The company line is that Vista is The Way(tm) and therefore is infinitely better than all previous OSs, such as, say, XP. Any deviation from that would be admitting that they are wrong...that Vista is not The Way(tm) and that the Great Vole of Redmond(c) has erred mightily.

Not something that Sir Bill "Pearly" Gates wants to do.


By mmntech on 5/7/2008 11:19:38 AM , Rating: 2
That's probably true. Vista has not been performing as well as Microsoft thought it would. I'm sure you'll get some idiot fanboy on here saying Vista's bad perception is caused by people spreading "FUD" (I hate that word). Microsoft did spend a lot on R&D for it which is why they obviously want to push it. Still, it's foolish to stop selling XP. There is still a huge market for it for low power applications such as the Eee PC and for legacy systems. If they don't fill that void, somebody will, ie Ubuntu.

I'm personally waiting for Windows 7. It seems like it's going to be more streamlined and I hear they're going back to just two versions of the OS. I can wait a year or two.


By imperator3733 on 5/7/2008 1:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is going to still sell XP Home for low cost laptops like the Eee. The only difference is XP will ONLY be made available to those manufacturers, and not to consumers and other system builders.

Where did you hear that Windows 7 is going to be just two versions? I hadn't heard that.


By Mitch101 on 5/7/2008 1:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
I thought about waiting for the next version of Windows too however since Service Pack 1 for Vista and turning off UAC Its really grown on me. There are a lot of things I can do in Vista now that would cause XP to choke. For the record I use Vista Ultimate 64bit edition.

There is the occasional quick freeze on an application that recovers with a little patience but its just that Vista acts different than if the application were not generating any CPU cycles on XP. XP I would get a blank Window but in Vista you get a greyed out screen. At first I thought Vista was the problem but really its just that Vista acts different than XP when an application is not responding but it always comes back. Its a lot quicker to say application not responding but its comes back.

Sure its a little learning curve but a quick google search and you can find where that feature is now located or how to get to device manager.

The only issue I had is I got a new USB device and used Vista to convert fat to ntfs it performance was pretty poor till I scandisked and defragged on a XP machine and now the USB device runs great. Could be the lack of a USB driver for my Mobo?

My mobo is very new and although my USB ports work there is no USB driver from the manufacturer for my mobo yet. This is Gigabytes fault but the USB ports work so I am not sure what to make of this.

Bottom line Vista is stable for me at least as stable as XP and in some cases better than XP and I havent had a blue screen in some 6 years? Not since Windows 2000.

Oh yea I too wish there were drivers for my 6 year old scanner and 2 year old video capture card but really its time I upgraded them to something newer anyway. They were cheapies or one could say the manufacturer is to blame because they hope I buy a newer capture card or scanner from them.

Vista is not Windows ME. While I agree It was pretty useless before SP1 but now its pretty darn good.

I will let my next video card solve any DX9 vs DX10 gaming performance differences between XP and Vista. After all DX10 has a huge video jump potential and I'm looking toward the future. My Radeon 3870 card is doing quite well and if those lazy developers threw in a few lines of DX10.1 like Assassins Creed did then the issue would be pretty moot.

Goodbye XP you served me well. Yes I said it and I was a die hard XP guy.


By sprockkets on 5/7/2008 3:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, a grey screen. Compiz on Linux does that as well.

I am also going to use Vista now, now that SP1 is out, and turning off superfetch kills a lot of the endless HDD activity, and its mantra of wasting time to save time.

But, those gelatin wobbly windows on compiz and other stuff on compiz-fusion put aeroglass to shame. It's like they came up with only 3 different effects on Vista and stopped (minimize/restore, open/close, flip 3D).

I still need XP though. For whatever reason, I try, even with admin rights, to install the same lame codec from the very old divx3 package, the only one that works for me for Leadtek's winfast PVR, and Vista never registers it, even though it said it did (Microsoft is still castrating the directshow mp3 codec by only allowing poor bitrates and sampling rates to record with. Whenever I install the divx3 program, it always says "The file you are wanting to install already exists. Overwrite the newer file?". When the old version gets put back in, all the usual and correct mp3 bitrates are there). The older version of their PVR software also has better tv quality, than the new aeroglass compatible version.


By Pirks on 5/7/2008 4:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
turning off UAC
Why would you turn it off? Did you reconfigure your system/devices/etc several times a day? What kind of admin activities did you do so often that you had to turn off UAC?

I found myself not seeing any UAC propmpts for weeks (after some initial activity when I was tweaking my freshly installed Ulti x64), so I wonder what are you guys doing that UAC is always keeping you twitchy?


By Mitch101 on 5/7/2008 4:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Pirks,

I will turn it back on but right now I have the original drive from my XP build in a USB enclosure and every time I deleted a directory it was prompting me with UAC popups.


By del on 5/11/2008 11:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't understand why so many power users want to disable UAC. I actually like UAC, and I am a power user. I hardly ever see any UAC prompts. Here's hoping UAC is in Windows 7.


By Mojo the Monkey on 5/7/2008 3:25:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm personally waiting for Windows 7. It seems like it's going to be more streamlined and I hear they're going back to just two versions of the OS. I can wait a year or two.


yeah, we heard about release dates before Vista too. Do you honestly think MS isnt going to do what they ALWAYS do and push back the release date 6 months at a time for 3-4 cycles before releasing? I just think its ridiculous to think a company with their record is going to be on time -this time- because they say so.


By Ananke on 5/7/2008 12:42:15 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft has let's say 90% of the OS market. A market which doesn't indefinitely rise, and as a monopoly their market share stop rising either / you cannot go further that 100% of market share/. From a business point is important the dynamic of revenues, not the size itself. So, they periodically must artificially create growth in market share, i.e. older users upgrade or buy new product. Otherwise the stock price goes down, which is the important thing for investors.
The same happens at present with Apple IPod business. In mp3 player market they become sort of monopoly, so their market share doesn't accelerate expansion, i.e. even if it growths, it growth is deaccelerated. Apple choose to conquer new markets, something that MS pursues, but given the size of the OS business for MS, it is more logical to push towards customers towards OS upgrades, than creating new markets /aka Mobile, Int Addvertisement and so on/.
That was my business point. I hope you understood why companies, even monopolies, need new sales. Another smart move would be to lease software to all customers for a limited time, for example five years. I guess they thought about this and their models show it may prompt customer shift to open source. Although, the new trend of "Live" set by Google business app is exactly this - "pay on demand" which proove to be always more costly than buying "a pack" in the long run. Same as pay per view TV, or pay per song model. This are all recent very profitable business models.


By Motoman on 5/7/2008 1:00:00 PM , Rating: 1
...I know why M$ puts out a new OS and then discontinues the old on. The issue on this particular one is that Vista is a poor product...and there's not really anything wrong with XP. This is categorically NOT like any previous new-Windows relase...it bears no resemblance to the release of Win2K over Win98/Me, and it bears no resemblance to the release of XP over Win2k. There were compelling reasons to buy the new OS in those instances, and the new OS was demonstrably better than the old.

In this case, Vista is not as good a product as the one it is replacing. At the very least, there is no real added value in doing so - XP works great (or at the very least, as well as Vista) and Vista provides no compelling reasons to move from XP.

So what M$ is doing is shooting itself in the foot with this one...there are consumers who will simply NOT BUY a new PC/OS because they DON'T WANT Vista. That's lost revenue, pure and simple. There are also consumers who will by a Mac instead (shudder)...which is worse than lost revenue, because not only did M$ lose that sale, but they wound up driving more revenue for a competitor.

Linux is *still* not a viable option for 99% of the world, so don't bother.

Windows is, essentially, a monopoly (in the face of Linux, Mac, whatever) because of the 90%+ of all software in the world that *only* runs on Windows.

M$ is hurting itself in terms of revenue, and losing customer goodwill (inasmuch as M$ has customer goodwill) by discontinuing a good product that people want to own in lieu of a poor product that people do not want to own.

That, in business terms, is why M$ is wrong.


By Motoman on 5/7/2008 3:25:33 PM , Rating: 1
OK, I'm confused. Can someone point out why this comment got voted down to negative? If for no other reason than my own edification...


By Belard on 5/8/2008 9:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps those who get voted down because some MS fanboy gets their little feelings hurt should be voted down... then we can ALL vote each other down and nobody will read anything because some whimp votes people down because of an opinion rather than childish insults, cursing or plain stupidity.

And Apparently - you get voted down for saying "you got voted down becasue"... Hmmm ya know, this is like whats in MS EULA... in basic, you have no right to say anything bad about MS Office, Windows if you agree with the EULA. Opening the package means you agree with the EULA, even if you have not read it. Agree to this EULA means you'll agree to future EULA changes that are included in downloaded updates... Yep, that's Microsoft.


By DeuceHalo on 5/7/2008 8:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
First -
Just because you buy a new PC with Vista doesn't necessarily mean you're "stuck" with it. Microsoft allows end users to downgrade if you have either Vista Business or Vista Ultimate. Just ring up Microsoft with your Vista key in hand to activate XP.

Ref - http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/f/4/5f4c8...

Second -
"It bears no resemblance to the release of XP over Win2k" - Ummm, the way I remember things, folks balked over upgrading to XP when it came out as well. This is no different.


By PitViper007 on 5/8/2008 3:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"It bears no resemblance to the release of XP over Win2k" - Ummm, the way I remember things, folks balked over upgrading to XP when it came out as well. This is no different.


Actually I jumped at XP when it came out. The reason? Win98SE.

While many here compare XP to Win2k, the proper comparison is really to Windows 98SE, or even, and I shudder at the thought, ME. The reason for this is that this was the first NT based OS Microsoft put out that was marketed to the masses. Yes I know, XP Pro was more towards the business side of things, but overall, this was a consumer level OS. Windows 2000 on the other hand was generally a business grade OS.

Now back to my original point. Why did I jump at XP? Because of the stability of NT. I'd used 2000 at work and loved how reliable it was. This in comparison to Windows 98SE which I generally wiped out every 6 months or so just to keep it functioning at a decent speed.

I still use XP on my systems at home, and at work. I'm not necessarily opposed to Vista, as a matter of fact, I've a copy of Vista Ultimate sitting there waiting for me to have time to load it on my machine at home. I have been wary of it however, due to compatibility issues with certain hardware, and specifically the drivers for that hardware. Those issues seem to be fading now, so I'm willing to try it.


By 9nails on 5/9/2008 1:48:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The problem, mein freund, is that keeping XP on the shelves and selling it alongside (i.e. instead of, effectively) Vista is tantamount to admitting that Vista is teh suck.


Doesn't Sony keep the PS2 and it's titles on the shelf for the same reason? The PS3 is superior in every way to the PS2 except in sales.

Or perhaps like the new formula for Coca-cola, which people hated and forced Coke to bring back the original formula.

Sometimes companies go in the wrong direction from where the customer expected them to move. Vista has been out since 2006 right? And it's sold 140 million copies. It has a pretty good foothold on the market. It's past the point where a re-do will be the right thing to do. I just don't think that MS will take a mulligan on this.


By phxfreddy on 5/12/2008 3:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is also the angle that some espouse that is the OEM's want system bloat to drive a new generation of hardware into the consumers hands. I can see that is a possibility as VISTA really goes slooooow compared to XP. Yes you can put in more memory but it still seems slow.

Yet XP does what I need it to. There appears to be no new killer app such as driving a rubber womans mouth to pleasure me or anything to likewise metaphorically gratify me by making my life easier...... and thus it seems totally superfluous.

Is there ANY app that anyone knows of that Vista is an absolute must for???? What am I missing?!

It would truly be an indiotic business move to solely bloat the code to drive sales of hardware. Its the type of thing that makes opportunity for competitors. I'm in the dark.

Please someone other than the predictable emotional responses / Tin-Foil-Hat-MS-Haters reply!


By mholler on 5/7/2008 11:55:20 AM , Rating: 4
You're forgetting the additional cost incurred by supporting 2 major OS's simultaneously. The longer they continue to sell XP, the longer they need to provide support for it as well as supporting Vista and the next version of Windows to come down the pipe. So, in order to remain profitable, Microsoft would eventually need to start charging to continue to support XP.


By Shawn5961 on 5/7/2008 12:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with the cost to support it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Microsoft has always provided support for two operating systems at the same time. Meaning even if they do stop selling XP, they'll still support it until Windows 7 comes out.


By Dribble on 5/7/2008 1:26:01 PM , Rating: 1
And if they need to keep supporting XP then they'll be supporting three OS's at the same time.
It's simple math - every extra year of XP means an extra year of support which is money down the drain to MS, as in their minds no one should be buying XP as it's replacement is out and has been for a while now.


By Belard on 5/7/2008 4:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft supported Windows98se for 4 years after the release of WindowsXP. But all their updates are still available for download still.

Hence... people worried about XP support is kinda silly. As the only things MS has done in the past few years is security patchs... and they'll continue to do that until 2014.... So XP will be doing quite well for years to come.

I'm about to buy a Lenovo notebook. I'll get the Vista version because it costs the same as their XP version - but with 2GB vs 1GB, 250gb HD vs 80gb HD. Then I'll put my own XP from actual discs onto the computer. Lenovo is one of the few companies to have XP drivers EASY to get at - even if they don't actually sell the notebook with XP.

Idea pad = $650 with vista - with 2GB stats above C2D 1.6.
Thinkpad = $950 with XP, but with the lower stats. So why would I spend $300 extra for mostly the same notebook.


By jonmcc33 on 5/9/2008 7:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
2 operating systems? Did you forget the server operating systems and the 64-bit versions as well? What about their applications? Microsoft isn't losing out by supporting anything. That's why they have a massive Knowledge Base (150,000 articles) and support forum even before you call Microsoft on the phone.

Most of the problems that you can get on a Microsoft OS doesn't even involve talking to anyone. Then there's the OEM support by Dell, HP, etc. Let's not forget companies like Geek Squad that have made a killing off of fixing Windows XP.


By mindless1 on 5/7/2008 12:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
You're not thinking of a monopoly market where if a customer doesn't get to buy XP, they'll be highly likely to buy Vista instead.

This is yet another example of why a monopoly is bad, removing customer choice. To those who love Vista, great, but that shouldn't take away the choice of millions to buy something else instead because whether you agree with their choice or not, it is their money.


By arazok on 5/7/2008 12:37:48 PM , Rating: 5
Last time I checked there were a wide variety of competing OS's available on the market.


By Motoman on 5/7/2008 1:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
...you're looking in the wrong place.

Absolutely, positively, in no way is Linux a valid choice for 99% of the computing public. They can't install it, they don't know how to use it, and the software they want to use won't run on it. The game continues to be over for Linux, because it hasn't really started yet.

I would love as much as anybody for Linux to magically rise and take marketshare from M$...but it's not happening until there is universal driver support, truly end-user friendly installation, and vast software support. Chicken, meet egg.

Yeah, sure, Mac is an option...but not for gamers or for people who need/want the vast Windows library of software available. Or for people who aren't stupid enough to pay too much money for too little product (getting in return something that is simply more shiney for their extra dollars).

If Jobs had a brain, he'd sell his OS openly for installation on x86 machines. Then we'd have a serious OS competition on our hands. He's not that smart though...and so, Windows continues to be the only solution for the vast majority of all users.


By manoj252 on 5/7/2008 1:36:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If Jobs had a brain, he'd sell his OS openly for installation on x86 machines.

Apple would then run into the same issues that MS has had to deal with especially poorly written or missing drivers and old/slow/misconfigured hardware. A big part of the reason that Macs "just work" is the small, tightly controlled hardware ecosystem they have to deal with.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 5:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention they "just don't work" often enough as well, despite the hardware base of a handful of models, OSX and in all it's glory still has bugs and major issues.

If Apple tried to contend with the hardware base Microsoft does they would fail miserably.


By CollosalDestructor on 5/12/2008 5:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
savage potato you are a Microsoft user and obviously have something against them so why don't you switch to mac and drink your mocha lattes and stop criticizing Microsoft.


By retrospooty on 5/7/2008 10:31:31 PM , Rating: 3
I tried Ubuntu (the latest beta 8.04).

Not bad, slim & trim, but not near good enough to change the world. Deleted it and back to windows for me.


By Clauzii on 5/7/2008 11:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
But they are (considering it's free) doing a pretty good job, I think. Won't be long before it's really good.


By jonmcc33 on 5/9/2008 11:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
No, not really. I've tried my share of Linux distros, only really liked OpenSUSE 10.3 and even it needs some work. It's not in any place to replace Windows for the world.


By arazok on 5/7/2008 2:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...you're looking in the wrong place

in no way is Linux a valid choice for 99%

If Jobs had a brain, he'd sell his OS openly for installation on x86 machines.


So what you're saying is that if you discount the competing products there's a monopoly.

You may not like them, but these products are attempting to compete head-to-head with Windows. It looks like the market has made it's choice.


By mindless1 on 5/8/2008 1:40:44 AM , Rating: 1
That is a silly statement. The MARKET is about selling, for another commercial OS to take off there has to be a profitization of it. How damning it is that MS' number one competitor is FREE. Clearly a monopoly.


By phxfreddy on 5/13/2008 7:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
That one was FULL of nonsequiturs !!! ... Your market definition is a hand handwave. If a competitors price is lower it means MARKET valuation of said product is low.

Software is one of those areas where there is not alot of overhead to development. You got a computer, a brain and 2 hands. Get started on your OS development today!

Only problem is they have done too good of job. You most likely could not do so effectively. Its more like the MARKET prefers a unified product.


By Clauzii on 5/7/2008 2:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
Apple went downwards, when they tried that in the '90s, opening up for clones, and making the MACs look like PCs.

They have gained since Jobs came back and put the original thinking back in the company: VERY nice designs, beautiful OS, lower price. Not to mention the iPod's, which was a large help in saving Apple.

What MS needs to do is simplify the OS, so eg. all system functions are in the control panel. Network settings are spread out in zillions of windows: Keeo it in ONE place, instead of spreading it out like sand. 'Cause that's where Vista ends for me as it is now.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 5:38:53 PM , Rating: 3
Is it just me or does this guy seem most likely to die trying to insert his penis into his macbook in a blind fit of love.

Maybe thats why they left the CD drive out of the air, having too many problems with that perhaps?

Funniest statement ever...

"Mac is an option for gamers all right, just play games on a ps3"

Wow... You sir went to the Derek Smart school of marketing. Yay my refrigerator is an option for gamers, just play games on your Xbox!!


By Pirks on 5/7/2008 5:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
Chill out, dude, don't be so twitchy. Noone is touching your valuable PC. Keep it cool, alrighty?


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 6:12:44 PM , Rating: 1
I've read your torrent of condescending -1 mac posts in another thread.

You seem to have a comprehension problem. I'm not twitchy, I find you very very funny. Observing the textbook condescending Mac guru in action, the kind that defines the reason PC users hate condescending Mac guru's in the first place, is a humorous thing.

Cinch up that ponytail and have another latte, and try not to pinch off any body parts making love to your personal god that is the Mac.

I'll be over there trying to play grand theft auto IV on my microwave oven gaming system.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 6:51:31 PM , Rating: 1
You mean the one where you electrocute yourself via your penis being inserted in your macbook? That seemed like a far more likely scenario than anything you have to say.

Actually I am playing GTA4 on my PS3 right now, but I'll tell you what, give me a call when you can play age of conan (which I have pre-ordered) on your mac. Let me know how well that runs in parallels with a radeon 2600 or whatever the mac has. Or maybe send some screenshots of your crysis benchmarks.

At least you will be able to masturbate over your backlit keyboard still.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 7:26:38 PM , Rating: 1
Have a good time playing an MMOG on a console there ape tit. I'm sure it's going to be very rewarding.

Are you honestly just THAT mind-blowingly stupid? How many times have I mentioned I have a PS3 now and you insist on some stupid attempt to prove a point about me being a PC only gamer?

FYI I don't have Crysis, I didn't find it interesting.

I will continue to play games on my PC, and my ps3, and you will continue to play games on your 360 and feel smug about your Mac, truly, have fun with that.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 7:41:34 PM , Rating: 3
Too bad you already shelled out twice as much for that mac as I did for my PC.

Seriously is that the best you can come up with? you are going to pay 50% more for the same hardware, put an 8800gt in it and boot windows?! I take it back you aren't stupid you are retarded.

Have an awesome time in Wow dipshit.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 10:02:21 PM , Rating: 3
You see here in PC world enthusiasts build their own system, if I was inclined to purchase a dual slot server board I could Indeed have 8 cores and 32 gigs of ram. Sadly though that would do almost as little for my Gaming performance as it would spending the 16-20k dollars it costs to do that on a Mac. On which you would have spent 16 to 20k dollars to now have a system that you can play world of warcraft on.

It wouldn't cost me 16 to 20k to do it either.

Thank you once again for proving that you are in fact a flaming retard of the highest order.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 10:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Oh but I have, the last time I visited apples site and built a box with every option the total was over $16k dollars.

You would have to buy some weapons grade plutonium as an extra to get anything you could build with standard pc hardware up to levels that ridiculous. But at apple.com it's but a few clicks away.

We have dual slot xeon servers with 16 sas drives and 16 gigs of ram at work that cost less than a mildly tweaked powermac at apple.com.

Don't even f-ing try to go there on price, Apple is the most unbelievable rip off conceivable and everyone that is laughing at you right now knows that.


By Pirks on 5/7/2008 10:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody is laughing at you for two reasons:

1) You just said that you have to spend 16k to build a WoW capable Mac - that's alone worth a good laugh.

2) You tried to paint Apple as the most expensive hardware seller when in fact Dell's 8-core Precision workstations configured with the same hardware as Mac Pro cost significantly more than Mac Pro. Another urban legend about overpriced Apple computers bites the dust. Go to dell.com and see for yourself.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 10:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
You are so unbelievably dumb I just had a conversation with a post outside, know what it was more meaningful.

The point is the only game you have named for the mac so far is world of warcraft, because yeah, it's about the only game there is for the mac.

Who buy's a dell as a performance system? the same kind of no skill morons like you that simply CAN'T build a machine because they don't know how.

I understand you have a lack of ability and that's why you need a Mac, But everyone else has the skills to build their own machine for half or less than half the cost which outperforms your little package "I need help because I have no skills" system.


By 4wardtristan on 5/8/2008 3:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
pun intended?


By kelmon on 5/9/2008 2:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Jobs had a brain, he'd sell his OS openly for installation on x86 machines. Then we'd have a serious OS competition on our hands. He's not that smart though...and so, Windows continues to be the only solution for the vast majority of all users.


I wonder if you have seen Apple's financial reports recently. If not then I suggest you look at them (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.... If you are familiar with them then please explain what the incentive would be to destroying a business model that works. With profit margins that high, why on earth would Apple want to get into the OS business? Do you really think that a world that isn't really adopting a free OS that much is suddenly going to switch to a Mac OS that they'd have to pay for from Windows? Let me tell you now, Jobs is way smarter than you, sunshine, and you have no idea about business.


By arazok on 5/7/2008 12:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft needs to ensure the new technology platforms they develop are as widely available as possible in order for them to be implemented by programmers. The best way to do this is to get as many people on the new OS's as possible.

For example, the XMLDOM that shipped with XP was v3.0. As a web developer, I may want to produce a fancy web site that requires methods only available in v6.0, which means people visiting my web site must download it. I know that nobody will do this, and my site will fail, so I don't build my uber site and the public loses services they otherwise would have had.

Microsoft doesn't build OS's for users as much as they build them for programmers. Although I love the consumer features like superfetch and the sidebar, Vista's main advantage over XP is that it makes application development easier for programmers. It's got all the latest versions of .NET, the XMLDOM, IE etc. Once a critical mass is reached, then you will see programs developed that are more feature rich, stable, and faster.


By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 2:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I plan to turn off Superfetch when I get Vista. I don't mind waiting a few extra seconds for a program to load. And the Windows Sidebar is useless for me.


By Clauzii on 5/7/2008 2:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
True, The Sidebar. Even as if it were something new.

There are zillions of Sidebar programs out there for XP - for free, so that's not a reson for getting Vista either.

And no, I don't use stuff like that either. Keep it simple :))


By jvillaro on 5/8/2008 12:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
They have to do this, all though maybe you do want to or don't like to, they have to push forward new tecnologies.
Of course you may say that some of them can be achived by upgrading or patching XP but it's just a neccessary step forword.
Maybe we won't see the impact inmediatly but we will. It will impact future software and even hardware (for example, you may not agree but I think it has/will help to bring better integrated video cards).
Maybe the next windows may not be a new OS but just an evolved Vista, that will make it more modular and make it more in accord to new demands, to make it less a target to the EU regulations and such, it would make it something many users have been asking for.


By kelmon on 5/9/2008 3:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
While I can understand your point, Microsoft will have invested a lot of money into the development of Vista and they need to get a return on that. If I was a shareholder of Microsoft then I expect to see the company doing something useful with my investment into them. I certainly do not want to see them spending 5-years developing an OS at enormous expense and then deciding not to sell it because the old OS was still selling well. You could argue that there was no point in developing Vista if XP was doing so well but then Microsoft needs to at least try to advance given the length of time it takes to develop a new OS. Clearly Vista was a risky project but now that it has delivered it is required to ensure that money comes back the other way.

They say that the customer is always right but in this case Microsoft needs to help them to see that Vista is right.


All you Windows 7 people...
By TemjinGold on 5/7/2008 12:17:48 PM , Rating: 3
Something doesn't add up. All you Windows 7 people keep saying you'll wait till that and skip Vista because:

1) Vista is "bloated"
2) Vista's hardware requirements are too high
3) Your stuff runs slower on Vista than XP

etc. etc. etc.

Out of curiosity, how many of you honestly believe that Windows 7 is going to have LOWER requirements than XP, won't be "bloated", and will make your stuff run faster than XP? You might as well keep XP forever.




RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By EODetroit on 5/7/2008 1:20:58 PM , Rating: 1
If Microsoft is smart, they'll make Windows 7 64-bit ONLY. The day is coming fairly soon that 4GB of ram will start to be a limiting factor for common applications.

I still use XP... hell one of my home computers still runs 2000. I'd be willing to consider Vista if the 64 bit version showed some benefit over 32 bit XP for one of my primary apps. That hasn't happened I think because there's little reason to put extra effort behind 64 bit development right now. Windows 7 being 64-bit only could do that.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 2:20:41 PM , Rating: 1
Considering 4GB of RAM is now available for around $60-70, there's no reason not to have it. I plan to get Vista x64 Business (I want the system image utility) and I'm thinking about doing 8GB of RAM simply because its so damn cheap. I mean when I got my current 2GB of RAM it was $200. Now I can get 8GB for less than that. And quality OCZ memory too, not some cheap shit.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By Clauzii on 5/7/2008 2:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe a stupid question but does Vista use all 4GB (except the 64bit version of course)?


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 9:49:29 AM , Rating: 2
32-bit version will use it all. Just you won't see it I believe like in XP. But thats why you're seeing all these systems with 3GB of RAM these days. People would freak out if they bought a system with 4GB of RAM and then in their resource menu, only saw 3GB.

I could be wrong on whether you can see it though.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 2:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Right now I don't believe any consumer software is being developed with a 64-bit code base. Even Office 2007 I think is 32-bit only. There a 64-bit version of IE7 though.

A few games have started developing a 64-bit version but very few. I'm also hoping that Windows 7 is 64-bit only. It will finally force developers to migrate to 64-bit and then we'll start seeing much better games since A) the games will be able to utilize more RAM and B) moving data in 64-bit chunks is faster than doing it in 32-bit.

They should still have some backwards compatibility through 32-bit emulation but the OS itself should be written in 64-bit.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By jvillaro on 5/9/2008 1:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
I currently use Vista 64bit, running on a laptop with 4gb of ram. And it has run everything fine. 32 bit apps run under WOW64 and I personally don't have a particular one that doesn't work.
At least the most important programs for me are in 64 bit, Visual Studio 2008 and SQL Sever 2005. IE is in 64bit but it's sort of limited with out flash cause theres no 64bit pluggin. And well theres no Office 64 yet, hope they get to that soon.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 5:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
The day that 3gb of ram is a limitation is not coming it's here.

Want 3 gigs of ram on your XP machine and a new 4870 series Radeon card that ships in may/june with 1gb of ram? Uh oh guess you're out of luck with that 32 bit os.

I've been using 4gb's of ram in Vista64 for a year, and it was cheap then, It's screamingly cheap now and why not have a boatload of cheap ram. I'm seriously considering grabbing 8gb sooner rather than waiting till next year for my new nehalem machine to move up to that much.

I'm seriously disappointed that Microsoft backed off on making Vista 64 bit only to appease the backward compatible masses. Even more so that they would do it again with Windows 7. The time is now to say goodbye to 32 bit.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 6:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm seriously disappointed that Microsoft backed off on making Vista 64 bit only to appease the backward compatible masses. Even more so that they would do it again with Windows 7. The time is now to say goodbye to 32 bit.


I thought the software industries extremely slow adoption of 64 bit applications and support is the reason MS backed off ? But I guess its just easier to blame us XP users for something else huh ?


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 6:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
The torrent of whining and complaining about 16bit app compatibility is why they backed off.

Dos applications cannot be run in 64 bit Vista. Unfortunately so many businesses are still stuck in the past using dos software they had no choice but back off.

That is who I was blaming Mr. martyr.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
The 3.5GB RAM limitation only refers to system memory. You can even have 4GB of RAM in 32-bit XP. Just the kernel will take 500MB of it and you will only see 3.5GB as being available.

You can still have as much graphics memory as you want. Otherwise stuff like quad-SLI with dual 7900GX2s wouldn't have worked 2 years ago.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 10:10:34 AM , Rating: 2
Nevermind I was incorrect. I guess you'd only see 4GB of address space - (2GB of video memory + address space used by other devices) of RAM available.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 3:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a " Windows 7 " person. Basically, I see no reason to spend 3 or 4 hundred dollars going to Vista when Xp does everything I ever ask of it already. Is there a problem being happy with my OS ?

Xp right now " just works " for me. I have pretty modern hardware so I'm sure Vista would run ok on my system, but why bother ?


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 6:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's fine to use any OS you feel like. Use Windows 95 if you like.

What isn't fine is the implication from a great deal of posters that Vista offers nothing for anyone, to the point of ridiculous made up reasons for criticism. False claims of non existent performance problems, completely misunderstood and misrepresented features, bugs that don't exist or the standard uninformed I've never really used Vista troll rallying cry "it's bloated and buggy".

All this forum troll nonsense bashing the OS and implicating that 100% of technically able people or industry professionals are die hard XP gurus that would never touch Vista is mind numbingly annoying, and far too common.

Letting it slide is something anyone who has real knowledge about how well Vista actually works shouldn't do. Allowing the parade of stupidity that surrounds Vista to go on without challenging ridiculous false criticisms only leads to more people that have never used the program and talk like they know what they are saying spreading fud and ridiculousness about all over the web.

99% of Vista criticisms fall into this category of the torrent of pure stupidity that followed it's launch from the so called tech gurus (aka know nothing forum trolls and wannabe techs.) making up pure stupidity and fantasy issues because they simply want to bash something.


RE: All you Windows 7 people...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 6:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Potato I think at this point you just have to accept there is a huge negative stigma surrounding Vista. You can blame forum trolls all you want. You can fight all the uphill battles you want. I don't care. I'm not buying Vista and its my money/decision and its none of your business why.

We have been through this before and I don't care for you to start it again. Saying Vista is fine and doesn't have issues is just as extreme as you saying " 99% of all Vista complaints are from pure stupidity ".

Where there is smoke there is fire. Everyone can't be wrong and only you are right. I'm sure Vista offers you plenty. But if someone already has a now even more stable and faster XP install with SP3, then no, Vista simply doesn't offer them anything. At least, not $400 bucks worth of something.


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 6:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
I refer to sentence number one.

Use whatever operating system you like.

It's a free country, so don't expect that making bogus claims isn't going to get called.

You just can't stroll in and spout nonsense about games getting 50% of the performance in Vista, or quad core systems brought to the speed of a PII without it being questioned anymore. Why should anyone be able to? Stupid lies and exaggerations have no merit.

I'm sorry to tell you but no, where there is smoke there is not fire in this case. The bad rap Vista gets is indeed 99% nonsense. From the purely ridiculous Mac commercials stirring the pot, to the self proclaimed "IT professionals" swimming around the message boards spouting trash. 99% of it is just that... trash.


By TemjinGold on 5/8/2008 9:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
No, you misunderstood me. I'm not saying you NEED to go to Vista. I'm saying if those are your reasons for NOT going to Vista, you shouldn't expect any future Windows to be any different. There's far too many people claiming the three things I listed as reasons for not moving to Vista and at the same time saying they will use Windows 7 and beyond as if they were expecting that future OSes WON'T require more and WON'T have a larger footprint.


bookmark this people
By Screwballl on 5/7/2008 4:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
even for April 2008, less than 8% of computers connecting to the internet (worldwide) are using Vista.. over a year later and close to the EOL for XP, it still has close to 80% of the market...

bookmark this:

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php




RE: bookmark this people
By Belard on 5/7/2008 4:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
There is still a 15~20% upgrade to WindowsXP for those who buy Vista computers.

I'll be buying a Vista notebook (its cheaper than their XP version by $200~300) and install XP on it. I already have my legit XP CD for my next PC build.

I'll buy a PS3 before I install Vista... Actually, GTA4 is the reason I'll be getting a PS3.


RE: bookmark this people
By Pirks on 5/7/2008 6:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll buy a PS3 before I install Vista... Actually, GTA4 is the reason I'll be getting a PS3
Tell that to SavagePotato. There's gonna be some hot steam puffing around for a while after you do that.


RE: bookmark this people
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 6:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes' I will be totally devastated as I play GTA4 on MY ps3.

Oh my goodness you mean someone can be a PC gamer and a Console gamer at the same time? Mind blowing!!


RE: bookmark this people
By Pirks on 5/7/2008 7:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, playing cool stuff on console, like Gears of War or Halo 3, and then waiting forever to replay it on a PC some years later - that's mind blowing indeed.


RE: bookmark this people
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 7:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I will just assume you are stupid.

Do I have to sound it out letter for letter? I... Have... A... PS3, ape tit.

PS: why would I want to play a mediocre FPS like halo in the first place, console or pc.


RE: bookmark this people
By Pirks on 5/7/2008 7:28:03 PM , Rating: 1
You ain't getting it, ape dick. I repeat it again: why would you need gaming PC when you have a large load of nice console games for Xbox, PS and Wii, with some of them even get ported to PC if you're lucky?


RE: bookmark this people
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 7:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you need to ask that question you are a waste of skin that isn't even worth addressing. Seriously, do me a and the world a favor and get yourself a rope and a stool and find a nice quiet room.

Certain types of game are enjoyable on a console and certain types are not. I'd rather be caught dead than play an MMO or an FPS on a console. Heres a newsflash for you, I play PC games and always will because I can. See I spent LESS on my gaming pc than most ape tits like you spent you your POS mac with 1/5 the ability. I can game AND do everything else I do with a PC still for 30% less than what you payed to feel superior about your Mac.

Why WOULDN'T I play a game like age of conan on my PC, why wouldn't I play PC only games like the very awesome sins of a solar empire or upcoming titles like Spore on my PC? After all I have one already and it still cost less than your iPenis.


RE: bookmark this people
By Pirks on 5/7/2008 8:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
You should have mentioned from the beginning that you are a cheapskate and buy Chevy over Lexus any day, just because Chevy is so much cheaper.

Yeah, indeed, why waste money on those stupid Lexus cars when they have same four wheels and same ICE engines running on the same carbonhydrate fuel as the cheapo Chevy cars? What the heck is the difference? Why stupid Lexus buyers pay so much more for their cars, even if they have same four wheels, and all the other stuff is the same too?

You obviously never asked yourself this question, it's very visible from your posts. That also gives a whole new perspective on your rant, now isn't it?


RE: bookmark this people
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 9:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
There you go with your same old lexus rant that you use in yes EVERY single discussion you attempt to enter.

I drive approximately 2 minutes to work daily, could probably do without a vehicle altogether if I didn't want to leave town once and a while. So you can drive your lexus, but I have news for you come winter here in northern Alberta I would laugh my ass off at your lexus stuck in the driveway as I drive by in my 4 wheel drive truck.

If I lived in California, I might indulge in a shelby gt500, you could still keep your lexus. Here I am though in reality where winter lasts the majority of the year and I smile and laugh each time I drive my very functional 4 wheel drive to work through a foot of snow and watch the poor fools in their cars. Here is a news flash also for you, driving a 3-500 horse sports car on snow really f-ing sucks.

But we aren't talking about cars here we are talking about computers. The news I have for you is your Mac is no luxury computer, it's just another peice of overpriced apple hardware that you eat up the idea that you are better over because you payed more for less.

Isn't that the apple motto? Pay more, do less, think backwards.


RE: bookmark this people
By Pirks on 5/7/2008 10:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
Lexus AWD V8 SUV easily pwns your pathetic truck in all conditions including all the winter weather problems you ever get in Alberta or any other place. That's the most stupid argument I've heard from you (besides 16k for WoW capable Mac of course), are you seariously trying to compare Lexus AWD V8 SUV with your truck? You must be trying to make a joke. Poor attempt though, try again next time.

So Macs are just like that - you can equip Mac with all the cores and memory and RAID velociraptors and what not - and it'll pwn your pathetic PC almost everywhere, just like Lexus AWD V8 SUV pwns your truck. Except for Crysis, which would be an argument if not for that sad little message from Mr. Yerli about the death of the PC exclusive games from Crytek.

Keep bashing luxury machines, cheapskate. It looks very very funny. If you ever learn to earn more (I doubt this will ever happen but who knows), you may start understanding what people with extra income like to pay for.


RE: bookmark this people
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 10:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah you know what you are totally right it makes perfect sense for me to go buy a 50-100k vehicle and pay $2000 a month to drive a vehicle I put 10k kilometers on a year. Awesome Idea.

You have some serious logic there champ. Your lexus won't do anything a plain old 4 wheel drive truck can't do for me already for 1/5 the price. What is the benefit realy? Look good? feel like a smug dick smoking peice of f-ing shit like you? No thanks I have other things to spend my money on besides transportation that meets the standards of a f-ing piece of human f-ing waste like you.

Tell you what I would really like for you to drive your amazing lexus awd v8 mega deluxe edtion suv up here some time just so I can experience the distinct pleasure that would come from meeting a little prick like you face to face and getting to knock all your f-ing teeth out with a 9 iron and watch you pick them up off the curb. Then you can take all that extra money you earn and go buy some top notch dentures for yourself you little f-ing ape tit.


RE: bookmark this people
By Pirks on 5/7/2008 10:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Chill out dude, I told ya already. If you can't afford nice machines - stop hating those who can afford them, try to earn more money instead and see what is all the fuss about.

I haven't said your truck can't do a lot of things Lexus SUV can do and vice versa, I just said that there are reasons people choose Lexus over some cheapo truck and even agree to pay more. Same with computers. What's the problem with that? You never heard that there are cheap goods and expensive goods? Maybe it's time for you to learn some economy/marketing basics, huh?

You are either too dumb to not understand this simple stuff or pretending to be dumb, probably to keep flames high, right?

Only apeheaded rednecks like you start jumping on anyone owning a nice luxury device or machine or whatever, threating to hit them with iron - what the #uck is all this about? Man, if you have mental problems or some kind of jealousy problem or financial issues - just seek professional help, will ya? I don't see reasons to be mad at someone who likes cool gadgets and computers and other joys of life and can afford 'em. Keep it cool, alright? I never hated Mac users or Lexus users or Boeing users or whatever, 'cause this is first sign of stupidity. Don't demonstrate that sign here! This forum is not quite an appropriate place for that.


RE: bookmark this people
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 11:19:23 PM , Rating: 3
Personally I have never spoken to another person I would like to see suffer extreme pain and or death than you. Judging by your 0.75 post rating and reading other threads you've participated in I think theres more than a few people that would get alot of joy out of that as well.

You are quite possibly the most ignorant, misinformed, self important mammal, and I use mammal cautiously, on the planet.

You just keep on blundering through life thinking what you pay for something determines your value to society. I choose where to spend my money based on what brings me the most enjoyment. Not on what I've fooled myself into thinking will improve my self worth because it costs more. I could go out and buy a luxury car tomorrow, and it would be a complete f-ing waste of money that I get no enjoyment out of whatsoever. Because my life does not revolve around automobiles.

Or I could spend money on the things I love, like PC hardware that I get enjoyment out of building and configuring myself, or my home theater system. Trust me I spend plenty of money on my hobbies that I enjoy. Buying a highly overpriced piece of hardware that is made of the exact same components of the systems I build myself, and depriving myself of the enjoyment I get in assembling, overclocking and tweaking that hardware in the process is asinine.

While you sit there and take whatever drugs made you the way you are, marveling over the quality of your mac keyboard's backlighting and how deeply special it makes you feel. I will continue to take every dollar you wasted on that and buy 3x as much hardware that I get 3x as much satisfaction out of. I will continue to laugh at you as I have been doing this entire time, trying to live it large to feel like you are something when you really aren't. Keep buying those luxury goods, they aren't going to do a thing for the fact you have the personality of a donkey's ass.

Do stop in to visit sometime too I really would love to give you the opportunity to purchase that set of luxury dentures a player like you can afford.


RE: bookmark this people
By Clauzii on 5/7/2008 11:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
LOL :)


Hmm
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 10:56:22 AM , Rating: 2
So I guess the previous "Microsoft pulls XP sp3 indefinately!!" article would now be considered wrong and sensationalist.

Oh well, let the inevitable anti Vista flame war of death ensue. Will give me something to make the day go by faster at work.




RE: Hmm
By bplewis24 on 5/7/2008 11:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
How was it wrong or sensationalist? Microsoft pulled it for an indefinite period of time and then reissued it sooner rather than later.

I just hope this fixes the Remote Desktop Connection issue the beta had.

Brandon


RE: Hmm
By mikefarinha on 5/7/2008 11:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
the word 'indefinite' implies an uncertainty of SP3 being released at all.

Everyone knew SP3 was going to be released, saying that it's release was questionable was simply sensationalizing the situation.


RE: Hmm
By rdeegvainl on 5/7/2008 11:50:37 AM , Rating: 1
I disagree, and here is why.

Within the context of "Everyone knew SP3 was going to be released" saying the release is delayed indefinitely just means we don't know for how long it is delayed.

Indefinite only implies uncertainty of, actual release, in those with a biased history of the word. Those who followed software that is never released or canceled after an indefinite release will view it differently than those who followed products that were released after being delayed indefinitely.

So to some, it may come across as sensationalist, but in and of itself, I don't think it is.


RE: Hmm
By johnsonx on 5/7/2008 12:15:18 PM , Rating: 3
It already was considered wrong and sensationalist by everyone who knows what 'indefinitely' means.


RE: Hmm
By johnsonx on 5/7/2008 12:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, while I realize Jason Mick isn't lying awake at night worrying what I'll think of his articles, having been so critical in the past it's only fair to mention that I find this one to be quite well written and informative.


My system is fully functioning.
By Clauzii on 5/7/2008 2:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'd really like to hear why I should change to Vista.

Will my already perfectly running programs run better?? Noticeably(!) faster?? Use less power??

No??

XP till 2010, then.

PS: I don't need DX10 for now btw. so don't tell me that as a reason ;)




RE: My system is fully functioning.
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 6:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's such a great thing that you are the center of the universe and that the entire world has the same requirements as you do and sees no benefits to Vista.

Oh wait that's right... Did you look in the mirror lately? was the sun revolving around your body?


RE: My system is fully functioning.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 6:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty rich Savage coming from the most condescending and self centered poster in the OS debate. Every post of yours translates into " I HAVE VISTA I HAVE 4 GIGS OF RAM ITS CHEAP I LIKE IT SO SHUT UP AND GET IT "


By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 6:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you fail at reading comprehension too.

Every post I make equates to "stop spreading asinine Vista fud and calling yourself an expert as a justification that Vista was made by Satan."


By Clauzii on 5/7/2008 11:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is that I haven't read a single post yet to inform me of the advantages of changing, yet.

Why??


Just to confirm...
By xsilver on 5/7/2008 11:39:41 AM , Rating: 2
This is the same version of SP3 that was released last week right?
checksum is the same?
Just the added hotfix which is DL separately?




RE: Just to confirm...
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 12:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
I believe so. And I don't think there are any consumers who need the hotfix anyway. The compatibility issue was with software used by businesses. Which was why I wondered why Microsoft held back the service pack instead of just telling businesses not to install it.


RE: Just to confirm...
By johnsonx on 5/7/2008 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Because the business software in question is used by small business, many of which simply use windows update like everyone else.


good job
By Moishe on 5/7/2008 10:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
That was a quick fix. I am using both XP and Vista and I see no personal or work related reason to upgrade to Vista right now. The idea of waiting until Windows 7 is certainly doable. XP has tons of life left in it.




Resistance is futile!
By psarquis on 5/7/2008 11:37:17 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, I enjoy trying out all the latest software programs, including DirectX 10 games, and Vista is the only way to do that. I did experience some compatibility issues with Vista when it first came out, but there was a workaround, patch or fix to everything quickly and now I'm loving it. For those of you who hate the thought of "Vista," just think of it as NT 6.0/Windows 6 and get over it. I am definitely looking forward to NT 7.0 (AKA Windows 7) and will adopt that OS when it comes out. Computing is a fast moving business, or hobby, and those who are stubborn deserve the "dinasaur" stamp.




Vista ... or XP
By eeto on 5/7/2008 4:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
Using both XP and Vista ... I don't have much good impression of Vista. It just feels like I'm getting a new computer to compensate for performance hogging vista. Even with SP1 ... it's pretty slow for a fresh installation compare to what XP would give me. All the expense for "benefits" i find arguably negligible. If Office 2007's gonna end up running horribly in Vista, I'll for sure go back to XP.

You can tell me all day how many genius ideas Vista works inside, but at the end of the day I just want to see the results. After 8months, I'm still trying hard to like vista.




Oopsies?
By Hieyeck on 5/7/2008 8:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...lying to rest customer fears caused by Microsoft...


should read "... laying to rest customer fears caused by Microsoft..."?




By arswihart on 5/8/2008 5:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
From the hotfix download page:
quote:
if you are not severely affected by this problem, we recommend that you wait for the next service pack that contains this hotfix.




what to do?
By turrican2097 on 5/8/2008 2:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hello.

I post on different sites to gather opinions and make up my mind about a Vista upgrade. The problem is that there's a lot of FUD, bashing, fanboyism, pointless XP vs Vista flamewars, etc... I don't have a clue what to do.

Here's the situation:
- My machine works well, sort of.
- Vista costs aprox 250€ and I'd need to buy more RAM, since I have only 1GB. Maybe a new graphics card.
- I'd need install the OS, apps, configure. And know how to work with it

So, what's your technical opinion? Is it worthwhile, and why?
Thanks.




Not to mention
By Thetech on 5/9/2008 10:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
The thing about Vista was the fact that they kept pulling out all of the hyped up features, not to mention the confusion from all of the versions they released.




I'll pass
By Freezetronius on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'll pass
By Crowbar77 on 5/7/2008 11:18:20 AM , Rating: 3
That was a sweet story.


RE: I'll pass
By mikefarinha on 5/7/2008 11:19:24 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I just hate un informed tech wannabes.


Me too.... why are you looking to get an XP PC again?


RE: I'll pass
By gramboh on 5/7/2008 11:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
What reasons do you have for not wanting to get Vista?


RE: I'll pass
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 11:24:13 AM , Rating: 3
So in what ways does XP offer more than Vista? Other than the lower hardware requirements?

I still use XP(well. MCE2005) as well. But I plan to upgrade to Vista because there's no reason not to. If you don't plan to upgrade because you won't use Vista's new features, thats one thing. But to not want to go to Vista on a new machine because you view it as inferior, you are the uninformed. What problems do exist on Vista are mostly due to bad drivers which are by no means the fault of Microsoft.


RE: I'll pass
By Clauzii on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'll pass
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 10:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
Better security, better user profile implementation, don't have to be logged on an Administrator level account to do anything, better network stack, Protected Mode in IE7 (yes I use Firefox too but I would love it if it used it), allows lower level access to the hardware than XP...


RE: I'll pass
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 11:26:10 AM , Rating: 4
"I hate uninformed tech wannabes"

Such wonderful irony.


RE: I'll pass
By menting on 5/7/2008 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Knowing better

quote:
un informed tech wannabes

I'm afraid i'll have to disagree with you on that one.

For me, Vista was a nice improvement in functionality and usability over XP at the cost of a slight speed slowdown
Off the top of my head i can list the improved QOS and the new audio stack as significant improvements that are useful to me. Better utilization of system memory was a small added bonus as well.


RE: I'll pass
By Freezetronius on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'll pass
By mholler on 5/7/2008 12:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
Is it still 2007? You're living in the past. The 20% performance drop disappeared a long time ago. Read some more current data.

quote:
XP SP2 vs Vista RTM and Vista SP1... Hmm, almost equal or better on everything goes to Vista. I'd like to see this on a Quadcore with 4GB Ram.
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes from ZDNet.com executed the tests using the AMD Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850 graphics card, 2GB of RAM and ATi Catalyst drivers 8.2.

The three games which performed better on Vista than on XP SP2 were Call of Duty 4, F.E.A.R. and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Vista gave The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion the best performance boost compared to XP SP2, working out at an average of 9 frames per second faster on Vista RTM and 13 frames per second faster on Vista SP1.

Seven out of ten of the games tested produced frame rate averages which were lower under Vista than XP SP2, however, a closer look at the numbers shows that when Vista is slower than XP SP2, the actual frame rate differences are only in the single digits.

Here are the results: average frame rates for each game on each platform

CoD4
XP SP2: 56 fps | Vista RTM: 58 fps | Vista SP1: 62 fps

Fear
XP SP2: 70 fps | Vista RTM: 71 fps | Vista SP1: 71 fps

Oblivion
XP SP2: 56 fps | Vista RTM: 67 fps | Vista SP1: 69 fps

Bioshock (DX9)
XP SP2: 50 fps | Vista RTM: 46 fps | Vista SP1: 47 fps

CoH
XP SP2: 30 fps | Vista RTM: 28 fps | Vista SP1: 28 fps

Crysis
XP SP2: 27 fps | Vista RTM: 24 fps | Vista SP1: 23 fps

Doom3
XP SP2: 157 fps | Vista RTM: 138 fps | Vista SP1: 142 fps

SC
XP SP2: 47 fps | Vista RTM: 44 fps | Vista SP1: 44 fps

UT3
XP SP2: 68 fps | Vista RTM: 64 fps | Vista SP1: 65 fps

WiC
XP SP2: 24 fps | Vista RTM: 22 fps | Vista SP1: 22 fps


RE: I'll pass
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 12:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
So basically in each case where one was faster than the other, the difference would be unnoticeable.


RE: I'll pass
By Shawn5961 on 5/7/2008 12:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
I thought this PC was for your girlfriend, not for you to game on.


RE: I'll pass
By menting on 5/7/2008 3:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
1. nobody's talking about switching from XP to Vista. you said you were looking for a new computer, so you'd be paying the same for XP or for Vista, and there's won't be any price difference to use Vista as apposed to XP, so your "$300 to switch to Vista" is just bogus and misleading.
2. like someone mentioned, the computer was supposed to be for your gf, so unless she'll be playing games too, why would a 20% reduction in game frame rates, if there is even that much right now, matter to her? You'd think you should care more about what she needs now and want to use in the future on her computer as being more important. And with more and more software being created with Vista in mind, the smart thing would be to get Vista for her so she won't run into problems in the future.. sort of like the 98->XP transition. Vista is definitely more future proof compared to XP software wise.


RE: I'll pass
By gramboh on 5/7/2008 4:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
As everyone else has said, if you are buying a new PC, this point is moot. Vista is actually BETTER for your GF because of the new memory management system, arguably better UI, faster start menu search (love this one, less mousing than in XP, just hit Windows key and type first few letters of a program and hit enter) and UAC (tired of fixing family/friends broken Windows installs? Make them a non-admin user account with UAC enabled, and tell them to click NO unless they are 100% sure of what tehy are doing, solves 99% of issues).

As for gaming, I don't perceive a difference and I am a heavy gamer (rig is C2D @ 3.3GHz, 4GB ram, 8800GTS 640, Vista x64). Feels the same except games sometimes load a bit faster due to better use of 4GB ram and improved prefetch.

Stop spreading misinformation about Vista, it's not January 2007 anymore. This is EXACTLY what happened with XP.


RE: I'll pass
By Freezetronius on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'll pass
By Belard on 5/8/2008 9:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
hey..!! Are you saying niggers use Vista while us black people use XP?


RE: I'll pass
By Staples on 5/7/2008 12:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
Take it easy on him. He is just one of the many who hate Vista. Most of them have never even used it but just repeat what they hear. Nice to see that the tide is changing. I have been running Vista Home Premium since it came out. There were problems at first but since August of last year, it has been running just fine.

I figure that a few noisy people tried it when it came out, found problems and still are complaining about them. When SP1 came out, it sparked many people to retry it. Most of these people see that it isn't horrible like the the FUD they have been spreading for the past year.


RE: I'll pass
By Shawn5961 on 5/7/2008 3:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention people trying it with sub-par systems.

"Hey, I've got a P3 processor and 512 ram. Time to install Vista! What? It's slow? Screw you Microsoft!"


RE: I'll pass
By Makaveli on 5/7/2008 9:03:14 PM , Rating: 1
I dual boot both XP and Vista X86.I still run superfetch using 2GB on a 4GB memory stick I have lying around. I barely ever boot into XP now, all my games run great in Vista and the programs I use also. i'm not coming in her saying Vista Pwns XP or some childish BS. Based on my experience is runs great for me. My Ati Tv wonder 650 Tuners works so much better in Vista than in XP. And once the machine has been running for a few days vista does feel so much faster. I don't really shut down my computer that often. And i'm not running a super expensive machine either.

A Opteron 170 @ 2.75Ghz
2GB of DDR500 memory.
Asus HD3870

My machine is fairly tweaked which does help. My swap file does not sit on my main drive, and alot of services have been disabled in vista, which I would do in XP aswell.

To each his own but I do know there are alot of people talking shit about vista and they never used it. Just recycling junk they read on forums.

Noobs reading other noobs posts and taking it for the truth can be a very dangerous thing!

YMMV

and P.S the fight between those two guys in here has been very entertaining.


RE: I'll pass
By slacker57 on 5/7/2008 7:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, he made up the word "sombering." Sounds like the kind of guy you shouldn't take it easy on.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














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