backtop


Print 167 comment(s) - last by Stranged.. on May 5 at 9:00 AM

Its hard to keep a good old OS down

Last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer addressed the media and delivered controversial comments that customers simply did not want XP, so that Microsoft would likely discontinue its sales in June 30 as planned.  From the feedback on DailyTech alone, it was obvious that some users did want XP, particularly in IT scenarios, while others couldn't care less about its death.

In the end, the fate of XP really rests in the hands of retailers which will be most affected by its discontinuation.  These retailers are not sitting idly by and consenting to XP's death though.  In fact, they are looking for sneaky ways to prolong its life, apparently choosing by their actions to dissentingly opine against Ballmer's valuation of consumer interest in XP.

Leading computer manufacturers Dell and Hewlett-Packard, both announced plans to use a loophole to allow computers to continue to be sold with Windows XP.  The key is a part of the Windows Vista license agreement, which grants "downgrade rights".  Essentially the company will be buying Vista and then "downgrading" the computers.  Thus the customer will essentially receive a PC with Windows XP that can be upgraded to Vista if they should so choose.

HP says that in the business sector it will continue to sell desktops, notebooks, and workstations "pre-downgraded" to XP, until July 30, 2009, over a year after Microsoft's planned discontinuation.  Dell will stop taking orders for XP machines as part of a default package on June 18, but will thereafter offer the same "pre-downgraded" option on its website.

Other major computer manufacturers have expressed interest in exploiting this loophole to satisfy those wanting XP.  However, they have not yet committed to plans and are still "exploring their options".

One unfortunate (in some people's mind) limitation of the downgrade loophole is that it only applies to Ultimate and Business versions of Vista.  Thus standard consumer machines will not be able to be downgraded to XP under the current rules. 

Also, the really challenging logistics crop up at retail stores.  Stores like Best Buy and Circuit City have already virtually done away with XP, but often get customers who want the option to pick XP instead.  However, in order to be within the law in terms of Microsoft's licenses, these retailers would somehow have to get the customer to specifically "ask" for a XP downgrade before offering it.  Thus floor models would be a virtual impossibility, limiting sales potential.

With the large public and business outcry over the discontinuation of XP, one would think Microsoft might consider changing its mind, especially giving Ballmer's comments, which indicated that the company would take customer feedback into consideration.  However, Microsoft seems content on casting a blind ear on dissenters' comments. 

Kevin Kutz, a director in Microsoft's Windows unit, blows off the possibility of an extension, and says that the downgrade option should satisfy customers.  Said Kutz, "While (computer makers) continue to see large numbers of customers making the transition to Windows Vista, there are some pockets--like small business--that need a little more time, and from what we've heard from our partners, the downgrade rights option fulfills that need."

The amount of demand for XP over Vista has surprised many manufacturers.  These manufacturers have struggled to try to find ways to satisfy it.  Manufacturer Lenovo, offers XP recovery disks as a downgrade option on some Vista models, and plans on continuing to do so through January 2009.

In the end for the consumer seeking XP, these developments mean there are still options, but they are becoming increasingly more difficult and hassle-prone. 

For Microsoft, the new manufacturer tactics are a mixed bag.  While they may be driving overall Microsoft OS sales, they undercut its Vista efforts.  Worse yet, they mean that the company may need to devote extra resources to XP-related  customer support, at a time when it is likely trying to pull resources off the XP side of things, to work on their new OS, Windows 7, likely due in 2010.



Comments     Threshold


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

This isn't new...
By drebo on 4/28/2008 1:13:42 PM , Rating: 4
Dell has been selling "Downgraded" PCs since Microsoft first announced the ability to downgrade Vista Business and Vista Ultimate to XP Pro...over a year ago.

This isn't a loophole, it's something that Microsoft has been letting Vista Business and Vista Ultimate users do nearly since the beginning. In fact, to activate, you have to call their tech support. This is available to everyone with an OEM copy of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate and has been since about a month after the Vista launch.




RE: This isn't new...
By mikefarinha on 4/28/2008 1:17:26 PM , Rating: 5
I agree with drebo, this is not a loop hole and PC Maker's aren't being sneaky in doing this. This is a course of action that Microsoft intentionally implemented.

Please stop over doing the sensationalism.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: This isn't new...
By daftrok on 4/28/2008 1:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Think about the future, man. Nobody wants XP we are fine with 2000. Nobody wants 2000 we are fine with windows 98. Nobody wants Blu ray we are fine with DVD. Nobody wants DVD we are fine with VHS. Nobody wants LCD monitors we are fine with CRT monitors.

Transition isn't easy. You can't make an OS work perfectly with every single CPU, GPU, motherboard, flash drive, etc. You can't just launch a crash free system. You have to do what you can with the time given to you, release it, and find out what's wrong and try to fix it. It's the only way to do it if you are launching an OS to billions of people.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2008 1:58:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Think about the future, man. Nobody wants XP we are fine with 2000. Nobody wants 2000 we are fine with windows 98. Nobody wants Blu ray we are fine with DVD. Nobody wants DVD we are fine with VHS. Nobody wants LCD monitors we are fine with CRT monitors.


Your trying too hard. Most of your examples are clearly leaps in technology. To claim Vista is the same leap over XP is pure fanboism. Infact, depending on who you ask and their situation, Vista was a clear side grade at best.

quote:
Transition isn't easy. You can't make an OS work perfectly with every single CPU, GPU, motherboard, flash drive, etc. You can't just launch a crash free system. You have to do what you can with the time given to you, release it, and find out what's wrong and try to fix it. It's the only way to do it if you are launching an OS to billions of people.


Is there a name for this planet you live on? Vista was released too late. And just when its getting all its kinks worked out, they go ahead and announce Windows 7. Its market saturation, at this point, is very poor. Windows XP stacks up very nicely, and at this point, is more viable on midrange hardware than Vista. Especially on Laptops and other portable devices which are more widely used today.

This isn't about the future. This is about a new OS so lackluster, that there is still a huge demand for the previous OS XP. Those examples you used are nothing like this. Not even close. How many new VHS players or CRT's compared to DVD and LCD are being made ?

I have " thought about the future ". I'm going to leapfrog Vista and go Windows 7. There is no reason, no reason at all, to stop using XP right now.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but to claim it isn't show's your blind and I'm guessing you've never actually used the OS on a daily basis... I'm not going to knock XP because I think it's a great OS, but Vista really is quite the OS leap over XP... In fact compared to the "leap" from 2k to XP we're talking about the amount of difference between a bi-plane and tri-plane... By comparison vista is a British spitfire. All XP ever was is a dressed up 2K installation, hell the XP kernal was only a minor version # higher than 2k for good reason, it was the same basic kernal with slightly improved resource management.


RE: This isn't new...
By Yawgm0th on 4/28/2008 2:22:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it was the same basic kernal with slightly improved resource management.


That's true. And to some extent, 2000 could be perfectly fine for use today. It wasn't marketed to the consumer as well as XP (or at all, really), and it wasn't as user-friendly as XP. XP replaced 2000 because it was better supported, fixed minor problems with 2000, and added minor (but nice) features. But theoretically, 2000 would have been fine. By about SP3, with maybe some of XP's shell enhancements added in, 2000 would be perfectly usable today. It could have been the OS to use for an entire decade. XP was indeed, only a minor improvement that didn't warrant a new OS.

Vista, on the other hand is a drastic departure from XP. It makes sweeping, undesirable (read: worse) changes to the user interface while implementing new features that hurt productivity more than help it due to how resource intensive it is. Vista simply does not offer substantial advantages over XP for the consumer, SMB, or enterprise. Its kernel "improvements" are grossly outweighed by its slow performance and unreasonable UI changes.

And for the record, I use 32-bit Vista ultimate on my laptop on a daily basis. I am perfectly satisfied with it as an OS (after tweaking the hell out it, of course). It runs just fine for the most part, and does what I need it to. But the interface changes still bother me, and quite frankly I can do everything I can in Vista faster and better in XP.

That's the crux of the matter. What can Vista do that XP can't? Very little.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:35:25 PM , Rating: 1
Have you tried actually learning to utilize Vista as intended... I'll agree in so far as going from XP to Vista is a shock at first at it takes time to learn, but if you put a little effort into learning the new system you quickly start learning not only is most everything XP had still actually there, but Vista has things XP doesn't to make life easier...

One case my sister brought up was that "In XP I used to be able to pull up a folder list when I click my computer by going to view => explorer bar => folder list"... In vista by default there is always the folder list visible in the window below favorate links, just click the folders button which features an up arrow and there you are folder list...

Something Vista has which XP does not is windows search integrated everywhere... Having trouble finding a control pannel item? Just type a search for it in the windows search box and chances are if you're even close it'll pull it up.


RE: This isn't new...
By Solandri on 4/28/2008 4:18:21 PM , Rating: 5
I'd say it's debatable which is "better". XP had a folder list (I assume you mean folder tree view) by default too. You just had to click the big Folders button once, and it would remember it.

The favorites panel in Vista isn't exactly intuitive either. If the pre-selected favorites are your favorites then all is fine. But if you should want to remove or add one, it's hardly intuitive as to how to do it. Ironic considering it's supposed to be a list of your favorites, not what Microsoft thinks will be your favorites. (hint: You have to browse the directory structure under Users/[Name]/Links)

Vista's file explorer search is one step forward, one step back IMHO. Defaulting the search to the current directory is a plus, but you could do the same thing in XP by right-clicking on a folder and selecting Search from the menu. Where Vista's search really takes a big step back is content search - searching for words within files. It defaults to a filename search. As far as I've been able to figure out, only after it's completed that search does it give you the option to search within files. The same goes for advanced search options - you're not presented with them until it has completed a search.

Of course you can immediately get at the advanced search options if you start a search window directly, but they've removed this from the right-click menu. You're forced to go through the Start menu, meaning there's no quick and convenient way to access advanced search options and constrain it to a specific folder. (You can also WindowsKey-F, but most casual users don't know that, and you still have to select the folder you wish to search manually.) And even there, you have to search filenames first before you're allowed to search within files.

The system options aren't very helpful either. Either all your searches are filename only, are both filename and content searches (meaning all your searches will be slow), or you have to turn the built-in indexing on. There's no way to default to filename searches while picking and choosing when you want to do a content search. The only practical way to get content searches is to turn on indexing, which is one of the big reasons Vista seems slow on a lot of people's systems.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, as I've said your milage will vary with search, for my purposes it works very well... As far as searching file contents I'm sad to say no verion of windows has ever provided adiquate support for my needs (i.e. I'm a developer searching code and making file lists based upon them) so as far as file contents searches I've been 100% cygwin/grep for a long time now (since win2k).

at least in my experience, Vista is a huge step forward on the whole. Enough that frankely I don't really enjoy using Windows XP at all any more.


RE: This isn't new...
By Belard on 4/29/2008 12:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
Google Agent Ransack (or from download.com) - Download it, install it on XP or Vista. It works on both (don't know about 64bit vista)... You'll love it.

1) Add a listing in the Right Click mouse menu when in a folder.

2) Give you the Find functions from Win98 with the Advance Find functions right from the get-go.

3) Will Find ANY file you are looking for, even the ones that MS has blocked from "Vista Search". A life saver, it was the only way to find certains files as vista puts things in different places.

PS; While I rag on Vista as much as is deserves, its placement of the user files is nicer... but basicly a different and cleaner from "C:\Documents and Settings" otherwise, vista spends more time looking pretty than functional.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... Based on what you posted here you obviously have no clue as to what Windows 2000 is verses XP which makes it impossible for me to accept anything you have to say at all about vista.


RE: This isn't new...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/28/2008 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 5
A few points.

1. Win2K wasn't really a consumer OS; it was oriented to the workstation/server market. If you want to compare XP to its predecessor, Windows ME is a more apt choice. By that, XP was a tremendous leap forward.

2. Yes Vista has some great enhancements under the hood. But the fact remains that, to many consumers-- especially in the business arena-- they just don't see the compelling need to upgrade.

As OSes evolve, upgrading becomes simultaneously more painful and less rewarding. That seems a natural progression. I don't think we'll ever return to the days when the entire consumer base automatically upgraded as each new version hit the market.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 3:15:35 PM , Rating: 3
I don't usually agree with much masher has to say, but as usual, he put it in an eloquent logical fashion.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/28/2008 3:32:26 PM , Rating: 1
> "Eh... Win 2000 was actually MS's first attempt at a consumer oriented NT based system "

I reiterate-- it was never marketed or sold as a consumer OS. A lot of the more technologically-inclined (myself included) used it as such, but that doesn't change the situation. XP's consumer-grade predecessor was ME, not Win2K.

> "Now as far as whether vista is compelling or not... I would argue that it is, but it's also a lot scarier to the average user "

I think you just proved my point. Consumers don't want to be "scared" about upgrading. If you can't give them a warm fuzzy, they won't do it.

Arguing over whether its a failure of Vista's design or just a problem with marketing and image is really a moot point. The problem is the same regardless -- a huge section of the user base just doesn't want to upgrade.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By tdawg on 4/28/2008 4:08:26 PM , Rating: 3
I definitely agree that the business installation base shouldn't be subjected to the June 30th EOL of XP, since it's much riskier for businesses to upgrade without testing, not to mention the budget cycles not lining up with Microsoft's calendar.

I do think the perception of this demand has been somewhat falsely created. The vast majority of users have no idea what they need/want and most will not think twice about getting a new PC with Vista vs. XP. It's all the magazines, internet articles, and ill-informed friends that cause people to demand that Dell or HP install XP when they don't really understand why they are demanding it. And we all know that there are plenty of writers, reviewers, and publications that don't do their due diligence before submitting their articles.

The statistics in the tech community are going to be much more skewed around this issue than the general public.


RE: This isn't new...
By TomZ on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/28/2008 5:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "That would be, in my opinion, a complete failure on the part of Microsoft."

I would argue that it's an inescapable result of Microsoft's own success. If we assume that every OS is better than the one before, the bar becomes continually higher, and the list of desireable features not yet in becomes ever smaller. There really just isn't that much one can add to an OS any more to make upgrading compelling, which is why so many perceive Vista as being primarily a "bells and whistles" version. There is truth to that...but honestly, what besides bells and whistles could Microsoft add at this point?

More speed? The percentage of CPU time consumed by the OS is already trivial. Use less memory? Why? 4GB of Ram is a trivial cost already, and getting cheaper every day. More crash resistance? That's always good, but if you have decent drivers, its not really a problem for most people, certainly not enough to go through a painful upgrade process.

For most people, the mantra is "why fix what isn't broken"? XP works...and if Vista works better, then Windows 7 has an even higher bar to jump over.

Furthermore, every day there is more software, more applications, more drivers, and more hardware out there. Which means every upgrade gets more and more difficult. More pain for less gain.

So while I think OSes will continue to evolve and expand for the next 100 years or more, I think it will happen at an ever-decreasing rate. Markets mature, and progress slows.


RE: This isn't new...
By Stranged on 5/5/2008 9:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
More speed? The percentage of CPU time consumed by the OS is already trivial. Use less memory? Why? 4GB of Ram is a trivial cost already, and getting cheaper every day. More crash resistance? That's always good, but if you have decent drivers, its not really a problem for most people, certainly not enough to go through a painful upgrade process.


Ahm... Actually, yes ?

I mean, OSes are so heavy this days, i remember when in the late 90's, when Win95 ruled and Win98 was the "new" thing, that i only had one though about buying softwares "Is this nice? Is this good? Is this game worth buying?"

Now, look at it... What you think about buying a software ? "Is this compatible with my OS? Is this compatible with my hardware? Is my PC good enough to run it?"

And even worse for the consequences ! In those times you only had to BUY the software and install it. Today you can't do this, OSes are so heavier, CPU's and GPU's can't handle the game, and OSes are less stable than they were before.

I remember my K5-100mhz with 64ram 4MBVGA run EVERYTHING i bough... EVERYTHING with my WIN95. When i upgrade to WIN98 i upgraded to a K6-233mhz with 128ram, man it was just blowing fast ! My K6 run the 98 OS faster than my Core 2 Quad today runs XP/Vista.

FOR ME this isn't normal, FOR ME, it's CLEAR to see WHAT they can improve, the question is, HOW MUCH they can improve?

Those days every game run on high and smooth, TODAY we got games that even with a 4.000$ PC, it does not run smooth.

ps : sorry for my bad english, i'm really trying to improve it.


RE: This isn't new...
By Cobra Commander on 4/28/2008 3:14:52 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately
XP = NT 5.1
and
2000 = NT 5.0

to say it shares nothing with 2000 at all is in the least misinformed, if not worse. Who you quote is exactly correct: XP is a gussied up 2000. 2000 was supposed to be the first consumer and business OS using NT for both, but it failed and ME was its abortion for consumers. It took another year and change and XP finally brought about what it all was supposed to have been.

Anyways, Windows Driver Model was introduced in 2000 (NT 5.0) and XP utilized the same tech for it. But it's bad to make such bold claims because I don't totally disagree with the first half of this most-recent post of yours, if at all.


RE: This isn't new...
By PrinceGaz on 4/28/2008 3:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And if your going to call me ignorant, I'm really tired of that recycled " XP is just Win2000 " crap. XP was new from the Kernal on up, the NT kernal. It shares nothing with 2000 at all.


I must assume from that, that you know very little about Windows 2000, or XP, or both. What you said would be more or less correct if you were comparing ME and XP, but saying 2000 and XP are totally different is incorrect.

Windows 2000 == Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP == Windows NT 5.1

XP was just an updated version of 2000 with a few extras here and there, such as desktop themes (which I can live without as I always use the 'Classic' theme so it looks and feels like 2000).

Just how similar XP is to 2000 is shown by the fact that the drivers for most hardware can be used with either 2000 or XP without any tweaks required, even if they were only designed with one or the other in mind. This was especially useful for older hardware with discontinued support, as you could simply install the Windows 2000 drivers and the device would generally work perfectly with them under XP. If XP had a totally new kernel compared with 2000, you could hardly use Windows 2000 device drivers on it!


RE: This isn't new...
By TomZ on 4/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 1:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
Actually what he posted was fairly accurate, XP wasn't even a major revision number higher than 2000. That actually says a lot... Ever wonder why on the NT line the upcoming still being developed windows 7 is windows 7 and not 8 when 2k was 5?


RE: This isn't new...
By PICBoy on 4/28/2008 2:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious you are not a gamer because Vista is the ONLY OS that supports DX 10 and gamers want all the bells and whistles on with their 300$+ videocard.

I agree that is not a good idea to leave Vista for XP for a lot of reason (I have shown people who have bought new PC with Vista that their older PC with XP runs much faster and problem free) but you can't say:
quote:
There is no reason, no reason at all, to stop using XP right now.
because is a BIG lie.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2008 2:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's obvious you are not a gamer because Vista is the ONLY OS that supports DX 10 and gamers want all the bells and whistles on with their 300$+ videocard.


Do you realize the pathetically short list of games that actually USE DX10 features ? And of the ones that do, there is actually no noticeable gain in look or performance because of DX-10 itself. And yeah, I'm a " gamer ".

I don't know one damn " gamer " who would pick eye candy over performance. And every single benchmark shows, on the same hardware, that you will get less FPS's using Vista over XP.


RE: This isn't new...
By PICBoy on 4/28/2008 3:50:14 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I'm a gamer too and I have played "DX10 games" like Crysis and World in Conflict (both great games) with my 8800GTS 320MB with my Q6600@3GHz and 2GB of ram with XP (DX 9 of course) and refuse to switch to Vista to get more eye candy and less than 30 fps. I can't afford 2 9800GTX so I'm sticking with XP for at least 1 year more.

My point was that DX 10 is there for those people, I'm just not one of them. I love eye candy but I refuse to play with less than 45 fps (specially on action games).


RE: This isn't new...
By Belard on 4/29/2008 1:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed... except that I won't wait a year for vista to get bettter.

Some DX10 titles look a bit better than DX9. Halo2 isn't one of them since it's not even a DX9 class game anyways... But heres the thing: ATI & Nvidia have their own hardware language that developers can hit, and BYPASS DX10 all together!

DX10 is the ONLY feature I want/wanted from Vista... it WAS SUPPOSED to be faster than DX9 be removing the bloat... but apparently, it's not working the way it should. So with Vista, MS has failed to make "Games for Windows" make a difference in the market.

With Piracy, WOW and consoles - PC gaming has suffered a lot. Look at UT3. Besides the fact that the developer SCREWED up the player maps (about 32 maps / 5 game types compared to their previous version with 125+ maps) in which half of the limited maps SUCK while looking PRETTY. There is almost NOBODY playing on line to battle with. So there isn't much MAP developement from the user base, which means less players want to play. One of the BEST servers has mostly custom maps, but nobody is playing on the server.

I think its COD4... in the time frame of a few months, only 20K copies sold for the game for PC. (Same for UT3) While when there are update patchs, about 200,000+ downloads happens (hows does 20K users = 200K downloads...? 180K pirated copies) While on the PS3/360 - 2million are sold. As of today, over 9million copies have been sold... they might have broken 100,000k copies of COD4 sold for PC.

If you're a developer, then making games for PC becomes a problem... why bother? With HD-TVs, the PS3 & 360 get pretty close in 1600x1080... even crappy console games will out-sell a #1 PC title.

This WILL effect GAME CARD development as well... if there is LESS games to PLAY on the PC, then there are less reasons to upgrade to a NEW video card. Gotta have the game to buy the card.... and when game cards become stagnet, then the consoles become more powerful.

WOW & other MMORPG: Many of these people (Millions) spend YEARS playing just one game. No time to play anything else... ouch! All of these things are factors for hurting video games for PC.

So if more people BUY Consoles and leave the PC for "Work" - then what would be the point of Windows? Just use Linux to browse the web, etc.

With GTA4 coming out soon and very little word about it coming out on PC... I'm thinking about picking up my first console in 10 years. (Playstation orginal was my last)

Yep, when GTA4 comes out, I'm looking at buying a PS3...

And the need for more powerfule gaming PCs WILL ALSO DIE.

In 2008 or 2010, a 1~2Ghz computer with Linux or XP will surf the web, play videos (porn), view pics (porn), write letters just AS fast as a computer in 2004 or older...

Its been games that have driven myself and others to constantly upgrade their systems. With me buying a PS3, the need to upgrade my PC drops big time. My current setup with XP is good enough for another 2 years... but for a game like Crysis, I need to spend $150~500 to upgrade my hardware... hmmm. That PS3 is looking nice, along with its blue-ray support.

Then Vista's DX10 doesn't mean squat anymore.


RE: This isn't new...
By bryanW1995 on 4/29/2008 10:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
"No reason"??? Don't you you that 3d mark vantage just came out!!???


RE: This isn't new...
By phxfreddy on 5/2/2008 9:53:18 AM , Rating: 3
He's a fanboi
And he thinks like a trink
He's a fanboi
latest fashion he's gotta gink
He's a fanboi
Pretty but breath gotta strange stink


RE: This isn't new...
By pomaikai on 4/28/2008 2:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually businesses migrated to XP because of the stability. At my previous employer our machines went from Windows NT 4 to Windows XP. There was a very short time frame where a few PCs came with Windows 2000, but the majority of employees went from NT 4 to Windows XP. Vista offers little to no reason for businesses to upgrade. Many just see it as a waste of resources to upgrade/verify that all business apps work on vista. This includes homebrewn and one-off software. I will not upgrade my laptop because it is used at work and they have not migrated to Vista. There are several pieces of software we use that is not compatible with Vista and I dont want the hassle of running a virtual machine 95% of the time for work. Its just stupid to get a resource hungry OS so I can run another OS on top of it that will eat up more resources.

Businesses are migrating from CRT to LCD because of cost savings, not because it was newer technology.


RE: This isn't new...
By TomZ on 4/28/2008 8:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
I have to take issue with a number of your points.

First, a lot of businesses widely deployed Win2K. In fact, among my customers (large automotive OEMs and suppliers), I don't know of any that skipped Win2K. And most of those now upgraded to WinXP because of Microsoft's ending sales and support for Win2K. If Microsoft didn't do the latter, I'm sure most of my customers would still use Win2K even today.

Regarding testing of apps with Vista, your view is extremely short-sighted. To not test and fix your apps with Vista makes no sense, if you intend to continue to maintain those apps in the long-term. First, some of the more progressive businesses will be and are migrating to Vista today. And obviously lots of consumer machines are running Vista. Second, if you want your app to run properly on Windows 7, then getting it to work properly on Vista is a logical stepping-stone. Third, many businesses will put off upgrading to Vista until Windows 7 comes out. In other words, there are many businesses on the 'n-1' upgrade schedule, meaning that they always run the OS version that is older than the current one. Those businesses will probably be running Vista in 5 years. Actually, I predict most businesses will be running Vista in 5 years.

As to the LCD, I agree that cost is a major factor, but so is availability (CRTs are effectively not available for purchase), and I think business users like the extra desk space with LCDs. So there are other reasons apart from cost.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 2:11:04 PM , Rating: 1
The problem with your argument is that you're comparing apples to oranges.

First of all, plenty wanted DVD, the cost of admission initially didn't allow everyone to jump on board. And its adoption rate had plenty of time prior to VHS almost complete phase out. In fact, you can still purchase new VHS players and content. Same with HD content- the question was which do we want more, HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

Plenty of people wanted LCD- lower power utilization, lower desk foot print- are you kidding me?? It was a bit more expensive, but for many, it paid for itself in longer life and lower power utilization. And people didn't have to break their backs transporting them.

As far as OS's, plenty of techies wanted Win2K, even the tech sites were clamoring for better vendor support in Win2K- why? Networking and user management was lightyears better than Win9x series. The better comparison is 98 to ME- ME was unnecessary and for all practical purposes, the same as 98.

People stuck with Win2K for its maturity and stability, but started to move to XP after the introduction of service packs because of better security features and a smoother experience. But the thing that really helped XP get pushed was the fact that it was capable of running on legacy platforms- it can even run on PIII's with only 256 megs of ram. On top of that, it was a far better gaming platform than Win2K. It had a low cost of admission, and you got every feature out of the box, regardless of hardware configuration.

That's the problem Vista has- it's very sketchy even on modern hardware, and for most people, it doesn't provide much in terms of real tangible features over XP. Part of the problem is with vendor support (drivers, etc), but even still, the cost of admission sucks, and sysadmins don't like trying to manage Vista based systems due to instability and the extra need for management. When you take into account the fact that you don't get all the major new features unless your hardware support, it's not really an attractive upgrade. It's not as simple as making the OS work perfectly with every CPU/GPU as you state it.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Lets not get into this again, we all know there are opponents and proponents of vista. Regardless of the pros and cons, in the end you will have to use vista (or vista variant when windows7 comes out)whether you like it or not, or you will be stuck with aging hardware on an aging OS. hmm thats weird,I think I had the exact same conversation regarding the move from 98/2000 to XP. How very interesting =P


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 2:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't just that an "aging" OS will work better on aging hardware. The secondary problem is that the major "new" features of Vista even on NEW hardware won't necessarily work.

Without proper hardware to support Aero, Vista really is just XP with a few addons and higher utilization/footprint. You've never had the same discussion- there was no issue of "I need X hardware to support X feature." You just needed a basic minimum hardware to support all of XP, or all of 2000.

And the secondary problem is, even if you have X hardware to support Aero, it could render the OS unstable. I'm not necessarily blaming Microsoft for nVidia's driver instability- but it does become a hinderance to the attractiveness of Vista.

The final analysis is this- the one major feature that really sets Vista as a major revision over XP requires specific hardware support, and the hardware support is buggy.

If you can name one feature in XP that had a similar issue, I will concede that it was the same discussion as 2K to XP. But XP at its inception had this going for it: if you could support the OS, you could use all the new features it introduced that set it apart from 2K (security center, etc).


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is a reason, greatly ehanced security and a much better system for running in a limited user account and only elivating privileges when required. That's a huge reason to go ahead and do use Vista... I will agree that one could get by fairly well with XP for a while yet, but that doesn't mean there's no reason (even with out aero) to run vista.

Further, If intel hasn't cleaned up their display issues yet I'm sure they will soon. They're actualy starting to focuse on graphics now... Other than a low end intel solution (very low end) there really isn't a case where you can get a computer that won't run aero. My parents just spent $400 on a new desktop and it runs aero just fine with it's S3 "GPU".


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 3:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
You can lock down XP to almost the same degree. But enhanced system security isn't going to mitigate the risk applied by stupid users who don't know what they're installing or why. Trying to use techology to solve a human intelligence problem is never a good idea.

Second, it's not just Intel hw, it's nVidia's drivers too. And who wants to spend $400 on Vista Ultimate now so that eventually it will work??

But, you pretty much answered my question- XP has had no issue of needing specific hardware to support a specific major feature.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 3:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can lock down XP to almost the same degree.

Running as a restricted XP user is not the same thing as enhanced security or UAC in Vista. This feature is not designed for computers running on a domain either, most of these security features are already implemented regardless of what windows NT variant OS you use.

If you don't like UAC or enhanced security than turn it off, it sure doesn't make vista a bad OS. I have said it many times before, DT users are obviously very computer literate, but people like my sister and mom are not, they can screw up a computer in less time than it takes to login. And don't get me started about little kids, they will click on anything. I do not understand why everyone complains about a feature than can easily be deactivated. If you don't like it turn it off, otherwise stop complaining, the last thing we need if for millions more peoples computers being hijacked because UAC is not turned on by default. Remember its much easier for an experienced user to turn something off, then it is for a unexperienced user to turn something on.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't like UAC or enhanced security than turn it off, it sure doesn't make vista a bad OS.


I don't think you realized you made my point for me.

Why should I pay for Vista's features when I will either turn them off, or they may not necessarily work (as is the case with integrated Intel chipsets, and the driver issues with nVidia, which I have personally experienced).

I'm not saying that Vista should not be sold, which is the point of view you take with XP. For people who want Aero or UAC, go ahead and eat your Vista cake.

My point is that for many of us power users (those like me who like a stable HTPC) who hold lower resource utilization, driver stability, and overall system responsiveness, Vista just doesn't make sense as a permanent replacement for XP yet. Or for IT admins (again, like me) who don't want to go through the headache of administering KMS and dealing with stringent activation issues, or dealing with the currently larger base of issues that affect Vista vs. XP.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
You could do the same thing with XP, so could you not have said the same thing about XP v. Windows 2000 or ME?


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
You could, perhaps say the same thing about XP v. 2K, but then again, XP was NOT 2K's successor.

WinMe, on the other hand was tied to FAT32, which could not support the same security features that the NT systems could, nor was WinME designed to have very many security features.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 5:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Are you implying that people are only buying Vista for its UAC feature? It is one of many features, I don't use the rear cupholders in my car, but I am not going to take it to heart just because I don't use it. Just as with UAC its not like the dealership charged me 2000$ for the extra holder.

Look past UAC and Aero and you will see that Vista is a great OS. Indexing on Vista(yes even with google desktop on XP) does not compare to anything else. Prefetch makes daily activities much faster if you have a sufficient amount of ram.
The list can go on about the many features XP is missing over and beyond eye candy and UAC. And as somewhat of an audiophile, don't even get me started about the differences in the way audio is handled.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 3:47:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The secondary problem is that the major "new" features of Vista even on NEW hardware won't necessarily work.
Please elaborate, because I have no idea what you speak of. Just because you meet the minimum specs does not mean your vista experience is going to be seamless. Please give me one example of a game that is actually playable on its minimum recommended hardware, it just does not exist. You are confusing features not working with user ignorance.
quote:
Without proper hardware to support Aero, Vista really is just XP with a few addons and higher utilization/footprint.
Lesson of the day: Just because you dont see it, does not mean it is not there. Vista has many changes under the hood, that will in the future allow us to do much more than you could ever imagine on XP. both Video and sound API's were entirely reworked with the future in mind.

One of the biggest problems with PC's is the mass amounts of available hardware that can be utilized. With mass amounts of hardware comes mass amounts of drivers and different ways of implementing the features of said products. What you call specific hardware support and crappy drivers, I call it MS choosing a standard, something that needed to be done. The real problem here is manufacturer support for 64 bit drivers. In order to be a vista certified driver, both 32 and 64 bit variants are required. Even if a company has a fully working 32bit driver, it can not be certified until a working 64 bit driver is available.

Gone are the days where a manufacturer can merely put out one crappy 32bit driver, and call it a day for the lifetime of the product. I call this a step forward not a step back. I have had no problems with drivers on vista, with both old and new hardware. People assume that because their crappy directshow soundcard/capcard no longer works that vista is complete crap. Well you can peg that issue with the manufactuer, MS notified everyone about the sound api changes long before even the vista beta releases were out.

quote:
And the secondary problem is, even if you have X hardware to support Aero, it could render the OS unstable. I'm not necessarily blaming Microsoft for nVidia's driver instability- but it does become a hinderance to the attractiveness of Vista.
Get a clue, this is untrue and unfounded. Current ATI and Nvidia drivers are stable, and have no major issues in regards to Aero.

quote:
If you can name one feature in XP that had a similar issue, I will concede that it was the same discussion as 2K to XP.
How about, the first year after the release of XP, creative(along with other manufactuers) didnt have a driver until almost 6 months after XP release.How about when SP2 was released, when many wireless cards ceased to work, hell SP2 in general(admins worst nightmare)? XP has had just as many if not more blunders than vista. In fact one could solely blame the year of the blaster worm etc the reason for vista features such as winFS being cut out in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, XP is a fine OS, I still use it on all my older computers, I just find Vista a better all around OS for my daily activities.

Vista is not a bad O/S, MS just made the stupid choice of waiting so long in between releases. It is no secret down in redmond that the reason MS has confirmed ongoing 3-4 year release cycles is solely based on the fact that MS allowed its users to enter a certain comfort zone. After 7-8 years it can be hard to let go, regardless if we are talking about a windows OS or your dog named sparky ;)


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:19:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Please elaborate, because I have


I was talking about Aero, you even responded to it.

quote:
Get a clue, this is untrue and unfounded. Current ATI and Nvidia drivers are stable, and have no major issues in regards to Aero.


First, tell that to the nVidia users (including myself) that have had driver issues in Vista. Second tell that to all the people that are running Intel chipsets (35-40% of the market).

quote:
I have had no problems with drivers on vista,


You are a single fortunate case. I on the other hand have over 250 server class systems (used for testing) in my datacenter as well as my own personal systems worth of experience which beg to differ.

quote:
How about, the first year after the release of XP, creative(along with other manufactuers) didnt have a driver until almost 6 months after XP release.


This wasn't an issue of minimum hardware requirements, as was my point. This was an issue of manufacturer support. XP had soundblaster support, which, if you could deal with the lack of enhanced audio features (eax, which are offered by manufacturers to begin with, and not the OS) you still could play sound. If you don't meet Aero's hardware specs, you don't get it- a feature offered by the OS- and it is a major feature that differentiates Vista from XP. Sound support did not differentiate XP from any previous OS- your point is completely apples to oranges. Most of XP's issues to begin with were resolved within six months, Vista's issues (administration, deployment, featurelevel) will probably not be fixed anytime soon.

quote:
In fact one could solely blame the year of the blaster worm etc the reason for vista features such as winFS being cut out in the first place.


Ok, this is coming completely out of left field. Microsoft has a historic problem as a company delivering on promises on time. Between OS delays and omitting features completely, this is an issue of development and resource allocation time lines- separate from support issues like the blaster worm. Unless you have some substantial evidence to show that Microsoft somehow diverted a substantial amount of Vista development resources to support I'm sorry, that's just hogwash.

Further, the worm was an attack on the OS- and security holes are MS's speciality. Vista's issues are self inflicted, not due to attack. Further, no one has come up with any issues in XP that were as widespread AND lasted as long as they have in Vista.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was talking about Aero, you even responded to it.


Except as I've already pointed out you're incorrect. The Aero Glass SOFTWARE behaves exactly as microsoft said it would.

quote:
First, tell that to the nVidia users (including myself) that have had driver issues in Vista. Second tell that to all the people that are running Intel chipsets (35-40% of the market).


Until a couple of weeks ago I was an AMD/Nvidia platform owner and I am currently a 100% AMD (and ATI brand) owner. The fact is that omnicrox (sp?) is totally correct... There are no current major driver issues with either platform. These were resolved months ago, if you're still having issues turn on your windows update. Windows update now even provides that latest MANUFACTURER drivers, not just the basic "it works" microsoft ones.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you're talking about Aero working from a technical standpoint- and I agree, from a technical standpoint, Aero works as MS advertised.

I'm looking at it from the reality of a MARKET standpoint, which you fail to understand. I'm not arguing from a whitewashed technological perspective. I'm arguing from a practical market perspective. Unfortunately for you, you cannot argue from a market perspective that it works with the market as it is.

And the issues with nVidia drivers aren't gone (in spite of my keeping WinUpdate on), although a good amount of it has been resolved. Again, from a practical market perspective, the issues are still there, and it Vista doesn't make sense for everyone on that basis.

I think you're also confusing your extreme position of Vista for everyone with my position of XP is still wanted, is more practical and useful for many, if not most.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget, cheaper, even moreso than basic. Why should I have to pay for Vista features that I don't want or will not use?


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 5:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this the whole point of basic? If you don't want certain features, like Aero for those users that will use the classic theme anyway why should they have to pay for them?


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 5:12:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why should I have to pay for Vista features that I don't want or will not use?

Lol thats a new one, so .. i guess you use domain services, and active directory, ODBC connections and just about every other hidden feature in XP (or any other version of windows for that matter)?

What a load of crock! Of course there are going to be features you do not use, the OS is not personally customized for you!
It has to curtail to business, home, advanced users, beginners, system admins.. need I continue?

I didn't use most of the features embeded in XP professional, in fact at home except for RDP, there is not one thing I can not do on a XP home machine. I guess this makes XP professional a useless piece of software with features that I paid for but will never used.

Thanks for the laugh, you made my day..


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
Truth is, I do use all those features- I'm a sysadmin. On top of that, I have a TV server on my HTPC which utilizes a database accessed via ODBC.

My point is this, because you obviously don't get it-

If one does not use the features that differentiate Vista from XP, then one should not buy Vista. Can you process that logic?

As it stands, XP's predecessor (ME) lacks several features that many users use and hold important. Which is why it makes sense for them to use XP.

The real crock was you trying to convince my that the blaster worm held up WinFS' release when WinFS wasn't announced until after Microsoft released patches for blaster.

As for your use of XP- if you did not join a domain, and did not use RDP (which you can get on Home), then it would make more sense for you to pay and stick with Home edition. Is that so incomprehensible? I'm not saying Pro is useless to everyone, and I'm not saying Vista is useless to everyone. I'm saying that for a substantial number of people, it does not make sense to eliminate XP. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well firstly, my position is that Vista as is is actually fine and does not have any major issues. This is true now, both in a practical market sense and from a technical perspective. I'll agree that durring the launch period there were real "issues" with vista mainly in terms of poor driver quality but those are resolved. The current crop of vista drivers are no more or less buggy than what we had with XP, so I really don't get how in those terms XP has any sort of advantage.

Now is there demand for XP? Sure I've already stated that and I've even already stated taht obviously MS is just trying to force that OS out of the market which IMHO given the very real core problems with XP security wise this is a good thing. There are certain specific cases where it's desirable to keep XP on longer, in a corperate setting for instance where IT staff are typically more conservitive for good reason. Vista like any new OS repersents an unstable element to the corperate network, that is true of any new OS being introduce on to the network and is not inherently an "Vista" issue. However typically in these envornments the corperate IT staff is taking steps for the users which will make the computing environment sigificantly more secure than it is for the average home user.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
with vista mainly in terms of poor driver quality but those are resolved. The current crop of vista drivers are no more or less buggy than what we had with XP, so I really don't get how in those terms XP has any sort of advantage.


But that's the thing, XP's drivers are NOW much more stable, moreso than Vista.

Why does this translate into an XP advantage? The lower cost of XP for one. The lower foot print on your hard disk and lower resource utilization for two, and less things to disable post install for power users

And if you're in IT factor in that you'll have a smaller headache at the end of the day administering and maintaining XP, and you've got several advantages.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 5:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that's the thing, XP's drivers are NOW much more stable, moreso than Vista.


I disagree, the quality of the software is now the same thanks to the focus on vista. Only Vista has user mode drivers which helps in stability so I would give the nod to Vista at this point in time. Additioanlly thanks to the vastly improved error reporting system in vista microsoft can actually track these issues, just how do you think microsoft was able to provide these statisics about vista's reliability issues in the first place?

As far as the rest of your agument, this is only true if your computer is only just borderline vista compatible/capable to begin with. If you're a user buying a vista compatible computer today that basically nullifies the footprint argument, vista computers ship with more ram, cpu resources and hard drive space thanks to moors law.

Would XP technically utalize fewer resources on my Phenom quad core with 4GB ram than 64bit vista? Technically I suppose, but vista manages those resources better. Additionally since I was smart and went 64bit I'm able to do certain things for my work which I could not do on XP Pro 32bit such as work with 3GB text files.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:50:23 PM , Rating: 1
Vista 64 bit definitely has a lot more going for it than XP 64 Bit. But most of the market still operates in 32 Bit, even at the Enterprise level. There is only one somewhat corporate wide application that I can think of that explicitly requires 64 Bit support, and that's Exchange 2007, and you don't run that on Vista, do you? And many are holding off on upgrading to Exchange 07, or using the 32 bit version of exchange 07 that microsoft doesn't provide support for (still think I don't know anything about the market and what people in general are using?)

As for you, you represent one usage case that is not common. How many other people open 3 GB text files? Most of my arguments are issues faced by a substantial number of people. For your use case (when you're in my position, you study use cases a lot) Vista 64 Bit makes perfect sense. My arguments are for the more common use cases.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 5:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. But most of the market still operates in 32 Bit, even at the Enterprise level. There is only one somewhat corporate wide application that I can think of that explicitly requires 64 Bit support, and that's Exchange 2007, and you don't run that on Vista, do you?


Is it appropriate to run Exchange on Windows XP Pro? That's what your suggesting right now, long horn sever on the other hand would be an appropriate paring for exchange server.

quote:
As for you, you represent one usage case that is not common. How many other people open 3 GB text files? Most of my arguments are issues faced by a substantial number of people. For your use case (when you're in my position, you study use cases a lot) Vista 64 Bit makes perfect sense. My arguments are for the more common use cases.


Perhaps not text files but gaming is indeed very common and there area already games on the market that put their toe over the 2GB per process limit of 32bit windows. As time goes on and games improve the situation is only going to be getting worse and worse for 32bit windows including the 32bit varient of vista which IMHO should never have been released. But again, this is microsoft being conservitive much like they were in revoking Win2k's "consumer approved" status even though the OS worked very well for consumers.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 6:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it appropriate to run Exchange on Windows XP Pro? That's what your suggesting right now, long horn sever on the other hand would be an appropriate paring for exchange server.


No, my suggestion was that 64 bit processing, even in the Enterprise environment where greater computing resources are in demand, isn't common. You interpreted my suggestion as something different.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 4:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was talking about Aero, you even responded to it.
I know exactly what you were talking about, and my comment stands, Aero works with out a hitch on any machine that are dubbed Vista-Ready. Vista-Capable machines have a much lower minimum requirements, and as such are not guaranteed to be able to run Aero, in fact Vista-Capable machines clearly states that the computer will not have aero activated by default. My old Radeon 9600 and 9800 work perfectly fine with aero, and that is 5 year old hardware.
quote:
First, tell that to the nVidia users (including myself) that have had driver issues in Vista. Second tell that to all the people that are running Intel chipsets (35-40% of the market).
Please, judging by your comments about vista I can pretty much bet you are not a user. I am one of those Nvidia users, and I have no problems whatsoever. Intel on the otherhand just plain has crappy drivers, whether it be 2000/XP/Vista or probably any OS in the near future. I am sorry but I have never used a stabled setup that utilized an intel video card, I am sure countless others will agree with me. As for ATI, although I do not use a recent ATI card, ATI drivers seemed to be alright from the beginning while Nvidia did have its problems for the first few months.

quote:
If you don't meet Aero's hardware specs, you don't get it- a feature offered by the OS- and it is a major feature that differentiates Vista from XP. Sound support did not differentiate XP from any previous OS- your point is completely apples to oranges. Most of XP's issues to begin with were resolved within six months, Vista's issues (administration, deployment, featurelevel) will probably not be fixed anytime soon.
Obviously if you do not meet the required specs it will not run, I don't know what you are trying to say here.

As for sound support, thanks for making my point more clear, XP barely differentiated at all from previous versions of windows in the way sound was handled. Yet it did take a few months to get working drivers, and I do not consider windows legacy drivers, which had terrible sound quality a good driver. Yet vista, which has a totally reworked sound API has working soundcard drivers for any company that actually put the money and energy into it. I had stable and working auzentech drivers less than 2 months after release, and they are a new company.

quote:
Ok, this is coming completely out of left field. Microsoft has a historic problem as a company delivering on promises on time. Between OS delays and omitting features completely, this is an issue of development and resource allocation time lines- separate from support issues like the blaster worm.
Its a simple google search away go look for yourself, XP venerabilities played a huge role in the delays and eventually the pulling of WinFS from Vista. Of course bad coding, and delivering promises were all pieces of the puzzle, XP security problems essentially stopped all work on vista in late 2002 and early 2003. As for blaster, who cares what it was, or how it different from Vista's problems, the fact remains XP was not a very secure OS for a very long time. Microsoft even had to go as far as to let unauthorized windows users upgrade to SP2 just to stop computers from being infected by certain venerabilities , something they were very much against a little more than a year before hand with SP1.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please, judging by your comments about vista I can pretty much bet you are not a user.


I mentioned here and other posts that I have over 250 server class systems that I personally deployed for a test environment. I have also tested it on an extended basis on my personal machines. I have used it, but am not a current user in favor of XP.

quote:
Obviously if you do not meet the required specs it will not run, I don't know what you are trying to say here.


My point is this, for most of the market that don't have (I have explained my market perspective elsewhere) graphics adapters that can support Aero, it's one less feature to have with Vista. Hell, certain versions of Vista don't even have Aero support. If you don't have Aero, then Vista doesn't differentiate itself that much from XP for most users. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to buy Vista over XP if it doesn't differentiate itself. Is that hard to understand?

quote:
XP venerabilities played a huge role in the delays and eventually the pulling of WinFS from Vista.


It's part of your argument, you prove it. The peak of Blaster infections happened in August 2003, several years prior to even the beta candidates of Vista, and on top of that, Microsoft had a patch for blaster released one month prior to the peak of blaster infections- the issue was for all intents and purposes resolved in July of 2003. ISP's began filtering traffic and blocking ports that Blaster spread on. It had little effect on WinFS's schedule. So please explain to me how Microsoft diverted resources from when they had a patch released one month prior to the peak of infections? Further, WinFS wasn't even first announced until later in the second half of 2003. This sequence of events indicates that Microsoft had every expectation to launch WinFS in spite of the blaster issues. The reason why it wasn't was due to the performance issues of the file system.

Lastly, if you were a true audiophile, you wouldn't use the integrated tools of an OS like Vista to manage, play and handle your music. I'm not even and audiophile and I use much better third party apps dedicated to handling music.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Just for clarification- I deployed quadboot images of Vista, XP, Server 2k3 and CentOS on these 250 servers.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 5:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mentioned here and other posts that I have over 250 server class systems that I personally deployed for a test environment. I have also tested it on an extended basis on my personal machines. I have used it, but am not a current user in favor of XP.


No offence but you just invalidated all of your arguments about poor driver quality in vista... It's obvious you're not informed as to the current state of drivers in vista.

quote:
My point is this, for most of the market that don't have (I have explained my market perspective elsewhere) graphics adapters that can support Aero, it's one less feature to have with Vista. Hell, certain versions of Vista don't even have Aero support. If you don't have Aero, then Vista doesn't differentiate itself that much from XP for most users. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to buy Vista over XP if it doesn't differentiate itself. Is that hard to understand?


I'm sorry but for most of the market they'll only get vista with a new PC, in which case your argument is invalid. Most new PCs have hardware capable of supporting aero glass unless specifically labled vista capable and shipped with home basic. And then in this same paragraph you go on to contridict your arguments about vista forcing features you don't want by pointing out that vista home basic doesn't have Aero... Home basic v. premium v. ultimate is all about giving customers choice.

quote:
It's part of your argument, you prove it. The peak of Blaster infections happened in August 2003, several years prior to even the beta candidates of Vista, and on top of that, Microsoft had a patch for blaster released one month prior to the peak of blaster infections- the issue was for all intents and purposes resolved in July of 2003. ISP's began filtering traffic and blocking ports that Blaster spread on. It had little effect on WinFS's schedule. So please explain to me how Microsoft diverted resources from when they had a patch released one month prior to the peak of infections? Further, WinFS wasn't even first announced until later in the second half of 2003. This sequence of events indicates that Microsoft had every expectation to launch WinFS in spite of the blaster issues. The reason why it wasn't was due to the performance issues of the file system.


Do you seriously think that microsoft started developing vista and then a day later released the first public beta? You did nothing to disprove his argument, delays at any point in the development life cycle can kill major features, I know... I'm a software developer and I've had it happen to me...

quote:
Lastly, if you were a true audiophile, you wouldn't use the integrated tools of an OS like Vista to manage, play and handle your music. I'm not even and audiophile and I use much better third party apps dedicated to handling music.


Your ignorance of vista shows through yet again. OpenAL is what is being discussed here and there is *NOTHING* that can get around it. If you want to produce audio on vista you're going to do it through OpenAL period, regardless if your talking about microsoft utilities and 3rd party utilities... The point behind OpenAL is Microsoft saw certain sound companies (i.e. creative) creating their own standard (EAX) to monopolize the sound device market... OpenAL levels the playing field much like directx did by providing a common set of features that all hardware supports. The difference is in how well the manufacture supports the features allowing for greater diversity in the audio device market... So far this is working as planned.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 6:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No offence but you just invalidated all of your arguments about poor driver quality in vista... It's obvious you're not informed as to the current state of drivers in vista.


In your opinion- again, I've got 250 servers worth of data I've been having to troubleshoot issues on for months with enough reinstalles to make you shudder. I've encountered more individual use cases than most technical people have. I'm very well aware of Vista's driver issues.

quote:
ultimate is all about giving customers choice.


Keeping XP around is about giving customers choice as well. there are several reasons yet to be invalidated about using XP over Vista.

quote:
Do you seriously think that microsoft started developing vista and then a day later released the first public beta? You did nothing to disprove his argument, delays at any point in the development life cycle can kill major features, I know... I'm a software developer and I've had it happen to me...


No, but my point exactly was the MS first announced WinFS after the blaster issues were solved. If the blaster issues have been solved, and then they ANNOUNCE (not a beta release, but an initial announcement) after the worm problem is resolved, how is a resolved problem likely to delay a product release? Come on, the timeline doesn't track.

Now, I don't deny your experience in development, but Microsoft develops products much differently than most small to midsize companies. In the case of Vista, where much of the development work was divvied out to vendor firms and subcontractors, they would not have diverted these contract based resources which were dedicated to developing Vista to the support of XP. For a midsize company with fewer engineering resources, this might happen- but its not likely to happen at Microsoft.

This article explicitly references performance issues due to development- not worms:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winfs_preview...

quote:
Your ignorance of vista shows through yet again. OpenAL is what is being discussed here and there is *NOTHING* that can get around it.


Ok, now you're just reaching for arguments, and if you had done any research or had any knowledge of OpenAL, you'd know how ignorant you sound right now. OpenAL was developed by Creative and introduced long before Vista. In fact, the inclusion of OpenAl due to the fact that DirectSound was being eliminated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL
http://www.openal.org/openal_vista.html

Read these two first before brining up OpenAL again. OpenAL is open source and not Vista specific. Its quite technically a feature for all OS'.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 6:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
And just in case you miss the quote in the links I provided:

quote:
OpenAL was launched at the Game Developers Conference in 1999. Initially it was a joint collaboration between Creative Labs and Loki Entertainment.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 9:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
I've already answered all your other comments in previous posts so ill skip to the audio. What exactly did you disprove? That creative has a stake in an open source project that they do not control? Microsoft is planning to do exactly what the previous poster had said, trying to get away from proprietary formats like EAX.

I suggest you read up on Vista and its new audio features, and why changes needed to be made.
quote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/0...


To sum it up for you:
quote:
Over the years, we've realized that there three major problem areas with the existing audio infrastructure:

1. The amount of code that runs in the kernel (coupled with buggy device drivers) causes the audio stack to be one of the leading causes of Windows reliability problems.
2. It's also become clear that while the audio quality in Windows is just fine for normal users, pro-audio enthusiasts are less than happy with the native audio infrastructure. We've made a bunch of changes to the infrastructure to support pro-audio apps, but those were mostly focused around providing mechanisms for those apps to bypass the audio infrastructure.
3. We've also come to realize that the tools for troubleshootingaudio problems aren't the greatest - it's just too hard to figure out what's going on, and the UI (much of which comes from Windows 3.1) is flat-out too old to be useful.


I am one of those users (from the bold text) that feel that audio in previous versions of windows was not up to par. In an ideal situation the audio stream should not directly pass through the windows mixer at all.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 11:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've already answered all your other comments in previous


You still haven't answered how WinFS was delayed by the Blaster Worm. In fact, I'm the only one that showed any kind of evidence as to why it was delayed, and ultimately abandoned. You trying to claim that blaster delayed WinFS makes no sense, the blaster issue was patched before WinFS was initially announced, before any version of it came out. In fact, if you need another source that cites performance related issues (rather than worms) here it is:
quote:
Was WinFS "killed" because of its design?
No. In fact, the Beta was coming together really well. People have speculated on "redesigns." The original goals of WinFS have never changed, but the technology we are building isn’t easy – so we did take a number of internal design changes and re-writes. And I am not going to apologize for that. Getting the relational engine to behave and perform like the Windows filesystem isn’t a matter of a few lines of code – it has to be done very carefully and architected right. The bars on performance, compatibility, etc. are all super high.
http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/
In fact, your whole idea is ludicrous when you dissect it from a logical architectural perspective. The people who were developing WinFS are a filesystem team. The blaster worm was network security issue. You don't divert resources developing a file system to combat a network security issue. They don't have the expertise.

In conclusion- you haven't responded to this claim, and you have show no evidence to substantiate this claim. Unless you can provide one bit of documentary evidicen citing blaster as the cause of WinFS eventual abandonment, I fully expect you to ignore this issue.

As far as the audio features:

A) Separating running device drivers from the kernel is not a new thing- take a look at linux.
B) you actually helped my argument again without realizing it:

quote:
but those were mostly focused around providing mechanisms for those apps to bypass the audio infrastructure.


Which was exactly my point. If you're a true pro audio enthusiast you don't use anything IN the OS, you use a 3rd party app. Even free third party apps such as WinAMP provide their own mixers, their own application specific volume control, and just about every other modification that it took Microsoft years to finally (and poorly) integrate into Vista. Hardware makers and third party developers (for audio enthusiasts) will continue to provide their tools, mixers, etc for their own software.

C) And finally, it boils down to this, a better user interface and troubleshooting for audio- that's your argument as to why I should switch to Vista's higher resource utilization? A better UI??? If I want a better UI, I can have it in several third party applications that handle media of all kinds far better than MCE in any version of Windows.

And better audio handling is still not a compelling enough argument to have existing IT infrastructure switch to Vista (which makes up the majority of Windows Users to begin with). The fact that users can manage their sound better still does not overshadow the increased management overhead that Vista presents to IT management infrastructures- this is an argument you still have yet to respond to either.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 12:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A)Separating running device drivers from the kernel is not a new thing- take a look at linux.
B) you actually helped my argument again without realizing it.
Whats exactly is your point here? That Windows XP does not have this functionality yet a community driven open source OS does? Which I perceive as yet more proof that this functionality is needed... You sure showed me.. not like that is what I have been saying all along.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 1:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
I didnt answer back your WinFS rant because you are going off on a tangeant.
quote:
In fact one could solely blame the year of the blaster worm etc the reason for vista features such as winFS being cut out in the first place.
'The year of' you moron not the blaster worm specifically, within a 1-2 year period Microsoft got slammed by various worms and viruses. Stop going off on tangents about other topics just because your original statements are wrong.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 3:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't answer because I had documentary evidence from the WinFS team themselves as to why it wasn't released. You have ZERO evidence showing worms as being even a potential cause. You were wrong and you knew it.

You went off on a tangent to begin with by even mentioning WinFS's nonexistent relationship to worms.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 3:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
I didnt answer because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.. Who cares when WinFS was cancelled, but here you go because you called me out.

WinFS was not demonstrated until 2003 and was not cancelled until 2004. Blaster according to wiki peaked on August 13, 2003. I dont know about you but the timeframes seem to line up.

Its also a well known fact (i remember reading it in many places) that Microsoft pulled many people from the Longhorn.. you can still find blogs about it to this day
quote:
http://scoble.weblogs.com/2003/11/03.html
quote:
One thing we've done is pull tons of people off of Longhorn development to get a major security fix done (code-named Springboard). Windows XP +is+ job #1. We're continuing to invest in that and bring out great new products, games, and services for XP.

Many people do not realize that Microsoft basically stopped everything to work on the problems in Windows XP, but it did happen regardless of what you may think. I am not saying blaster or other viruses were the only cause either, it was a bunch of things from worms like blaster to bad coding to just plain lack of time.

I would also like to note WinFS is not dead, expect to see it in Windows 7.

As for your stupid comment about it not being possible because they are a file system team, thats a load of crock. Most of the guys working on WinFS were longtime MS employees working in various fields, considering MS has only ever used a grand total of 3 filesystems, 2 of which were basically the same, I don't know why you think they would have a huge team dedicated to filesystems that are not able to do any other kind of programming. Once again a simple good search will verify this.
quote:
My name is Quentin Clark, I run the Program Management team for WinFS – directing the team that is shaping WinFS. Many of you have seen me on a few WinFS bits on Channel 9, and from the PDC in 2003. I have been working on WinFS since 2002. Overall, I’ve been at Microsoft for over 11 years – pursuing 1.0 projects the whole time everywhere from Office, to developer tools, to manageability software and now WinFS.


This concludes my posts on the subject, please feel free to call me out anytime.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 4:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, work on WinFS never really stopped, I should have been more clear to say it was pulled from Vista. Notice how your blog site never mentions it being cancelled or pulled from Vista.. Well thats because the blogs start in 2005 and it was removed from vista in August 2004, as it says right on the main page, check your sources next time.
quote:
Does your plan for WinFS have any impact on Windows Vista?
There is no impact on Windows Vista. We announced back in August 2004 that WinFS would not be in Windows Vista.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 1:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're a true pro audio enthusiast you don't use anything IN the OS, you use a 3rd party app. Even free third party apps such as WinAMP provide their own mixers, their own application specific volume control,
Moron, thats right you are officially labelled a moron because I have explained this to you many times. All of those apps still run through the windows mixer. In fact having a mixer in the program itself is actually a bad thing when talking about ideal audio situations. The whole point of bypassing the windows mixer in the first place was to limit the additional processing and latency times.

3rd party apps such as Winamp and Foobar allow for kernel streaming and other variations of audio transport via third part plugins which make them superior than using WMP. But this is NOT setup by default, it does not work with many soundcards, and it usually requires re sampling of the audio stream. Of course you along with almost everyone else do not have their apps setup for kernel streaming and instead use Windows WavOut..

As for resources, taking pretty much anything out of the kernel is going to slow down things. That said there was a reason for it being moved to the user. It was necessary to do so to get the needed improvements(along with increased stability, drivers being run in kernel mode is one of the main causes of instability in XP) that many have long been waiting for. With todays dual, tri, quad core cpus, a little extra cpu usage is not a big deal.

How you think it is possible to advance upon technology without requiring better hardware is beyond me. Its called progress, I know its hard to grasp, but it is a good thing, get used to it, or you may end up being 90 sitting on the park bench whining about how when you were young the bank never used to be open on sundays...


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 9:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
Open AL was not created by creative. They have a stake in it thats all. Its opensource so its not like creative is going to be able to corner the market like they did with EAX either. Think of it more as a way for creative to stay a step ahead in the game.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 10:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Open AL was not created by creative.


Ok, now you're just getting into symantics- I was responding to the previous poster showing that OpenAL is far from a creation specifically for Vista- he makes it sound like it's an API that only Vista gets. The truth is, you can have it in just about every OS variant. The reality is that it's a convenience in terms of cost of developmentfor MS to replace the DirectSound infrastructure with something that (effectively someone else) is developing.

And you have to admit, you arguing that OpenAL not being "created" by Creative is an argument based on symantics- fine, it was launched by Creative and was around long before Vista- my point still stands that it doesn't differentiate Vista. Any other OS can have it. My argument does not depend on Creative's intention on cornering the market with EAX- he was the one who specifically mentioned it, I never did. My point was that OpenAL is not Vista specific and does not make Vista special.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 10:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it was created FOR Vista, Vista is, however the first OS to REQUIRE the use of OpenAL specifically for gaming audio... Properiatary audio stacks/systems such as EAX are intentionally broken on Vista. Why? To get rid of them and do for that audio sector what DirectX did for graphics on Windows.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 11:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
I really doubt they were intentionally broken, it was more a matter of phasing out the old and patchworked directshow which EAX happened to heavily depend on. Some windows audio components in XP originated from windows 3.1 =P, it was time for a new beginning not another band aid.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 11:25:49 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, I guess that's what I would consider intentionally broken though yeah it's not an entirly accurate description...


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 11:36:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OS to REQUIRE the use of OpenAL specifically for gaming audio


Not necessarily- on a practical basis, Linux always needed OpenAL in order for users to play games. In fact, the purpose of OpenAL was created to help port games OUT of Windows DirectSound implementations to other platforms. In the Windows environment, (that is until Vista), OpenAL was optional, just like OpenGL- you had the option to develop based on proprietary DirectX technology.

And if a developer chose to use OpenAL on an earlier Win platform, guess what, it gets bundled and installed with the game (Doom 3, the Jedi Knight series, and Unreal 2 utilized OpenAL in WindowsXP)- much like newer versions of DirectX were included on disc when developer released games that required newer versions.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 11:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Except why would a developer do that with Soundblaster EAX being the unofficial standard in windows gaming? As far as Linux and gaming... Seriously now, you're better off gaming on mac... Sorry, but nothing you can say is going to take away from the fact that by forcing OpenAL Microsoft has single handedly opened the doors to true compitition in the audio sector which will lead to better hardware all around for everyone. So unfortunatly this particular argument of yours kind of fell like the Tachoma Narrow's bridge :P


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 11:54:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OpenAL Microsoft has single handedly opened the doors to true compitition in the audio sector which will lead to better hardware all around for everyone


Now that is the first statement that I can get along with. But this addresses a market issue, not a technical (read: feature level) reason to switch to Vista.

The fact is, even before DirectSound and OpenAL, Creative made a name for itself dominating the industry with the "SoundBlaster" compatibility standards. It then created the next set of standards. This is why Creative has dominated and set the standards. OpenAL was around for almost a decade prior to Vista as an alternative option to DirectSound and EAX support, and developers who cared about porting their games used it instead of EAX. Vista's forced inclusion of a development is may force the hand of developers, but the fact of the matter is that they can still choose to use EAX as it is supported in OpenAL. OpenAL doesn't necessarily compete with EAX, it's more of a complementary relationship.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 1:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
in fact they can not choose EAX in Windows vista, the functionality simply isn't there period... Try playing any EAX game with no OpenAL support in vista, guess what happens... "Advanced HD Effects" and similarly named options are gone, completely gone as an option to you. The only game where this is an issue for me so far is F.E.A.R, ID was nice enough to either support from the beginning or add in OpenAL support in Doom 3/Quake 4 so I still get advanced audio there.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 1:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
Haha openAl doesnt compete with EAX because creative uses OpenAL as their method of transporting former directsound EAX signals. What do you think the Vista Alchemy drivers do?

As for continuing EAX usage, you would be wrong again. EAX is going to be limited to legacy uses only in Vista. There is no point for game devs to pay the extra licensing fees to be able to use EAX when OpenAL free and is better suited for Vista. Creative made a killing off EAX as almost every big game supported it almost exclusively. No dev is his right mind would continue to use an EAX workaround solution and pay more for it when it requires special software driver just to use it.

There is a reason Creative is trying to milk as much as they can out of EAX before their time is up, they probably make more on EAX licensing fee's than they do selling soundcards.

But as I previously stated all the new big gaming engines will be OpenAL, this includes the unreal3 engine that is already out.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 3:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you sure do enjoy putting words in my mouth- all I said was that EAX is still there and it is a matter of choice for developers . And I was mentioning the choice they had PRE-VISTA. Can't you follow a paragraph? They had the CHOICE previously to go with OpenAL as it was an available option- some chose to go with that (I've cited the list of games pre-Vista that supported it) and some decided to continue the route of supporting DirectSound. I never contended that developers should continue with EAX post Vista.

Locutus said this earlier:

quote:
The point behind OpenAL is Microsoft saw certain sound companies (i.e. creative) creating their own standard (EAX) to monopolize the sound device market...


The way this statement reads- it seems as if he thinks EAX and OpenAL are in some way competitors- it also reads as if he thinks MS created OpenAL. All of my comments were in response to what he said.

Nor did I disagree that big new games will be OpenAL. You can say that all you want, it doesn't make it a point for you.

But again- this is a "market" issue. You can laugh all you want, but you're still not showing me how this translates into "users should upgrade to Vista." OpenAL is available in XP as well.

You're really bad at arguing the case of Vista- I will give you one practical reason people should upgrade to Vista that is Vista exclusive- DirectX 10 is Vista exclusive. How is it that I'm arguing the case of XP and you're mentioning subfeatures of DX10 that are available to XP but not DX10 itself??? You accuse me of knowing nothing about Vista- most of my comments were in response to Locutus' lack of knowledge- yet both of you missed the one truly big selling point of Vista for gamers- which comprises a larger market (monetarily and demographically) than the "audiophile" market. You can't even distinguish a benefit to the developer market (OpenAL) from a feature-wise reason to upgrade to Vista (DX10). I'm done with this conversation.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 3:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
*The whole point of forcing the OpenAL is to prevent Creative from artificially cornering the market with a standard no one else can use* . I.E. the playing field is level, starting with vista and moving on to Windows 7 you use OpenAL for advanced audio effects, period. That's not compentition, that's the new standard for windows which Creative has to accept.

The fact of the matter is you're convinently trying to ignore a host of different reasons to upgrade to vista in order to try and pass off the OS as nothing more than "a prettier XP". Guess what, XP lacks a good way to elivate your user level to perform a specific task, XP is ugly in this regard and will always be. XP lacks user mode drivers introduce into the windows world by vista, and it will always lack user mode drivers which are a huge advancement. As far as Linux and user mode drivers, I don't remember reading on my slashdot (though I don't always follow closely) that linux ever got such a capability. Last I knew modular drivers run in Kernal space, not user space (i.e. "User Mode Drivers"). Perhaps my information in this regard is dated, if it is I accept that but I would also like a link to the information outlining this so I can read up on how you run any driver in linux in user space.

32bit Windows XP, the dominant version of the OS and the very one you keep saying is equivilent to vista lacks the new security measures thrown into 64bit vista (and 64bit XP which is a nightmare compared to any version of vista). Yes, in this regard I am ignoring the 32bit varient of vista which also lacks this because moving forward 64bit Vista is going to be the most relivent version of the OS particularly as legacy hardware starts dissapearing off of the market.

Windows XP lacks good integration with Windows Search which is an extreamly useful utility once you get used to using it and have to deal with a lot of data on your system.

Windows XP Lacks and will always lack the option of having your GPU take care of rendering your UI. Yes, "you need compatible hardware to do this" which is already a nonissue as pointed out several times.

Instead of addressing any of these points directly, because you know you don't have any response you keep changing the subject and putting words into peoples mouth. Why? I don't know, apparently you just have a vendetta against Vista...


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 3:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
trying to ignore a host of different reasons to upgrade to vista in order to try and pass off the OS as nothing more than "a prettier XP".


Look- I even gave YOU a reason YOU MISSED. DX10.

Most of the case you people are citing are mostly individual use cases- 64 Bit, OpenAL (which was everywhere prior to Vista). And for those individuals- they should, and I even encourage them to go to Vista.

You're not addressing why a corporate environment (the majority of the market purchasing Windows) should change to Vista which represents management nightmare. Please respond to this.

Aero is not a non-issue. If it doesn't work on at least 30% of the graphics chipsets currently being sold (Intel) then it is an issue.

I have no vendetta against Vista- in the case of Gamers (DX10) it makes sense. In the small case of 64 Bit computing- it makes sense. OpenAL is available everywhere- it is not a reason to upgrade to Vista if it is available on XP

In the corporate environment (which purchases the most copies of Windows, period) it makes no sense.

For those who purchase Intel based graphics chipsets (30% of the market who doesn't even know better)- it makes no sense.

XP makes sense for the latter two cases. Vista makes sense for gamers and 64 bit computing.

I have no vendetta against Vista. I just don't think XP should go.

Why do I have to say things like I'm talking to a five year old to understand. I have been reasonable about Vista and I even gave a solid feature unique reason (a feature that works and is widespread enough to be important) to go Vista. You still think I have a vendetta. There are some obvious literacy issues at work.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 3:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
I can think of at least one good reason for corperations to start planning a switch to vista (though yes, XP will with good reason be around longer in this environment just like any OS migration) security.

Even with the added security a full time IT staff provides we still have botnets nabbing computers with in corperate networks which any corperation should take issue with. Again, I fully endorse any idea that such a migration (particularly on large corperate net's) will take longer to complete than an enthusiest installing a new OS on their pc, there are simply more issues involved. But is it worth moving on from XP? You betcha, security should be number 1 and vista is significantly more secure than XP.

Hence my medical software company spent a lot of time validating our client side utilities for Windows Vista to deal with our clients (hospitals that care about security) moving to vista. It should be noted we had requests for information about vista compatibility come in before the higher ups even thought about any sort of client side validation with the new OS.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 3:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you're on a corporate network you can lock down XP via domain policy just as much as Vista. From a security perspective, XP is more mature. New features in Vista could provide (and given MS' history, any new feature they provide) new security holes that MS isn't even aware of yet.

XP has lower resource uitilization. It costs less. You have less restrictive activation/key management policies with XP (extremely important in large organization). You don't need to setup a whole new server service (KMS) to manage it. For the vast majority of Corporate environments, this makes more sense than plunging into Vista's new features which are totally unnecessary given a corp environment.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Except vista has been on the market a full year with out a major security incident. It's not exactly the fresh eyed new kid on the block that's never been tested. It's about time to consider moving on from XP... Or do you just plan on running XP until kingdome come?


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 12:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and my argument didn't fall. The fact that creative has dominated the market on audio standards still does not represent a technical reason for users to switch to Vista. Your whole argument as an argument of a market situation. In fact, my very point was, you can have OpenAL on XP.

As far as features go, I (and many others) have yet to see one compelling feature to force Vista as a standard after June 30. OpenAL is shared by all OS' and it is NOT a reason to go Vista. If you want OpenAL, just install it on XP.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 12:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
The only fact here is that you don't know what you are talking about. You are beating around the bush, and you obviously do not know what I mean when I say vista has superior audio.
quote:
Lastly, if you were a true audiophile, you wouldn't use the integrated tools of an OS like Vista to manage, play and handle your music. I'm not even and audiophile and I use much better third party apps dedicated to handling music.
I guess I missed this comment before, but it says a lot about your knowledge about how things work. In previous versions of windows ASIO or kernel streaming was required to bypass the windows mixer and the dreaded waveout method of transport. Unless you setup your 3rd party app correctly with 3rd party plugins(which you didnt) it does not differ from using windows media player as it still uses the old Windows WaveOut method.

In other words, you could be using Winamp, Foobar, WMP, Itunes, they all transport the audio in the same way, where they differ is the preprocessing that occurs. This is why I like foobar2000, I find it the best player for Vista and XP, but just plain using a 3rd party app is far from ideal contidions.

Vista gives developers the ability to bypass the windows mixer, can actually require less CPU and for audio enthusiets, and allows for close to real time streaming.
It also allows for the volume to be changed on the program level in the mixer, by this I mean in your vista mixer, it has the master audio volume, and the volume for each program running that is accessing its services.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 3:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but just plain using a 3rd party app is far from ideal contidions.


By extension, you could also say that using a Desktop OS is far from ideal as well- a desktop OS is not meant for professional audio, it's meant as a general means to operate your computer. So long as you're having an OS use any kind of layer abstraction between the hardware and the application using it (whether or not it's integrated into Windows) you're still far from the ideal of having professional audio mixing equipment.

And my point still stands that it's unnecessary for most users because:

quote:
Unless you setup your 3rd party app correctly with 3rd party plugins(which you didnt)


If you're dedicated enough to want near pro audio capability, you can get it in XP with relatively little work.

quote:
can actually require less CPU and for audio enthusiets, and allows for close to real time streaming.


The problem with this statement is that by default, Vista utilizes more resources (even without Aero) than XP. It doesn't matter if an OS has better resource management overall if those resources are being depleted by a bloated OS, your system will still slow down.

quote:
the master audio volume, and the volume for each program running that is accessing its services.


To some, the greater ability to manage audio on a more granular level might be a good thing. I think it can be, but not for everyone. We've already had a huge level of granularity for anyone who cares to have it, from the physical audio knob that comes with everything from a 2.1 to a 7.1 setup, to the OS, right down to the individual application managing its own audio. It's not something that is necessary to most, and for the few audio enthusiasts that want it, they can go ahead and get it by upgrading to Vista.

But again, you still have not responded to two things:

1) Why should corporate America, or most general everyday users move to Vista with higher resource utilization and higher management/support costs?

2)Where is any shred of evidence that Blaster delayed WinFS?


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 11:17:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, now you're just getting into symantics-
Now you are getting into symantics, I was merely pointing out creative does not own OpenAL, and for games OpenAL will be the standard on Vista, most new gaming engines will fully support it including the unreal 3 engine. I also followed up because I realized I did not give you go in depth enough in previous posts about the audio issues. Read my post above for the reasons that windows audio needs to change.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 11:42:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
was merely pointing out creative does not own OpenAL, and for games OpenAL


I never said Creative "owned" OpenAL- in fact, I fully recognized and explicitly stated that OpenAL is open source from the beginning- which means it is public domain. But the idea that Creative "created it" depends on how synonymous you think "launching a technology" is to "creating technology." In the very least, Creative had a substantial hand in "creating" the idea of OpenAL.

You're the one who started trying to dissect my statements on a symantical level, when they are more accurate than the original posters statements about OpenAL


RE: This isn't new...
By jvillaro on 4/28/2008 2:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree with you. People tend to forget this happens every time. Some releases are more successfull than others. I won't say vista is perfect but I'm using with no problems, at least no important ones or bigger than when I installed XP.
I do use my vista (x64 by the way) laptop as a main computer for all my activities (internet browsing, gaming, sofware programing, etc) so I can give an opinion based on first hand use and not because what I heard from a guy who reeeeally nows about these thing because he like uses linux (uuuuuhh aaaaahhh) or like those who tried to run it on a PII with 256mb (get real please)


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
One must admit the opponents to vista are more rabbid and persistant than they were with XP... As far as I remember there wasn't this much howling a year after XP was on the market... For whatever reason the press just decided to totally bash vista and that's that... People have made up their mind it's a terrible OS with out so much as trying it in a real life senario. That basically describes 99% of the detractors out there.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 3:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
That's because XP didn't take this long to work properly. Most driver/stability/security issues were solved in the first six months.

Oh yeah, and ALL the features worked out of the box. If Vista had all these issues ironed out in the first six months, there wouldn't be this much howling. As it is, it's still a nightmare to manage in an IT environment, and, oh yeah, not all new hardware can run all of it's new features.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 3:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
What vista feature didn't work out of the box specifically?


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:03:02 PM , Rating: 1
Did you miss the part where you need a graphics adapter with PS 2.0 and at least 128 MB of RAM in order for Aero to work? Practically no Intel chipset has support for this (which, at last check was roughly 35-40% of the market, nVidia has hardware support, but drivers have been problematic (which is potentially another 30-35% of the market). The other 20% may work with it, but the point is, you don't necessarily get Aero out of the box, 30% of the market will need a graphics upgrade to get it to work (try upgrading graphics on most Intel laptops), and another potential 30% will have driver issues (I'm in this category).

So I'm sorry, this feature does not qualify as working out of the box in my book a substantial number need to upgrade hardware or have driver issues that prevent it from working.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but how does this equate to Aero Glass not working? It worked then and continues to work perfectly as long as your computer has the minimun GPU requirements that Microsoft published far in advance of vista's release. That is what I call properly functioning software, it detects it's environment and will behave approriatly given the available system resources... Basically, the oppisite of broken.

Further, you're going to have one hell of a time buying a system on the market today that doesn't support Areo glass, even when value shopping. Want aero glass? Basically buy something packaged with home premium v. basic, I know for a fact you can get desktops starting at $400 and laptops starting at $600 and perhaps less since I actually have some standards.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:28:31 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't say it didn't work completely- I said it doesn't necessarily work out of the box.

My point is pretty simple actually, just follow me on the math- the feature is one of the few that sets Vista apart from XP.

The feature itself has a fairly stringent requirement level, which, at this point, a solid 30% (a conservative estimate at that) of the market cannot use without spending extra money on an upgrade.

But, if we go the step lower, and get Basic- then what's the point of getting Vista to begin with? You're just getting XP with widgets at a slightly inflated price as well as inflated resource usage. By mentioning the lack of Aero in Basic you're only helping my argument.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't say it didn't work completely- I said it doesn't necessarily work out of the box.


I'm sorry, but really it didn't work "out of the box" if you purchased a low end computer prior to vista's release with the upgrade deal or if you didn't bother upgrading your system from a geforce 5 up to a 6. You can't blame microsoft for this, seriously what are you expecting? Aero glass to work with a 1st generation directx accelerator?

quote:
My point is pretty simple actually, just follow me on the math- the feature is one of the few that sets Vista apart from XP.


Except now you're switching gears since the last one seemed to be grinding a bit and you're wrong on this one too. There are countless enhancements both at the UI level and under the hood that make vista worth it, particularly now that the majority of machines on the market today support aero glass fine as long as you buy a PC deisgned for Home Premium.

quote:
The feature itself has a fairly stringent requirement level, which, at this point, a solid 30% (a conservative estimate at that) of the market cannot use without spending extra money on an upgrade.


And now we're back to that last grinding gear... I'm sorry but Aero glass works fine with GPU's that are several generations (and years) old... Hell it was compatible with the ATI Radeon 9600 Pro my parents system was running, that's hardly stringent. As I've posted many times in this discussion alone my laptop has the lowest end availble nvidia laptop solution and aero works fabulasly, even with shared video memory.

quote:
But, if we go the step lower, and get Basic- then what's the point of getting Vista to begin with? You're just getting XP with widgets at a slightly inflated price as well as inflated resource usage. By mentioning the lack of Aero in Basic you're only helping my argument.


Again... ACTUALLY improved security for openers.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
For the first part of your whole response, see my discussion about working from a technical standpoint vs a market standpoint.

For the second part- I don't see any indication that Vista has anything comprising greater security. They're still plugging security holes and system vulnerabilities just like XP.


RE: This isn't new...
By jvillaro on 4/28/2008 7:16:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For the second part- I don't see any indication that Vista has anything comprising greater security. They're still plugging security holes and system vulnerabilities just like XP.


Are you kiding me? Not to extend me too much but did you forget the whole Symantec bitching and crying about how they changed the access to the kernal and stuff? Thats jsut one example. Of course they had made steps to better the security. You have some legacy problems, and some that are for every platform too (java/flash exploits) but eventualy will corrected.

Two things to keep in mind:
1) I would have liked to see 64bit only and that would closed the door to many legacy 32bit viruses and such. But imagine the fuzz that would have made. Eventually it has to happen I runn everything I need on Vista 64, "legacy" programs in 32bit runs fine in WOW.
2) The most important and cause of so many security breaches and virus/worms/trojans/etc is the USER and you that work in a IT department know that. But heck UAC warnigs are such a pain.

At the end vista is not perfect for some but it is a necesary step forward. The windows 7 will just be upgrades and make a more modular windows.


RE: This isn't new...
By TomZ on 4/28/2008 4:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you're getting at, but your perspective is a little warped. I mean, what would you have Microsoft do? Never develop a GUI that used accelerated graphics, just because some segment of legacy computers couldn't support it? That's not reasonable either. Sometimes progress means some upgrade of hardware is necessary to enjoy certain new features. It doesn't mean those features are broken.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 4:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's because XP didn't take this long to work properly. Most driver/stability/security issues were solved in the first six months.
Totally untrue, it was not until SP1 that XP was considered a corporate worthy OS. That was over a year after the XP release.

quote:
As it is, it's still a nightmare to manage in an IT environment, and, oh yeah, not all new hardware can run all of it's new features.
It does not need to, why does everyone always attribute Aero to being the only new Vista feature. Vista is leaps and bounds ahead of XP in security. I really doubt that anytime in the near future it will become the norm for business users be running aero, or any gui that is over and above the bare minimum. This is a big reason why admins could care less for OSX, eye candy is not needed in a business environment, and in some cases would be considered a bad thing.

So how about we throw our personal opinions out the window here, Vista will one day be a viable business OS, but just as XP took years to become mainstream, I expect Vista to do the same.


RE: This isn't new...
By jvillaro on 4/28/2008 7:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree. Almost everybody and specialy corporate users automaticly say "I wont get XP/Vista until atleast SP 1"
And yes Aero is not Vista, it's just a new eyecandy (and really nice I must say). Having it or not does not make or break ths vista experience for corporate users, they get the many other benefits vista brings to the table.


RE: This isn't new...
By jvillaro on 4/28/2008 6:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
BS!!! Many people didn't like XP until SP2
After SP2 XP became a really good and stable OS.


RE: This isn't new...
By TomZ on 4/28/2008 7:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
People also complained a lot about a lot of security warnings that were added to SP2. Despite this, people learned to live with them. I think this is just like UAC in Vista.

In an ideal world, there would be no threats that have to be migitated in ways that decrease usability, but alas, our computers have to operate properly in the real world.


RE: This isn't new...
By jvillaro on 4/28/2008 7:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeap totally right man.
Now there are others that try to live in that world you describe (cough apple cough) that consider that there best security measure is that they don't get attacked and viruses. And thats all about marketshare, in some crazy bizarre way and only for a brief moment I would like to see things changed and another platform be the predominant one. They would have a very hard time putting their money where their mouth is.


RE: This isn't new...
By daftrok on 4/28/2008 2:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
You are all saying the same things people said about XP. Its unstable. Its graphics hungry. Its slow. It takes too much HDD space. Nobody wants it. SHUT UP ALREADY. I'm talking bout the future. In time this will change. Transition isn't easy. GAH!


RE: This isn't new...
By sprockkets on 4/28/2008 3:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
I prefer win98's constant crashing and need to reboot everyday vs. 2000's run weeks on end stability?

You are such a De De De!!!


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 3:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... Until I switched my parents to Windows 2000 as soon as it was available and that basically solved all the issues they had with their computer. Prior to that point I was reinstalling windows every 6 months and getting tired of it. Once 2K was out the system was absolutly rocksolid other than a breif stint with spyware issues.

When my parents started running into viruses and spyware I demoted all their user accounts to standard user, installed inoculate (later AVG Pro) and spybot s&d and that whole sale took care of all their malware issues. They now run Vista Home Premium since the chaintech MB in the 2K machine took a swan dive into the grave.


RE: This isn't new...
By s12033722 on 4/28/2008 7:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody wants 2000 we are fine with windows 98.


Actually, what we are seeing is very much like the 98 to 2000 transition. You forgot that Windows ME was in between those two, and nobody wanted it. What a lot of people (including me) want is the option to keep using 98 (XP in this case) until 2000 (Windows 7, we hope) comes out. We do not want ME/Vista. Granted, Vista is FAR more stable than ME, but for me there is no incentive to upgrade. Vista offers me nothing I want and costs me performance compared to XP.


RE: This isn't new...
By phxfreddy on 5/2/2008 9:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
Sometimes the cost of transition exceeds the marginal benefit of a new system. If you have specific tasks you are doing that have not change for 15 years this point will certainly arrive like it has with XP. Unless the system software lets me animate a rubber woman or can help me think then there is nothing new Vista can do for me. Thus I choose the smaller code !


RE: This isn't new...
By FITCamaro on 4/28/2008 1:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
I want Vista. I just haven't felt like spending the money since I've spent less and less time on my computer. My next computer though will have Vista. I just don't know when I'll get around to upgrading. I just know my next PC won't be as hardcore as my current one was when I built it.

I think console gaming will get the majority of my gaming time from now on. PC gaming will be regulated to a few specific titles that just play better on PC. Consoles are just nice because there's no upgrading for 4-5 years.


RE: This isn't new...
By Belard on 4/28/2008 2:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well... there is a difference from Dell selling "downgraded" systems and PCs that come with XP out of the box.

Those business systems with "downgrading" still come with Vista system discs. And XP is thrown in... this adds to the cost.

While other systems, sold by Lenovo, Dell, HP for non-business use has been with XP installed, no Vista. But oddly, Lenovo and others sometimes add $20~30 for XP.

When MS makes normal sales of XP harder in the next month or so - it'll make it THAT much harder to buy/build an XP computer. Such as those who build their own PCs or mom & pop PC shops... It'll add about $50~100 to the cost of each PC since they're getting a PC with Business/Ultimate Vista.


RE: This isn't new...
By encryptkeeper on 4/28/2008 2:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Kevin Kutz, a director in Microsoft's Windows unit, blows off the possibility of an extension, and says that the downgrade option should satisfy customers.

Unless I'm wrong, Microsoft has been complaining for years about having to create new lists of license keys for XP. It makes much more sense for them as a company to sell Vista "licenses" this way since it will appear to their investors that they are selling their new products. However the truth remains that many people ARE going to downgrade to XP instead of putting up with Vista, but it all works out to satisfy people, as long as they know to ASK for the downgrade.


RE: This isn't new...
By KingofL337 on 4/28/2008 4:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
RE: This isn't new...
By zolo111 on 4/28/2008 10:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
Dell & HP acctualy care so much about some home customers that they'll use "loopholes" to give them what they need, which in this case is XP. But how about those customers who'd rather chose "NONE -save $$"
under OS options and save some $$??


Lets justs move on already
By michal1980 on 4/28/2008 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
Vista is a good stable os, thats easy to use.




RE: Lets justs move on already
By nosfe on 4/28/2008 1:27:03 PM , Rating: 1
and eats a crap load of resources


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Mattd4AX3 on 4/28/2008 1:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
*Obligatory Linux comment


RE: Lets justs move on already
By i3arracuda on 4/28/2008 1:56:25 PM , Rating: 4
Which is why I only run Windows 98 on all my machines. Since up/down/sidegrading to Windows 98, I now have more resources than I know what to do with. I'm thinking of starting a non-profit organization for third-world, downtrodden PCs who lack the resources they so desperately need to survive in the 21st century. Or I could write a self-help book for PCs who wish to better themselves. Something like, Life After 40 (Months): Knowing When its Time to Upgrade, or Building a Better Box: An Upgrade Path for Dummies. There really isn't any excuse for impoverished PCs to quietly idle off into the sunset while there are still good people out there willing to make a difference.

Together, we can make a difference.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 1:57:24 PM , Rating: 3
So did XP when it was first released remember? Vista seems bigger because of the 5 year gap between releases, but at the end of the day this is more or less a standard upgrade in required resouces given 5 years between XP and vista...

To be perfectly honest the system requirements to run it aren't all that horrid... I'm typing this on my $600 HP laptop which has an nvidia graphics solution which utilizes main system memory as it's frame buffer rather than discrete memory, a 1.8GHz AMD dual core CPU and 2GB memory and for normal use it's plenty fast...

At the office (like I am now) when I challenge it more with multiple VS instances and virtual PC (since I DO NOT install VPN client software on my "real" os) I just pop in my 512MB flash drive and use ready boost to help smooth things out a bit.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Belard on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Lets justs move on already
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:24:35 PM , Rating: 3
Clearly written by someone that doesn't use vista...

1). The new skin in and of it's self utalized GPU rather than CPU resources so under normal operation rending the UI will actually take fewer system resources than GDI+

2). User mode drivers are excellent for maintaining system stability. This is something XP can not and never will be able to touch. In fact as far as I know neither linux nor mac can touch this either.

3). Vastly superior resource management particularly in the 64bit varient, removes memory limit road blocks for the future of gaming which is fast being approched and toed over.

4). Enhanced kernal security in 64bit varient, makes it much tougher for malware to take hold on the average system.

5). The utility of windows search being integrated system wide, this is a major convinience not found in XP even with the XP compatible version of windows search installed.

I've just scratched the surface here...


RE: Lets justs move on already
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 3:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
1) The first problem is you need specific hardware support for this feature. If you don't have the specific hardware, you don't get the new feature. Scratch one benefit.

2) Comparing Vista to XP, User Mode drivers have not helped the situation. nVidia's driver still have the ability to crash my system on Vista whether or not I'm using Aero. XP on the other had doesn't NEED user mode drivers to maintain stability. Neither does Linux or Mac (I'm currently running all four as well as Sun- Vista crashes by far the most- all on equivalent hardware)

3) In spite of superior resource management, it still has higher utilization and as a result affects my productivity. It doesn't matter that you manage resources better if you still crash and slow down more than others.

4) That's the first reasonable feature you've brought forth that has no direct counterargument. Still, most people are running 32 bit mode, eliminating the utility of this feature.

5) Search is a minor feature, isn't used often enough to be considered a substantial feature to most users, doesn't enhance that much about the OS, and can be integrated with XP. If it can be installed in XP the same as vista- how is this a convenience not found in XP?


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 3:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
1) The cases where you're going to get a system incapable of Aero glass are so rare these days that your argument is nullified... Sorry, but there are plenty of PC's in the $400 range that can do this... I know this from helping my family shop around. Additionally my $600 laptop has no issues with Aero glass on dual monitor configurations like now.

2). Ummm... There's no specific need for User Mode drivers that is unique to vista... All of the above OSes could use user mode drivers... You have any idea how much easier it is to crash a system that doesn't feature that? Here's my one liner applicat that was fully capable of taking down linux as of a couple years ago. while(true) { int a = 0; } you're about done....

3) Due to there being a huge upgrade in the number of standard features integrated with the OS... yes, durring this transition period it's pain while people play catch up, but look at the price of memory and capable CPU's... These days dual core is pretty much standard and 2GB of memroy will be standard soon enough. With these resources paired even with a low end integrated "GPU" with shared system/video memory you're fine on vista with aero glass.

5) This one will vary by user, I use it a whole bunch others might not espeacially if they know where to look for stuff a little better than I do.

Again, I just scratched the surface, there are many many more improvements under the hood, certainly more than there has ever been between OS versions other than perhaps mac OS9 to OSX.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Belard on 4/29/2008 12:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly written by someone who works for Microsoft or GeekSquad.

1) The "new skin' is not a technological leap. The ability and functionality of transparancy has been around for over 10 years, even on the OLD lowly Amiga. Nvidia includes such a function with its XP drivers. Sure, giving the GPU something to do sounds good, but considering what we get - er, what DO we get? Oh yeah, 500K add-on for XP creates the the same Start menu.

2) Yeah... Vista is so stable. Still locks up, still crashes, still reboots, etc. Proper OS like Linux/Unix didn't allow programs access to the core since the begining. They were designed to reduce the amount of hooks a program has into the OS. Windows *IS THE ONLY* OS that has a registry. That how sloppy it is. And Vista's Reg is far bigger than XP's.

3)"superior resource management"?! Yeah, it takes 3~4GB to equal a 1GB XP PC. 8GB is really the usable sweet spot for a consumer64bit OS. Uh, Vista has PUSHED the needs for more memory... Even as of today, a 1GB XP PC is more than enough for most users (office / email /web) 2GB is on the high end. Vista, 4GB is really needed for the 32bit version to get a good amount of performance. LOL, basic $400~500PCs have 2GB of RAM.

4) 64bit can still be taken over...

5) Add-on for XP gives same/simular functionality as Vista. But then again, Vista hides even MORE files from the user. Install "Agent Ransack", it'll find the files that Vista hides... its an very good XP Search program that works fine under Vista.

okay... so again.. WHAT does Vista do? Shiney looks, glowing buttons, long-running animations while its "thinks" about what it needs to do in Sloooooow motion.

If Vista is so great, it should RUN better than XP on the same hardware that is NOT a POS... 1 or 2GB, XP is faster at startup, shutdown, playing games, loading programs,unzipping files, copying files... those are FACTs.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 12:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
Wow...

1). I'm sorry new skin? How about an entirly new rendering model for the windowing system which aliviates the CPU from rendering the OS UI... Amiga didn't do that, because the hardware didn't exist. Not knocking the amiga, it was a great system for it's day, but you just can't compare the systems employed in vista due to Amiga being so dated.

2). Linux is a very good OS, unfortunetly it lacks any remote idea of integration between applications which beleive it or not, actually kind of sucks. And how does Windows being the only OS with a registry make it inherintly sloppy?

3). Yep, superior resource management, as in the memory manager rocks XP... Greater resource utilization != poor resource management, sorry. Included in the extra resource utilization is a great prefetch system which will really speed up your system.

4). Did you have a point? Sorry, I just don't know what 64bit can still be taken over means.. really, I don't.

5). XP also lacks the kernal protection included in vista (64 bit), additionally it lacks user mode drivers which frankely is a great idea for any OS. It lacks any good way to elevate credentials to perform a specific task in a limited user account, your best best is to just switch users to an admin account. Of course most people just run admin all the time which leads to spyware and botnets. As mentioned earlier XP lacks a good prefetch system, it lacks the integration of windows search seamlessly into the system.

So what does vista do? It's an operating system and does what any OS does, manages the low level resources of your system and sufficiently abstracts them so high level user apps can easily and efficiently use them. Vista happens to do this better than XP.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 12:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, as far as my employment.... I started my career at a title company using Linux servers, my sql databases and PHP. Since I've moved on to a small medical software company working on ASP.Net and SQL Server 2005.. Frankely, I find ASP.Net generally better developed for business programming, but then again that makes sense since that's exactly what it was deisgned for.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 3:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
As far as ready boost....

When XP was first released it could have used it too... There are always these issues when a new OS is released, it's heavy compared to the hardware on the market... The idea is that the general state of avaiable hardware will improve and guess what... It's already improved qutie a bit since Vista has been on the market... Try buying a computer that can't handle Aero Glass these days... You might suceed if you actually put real effort into it, but you have to freaking try.

Additoinally, as stated before... Ready boost comes into play when I'm tryiing to murder my low end laptop.... On a day to day basis I have no need for it.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 4:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
Does everyone forget one of the main reasons that Vista took so long to come out was security issues in XP? Where on earth do you think half the idea implemented in XP came from? WinFS and many other features originally pegged for being in Vista had to be cut out, most of which can be blamed on blaster and mass viruses that went after windows venerabilities like it was nobodies business!

Let go of your security blanket, I know its been almost 8 years, but your blanket has been washed a few too many times, and needs to be thrown out =P

XP is a giant workaround in itself, if I told you 5 years ago when blaster was in its prime that XP would be a stable OS, I would have laughed in your face. I am glad Vista has finally fixed some of the problems that went down to the base kernel, some of which was based on original windows code.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
100% agreed, the XP Xpreience is the reason why Microsoft is taking this (viewed as) extream approch to solving Windows vunerablilities and frankly it's paid off. Just look at the latest black hat hacker contest, the only exploit that could take down vista was a cross platform flash exploit that existed in all systems put under the gun.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Belard on 4/28/2008 1:57:10 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah... that must be why 15~20% of the customers (business and home)are killing off Vista and replacing it with XP... its just that DAMN GOOD. (That number doesn't include the amount of users WHO bought PCs without Vista)

Guess what, in general - people DID NOT DO THIS WITH the WINDOWS98 > WINDOWSxp change over (Pretend that WinME didn't exisit)... I wasn't an early adopter for XP, but people didn't have the problems with XP that we do with vista.

Hmmm.. if about 150million PCs were sold last year, and a rough guess that 15% of sales = XP, that's about 30% of the market still going with XP... with many in the vista user base wanting to go to XP, but can't (impossible to find drivers)


RE: Lets justs move on already
By SavagePotato on 4/28/2008 2:44:58 PM , Rating: 1
Smoke less crack please.

Head out of ass too if you don't mind.

Please stop inflicting your stupidity on others. Get a rope and a stool and just end it.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By TomZ on 4/28/2008 4:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree, especially with the OP's sentiment that XP was no problem for most people. For consumers, that was the transition to the NT kernel, which was a major pain point because so many consumer devices didn't have working driver. For example, I had to pitch my old ATI video card since ATI decided to not support XP. Sound familiar? The same thing goes on today with Vista. But at least with Vista, nearly everything works. Going from Win98SE -> WinXP was much more rocky.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By michal1980 on 4/28/2008 3:48:17 PM , Rating: 1
really now, stating the obivous gets you rated down.

lol, xp people need to get a life.

Vista Since the RC's went beta, haven't looked back.

Vista out of the box was as/more stable then xp was after 2 service packs. And without touching it wayy more secure.

Slower then xp? DUH, xp was slower then 98.

And windows 7. LOL, when has M$ delivered an OS on time?

so in 2012, when win 7 launches. We should just book mark all these vista threads, since the news will be the same.


RE: Lets justs move on already
By Belard on 4/29/2008 12:41:30 AM , Rating: 1
Windows7 comes out in 2010... 2 years or less.

Vista people should get a life... making the job for an skin-job with heavy DRM that was 7 years in the making.

? SP3 actually improves the performacne of XP... while SP1 is making vista slower than it already is.

MS should have spent the past 7 years cutting the bloat and fixing the problems with XP and then skinning it.

Yeah, XP was slower than 98... but it was a skin job of Windows2000 with some user friendly tools added here and there... so it wasn't really that painful of a transition. And as newer CPUs came out, XP knew how to deal with AMDXP & 64 bit CPUs the way Windows98 couldn't. Windows98 was the best of a crappy 16bit/32bit OS hybrid. Vista is still a skin-job.

Consider this: Windows98 PCs with 256 8 512mb of RAM wasn't too rare for Win98... Even at the end of 2006, you could buy a new 256mb XP box, and it'll still be faster than Vista. ;)


RE: Lets justs move on already
By SavagePotato on 4/29/2008 4:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
You should have spend the last seven years NOT ingesting large amounts of meth and crack cocaine, which have clearly left your brain located somewhere in general vicinity of your buttocks, as well as full of holes.

Please do everyone on this forum a huge favor and stop expressing your completely moronic lack of knowledge repeatedly in an attempt to sound like you know what you are talking about.

Your knowledge regarding operating systems is approximately on par with that of a brain damaged monkey wearing one of those little shriners hats and banging two cymbals together to communicate. You are neither funny, nor witty, and not even the standard Vista trolls that frequent this forum would bother to associate themselves with you, because you sound like a dumbass even to them, and that's a stretch.

May Tom Cruise and or Xenu have mercy on your soul.


Hmm.
By 67STANG on 4/28/2008 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
All bashing of vista and xp aside, it would appear by the manufacturer's efforts to sidestep MS, that their xp demand is still medium to high. Would that make Steve Ballmer a liar to force vista adoption, or simply uninformed?




RE: Hmm.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2008 2:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would that make Steve Ballmer a liar to force vista adoption, or simply uninformed?


Probably both. I mean, they win either way don't they ?


RE: Hmm.
By Belard on 4/28/2008 2:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
How about both? ;)

naa... a liar. The demands of XP sales, all tech sites across the net saying "vista sucks".

I bet ya... in Ballmer's basement, his PC has XP on it. ;)


RE: Hmm.
By SavagePotato on 4/28/2008 2:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Tech sites across the net are not at all saying Vista sucks.

Dip wad self proclaimed expert forum boys (example you) do not equal tech sites. Tech site reviews of Vista are quite positive in fact.


No problems for me....
By dragonbif on 4/28/2008 3:13:58 PM , Rating: 3
I do not see a problem with the discontinuation of XP. It is going to be sad to see it go, it has been part of are lives for so long but it is time to move on. Each time Microsoft has changed their OS this always happens (exception to ME we all happy). I just wish they would have given more time between the SP3 and the close out date of XP. I would like to get a full install XP SP3 OEM CD without having to make it myself.
Most business has the Microsoft OS insurance so they can put whatever OS they want as long as it is not past what the PC is licensed for. That makes it so they can put the OS on themselves with an image and not have to get the seller to do it like with the downgrade option.
For the home users most just do not like change and want what they are used to. If you buy a $500 computer from Dell it should run Vista with out problems and even play Wow (my dad did this and it works at full settings). Just make sure the PC had 2gigs of memory.




RE: No problems for me....
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2008 5:09:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I do not see a problem with the discontinuation of XP.


Theres no viable replacement for it.


RE: No problems for me....
By dragonbif on 4/28/2008 8:28:50 PM , Rating: 3
No viable replacement for what? Serfing the web, storing your picks and videos, playing video games, looking at porn, watching videos, what what?
If you buy a computer today with the prices what they are it should run Vista without any problems (most have 2gigs) The only problem I see is if you buy a laptop that sucks but then they did extend XP Home for cheap low end laptops to 2010 so no real problem there.


Surely I wasn't the only one who noticed this:
By Polynikes on 4/28/2008 4:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, Microsoft seems content on casting a blind ear on dissenters' comments.




By semo on 4/28/2008 5:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
you probably were. when they see an article about ms/sony/apple, most readers on dt just click "post comment" and start beating on their keyboards with their fists/heads.


DJ Computers
By kleinwl on 4/28/2008 7:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
One issue with Vista that has not been brought up is the sound wrapper. In DJ computers (Scratch/Trakor)there are many performance and failure issues that were not there with XP. It may be that Vista's lack of hardware support is straining the systems... but well equipped PCs have frequent drop outs. So... why the hell should we be forced to deal with this?




RE: DJ Computers
By andrinoaa on 4/29/2008 12:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
If all your apps are 32bit, Vista is a safe bet. However, if you, like myself are "dying" to get 64bit apps happening, Vista is a DOG! Nobody has their software ready to go yet, 12 months down the track! VERY FUSTRATING
Hardware is not an issue for me or lots of others. I have a quad core and 4 gig of ram which I am ready to ditch for 8 gig. Why has software lagged so far behind?
It was promised with all these goodies ( especially geting rid of bios ). For this I blame Microsoft (not Vista ) in their stupid attempt to get every last dime out of us.. As for getting rid of XP, Microsoft is again shooting its foot. Does this mean, on my next reinstall of XP, I cannot activate it? Does this mean I have to Buy VISTA32 to get my apps working until the other guys figure out their 64bit products? I don't consider vista 32 to be a quantum jump into the future, more like a tidy up of XP. Think of F150 suspension with a body update every now and then! And you guys know how much I LOVE trucks!
And Microsoft doesn't understand why its hated!?!?!?


By SilthDraeth on 4/29/2008 10:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
I bought a laptop with Vista Home Premium, and I read my license agreement. Now my memory may be faulty but I am pretty sure it mentioned being able to use a previous version of Windows with the same license key.

Not that it matters, I have been running Vista 64 Home Premium for months now and have had zero issues.




By Graviton on 5/1/2008 11:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, in the same way as the discs for the different editions of Windows Vista are identical except for the license keys, the license agreement shown is identical as well. It just specifies all the little differences between the editions in the same license agreement.


I can understand the mainstream, but...
By OPR8R on 4/28/2008 4:08:58 PM , Rating: 1
I can totally understand mainstream consumers' reaction to Vista, but what's up with everyone else?

Sure, if you're still using the first OS you ever used you're going to have some reservations about Vista. Couple that with Apple's ad campaigns and you have a the receipe for poor acceptance. People tend to believe what they hear, and all they've been hearing about Vista is that it's shit. So I understand where that's coming from.

What I don't get is how early adopters and techies are acting about it. Hardware devs flat out refusing to write drivers? Users insisting on staying on an old OS? I don't get it. I mean if you've tried it, you know that it's not as bad as people say.

It feels like there's a movement to kill off Vista but it seems unreasonable. Reminds me of how HDDVD died, people talked shit and BRD won.




By cmdrdredd on 4/28/2008 4:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
OPR8R, your comparison is flawed because Blu-Ray was the superior tech in that fight.


Vista fanboys
By on 4/29/2008 12:21:44 AM , Rating: 1
Read this article IN FULL and then get back with us:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c...




RE: Vista fanboys
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 10:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
This guy is complaining about stuff (such as content protection) that is in the licensing agreement to be able to play such formats (such as BD). If you want support, you need to deal with it, or you will not have any support at all. Any consumer BD player does all the same things the article describes, including not allowing high definition audio over spdif with downgraded quality.(even though spdif CAN support multichannel pcm audio). Ms is not stopping us from doing anything that we are legally allowed to do.

I dont know why people assume MS is allowed to go around and do anything they want, everything they do is closely monitored, they can not even integrate many programs into windows just because it is considered monopolistic activity.
What does MS have to gain by adding DRM? Nothing zilch.. except the ability to play the next generation formats with pristine video and lossless audio, God forbid!


By edborden on 4/28/2008 1:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.edbordenblog.com/2008/04/debunking-wind...
I blogged this last week. Just because the multi-national OEM's can't sell past June, doesn't mean it's not going to be available.




blind ear
By clinicaltechmaster on 4/28/2008 2:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
"However, Microsoft seems content on casting a blind ear on dissenters' comments." ... should be -- deaf ear or blind eye ... although his rendition is certainly correct, amusing and creative




Pointing out the obvious?
By WayneG on 4/28/2008 5:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
Whilst XP is still a revolutionary OS and well up to the task of modern computing I think that this article highlights the main point

quote:
upgraded to Vista if they should so choose


Vista is an upgrade, XP is getting old now and so it's about time people moved on. Although I don't want people to think that I'm completely condoning it's sale as it would be ridiculous to say that it's obsolete or pointless! It definitely has a space in lower spec hardware bundles/packages!




All I know
By porkpie on 4/28/2008 11:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
All I know is that "Angela", the MS employee in the "ViewMyWorld" ad above, is about the most horrifying thing I've ever seen. They think they're gonna draw people with that??




In other news,
By Techno Pride on 4/29/2008 2:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
In other news, the US government has decided to kill all sales of 2nd hand cars made before 1980 because they are clearly technologically, not to mention asthetically, inferior.




Better to wait
By loosescrews on 4/29/2008 4:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm using XP Professional since SP2 and it is still serving me well with 1 GB RAM, while Vista needs a minimum of 2GB to run at similar speed to XP. I tried Vista with 1 GB, just terribly slow.
Many people who just use their PCs for just web surfing, messaging, occasional gaming and documents are normally extremely reluctant to change their hardware just for a new OS with more eye candy and security (which they hardly know about or care about).
In a country like India where memory prices are obnoxious, you can't expect average Joe with a year old PC to fork out more money for memory and a new OS, when average Joe is pretty much satisfied with his existing setup.
Hope Vista SP2 can solve this problem of Vista being a memory hog.
As one poster said about tweaking Vista to become usable, I doubt many average users have the understanding and time to do that. No offence intended.

Peace




A regular nuisance !
By crystal clear on 4/29/2008 5:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
From the feedback on DailyTech alone, it was obvious that some users did want XP, particularly in IT scenarios, while others couldn't care less about its death.


Yes you forget to add further more to this statement,namely

whilst others who were critical/criticized VISTA were repeatedly INSULTED & HUMILATED by one specific user

His regular use of cyber bullying tactics & filthy language & attitudes CONTINUES with NO effort from DailyTech to STOP this person.

He does NOT contribute to the discussion in a positive manner,rather UPSETS/HARASSES others with his ugly responses to them,clearly when they are NOT interested to discusss the topic with him.

Its high time this FILTHY/foul talking PARROT is SHUT UP once and for all.




By crystal clear on 4/29/2008 5:25:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yes now even M.S. partners are now complaining about those ..

Conflicting statements & contradictions !

By crystal clear on 4/25/2008 12:16:20 PM , Rating: 2


http://www.dailytech.com/Ballmer+Says+Customers+Do...

Partners To Microsoft: Stop Bashing Vista

Some Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) channel partners say the software giant's recent blunt public statements about Windows Vista are putting them in difficult positions with their customers and undermining their efforts to sell the operating system.
In the past month, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has referred to Vista as "a work in progress" and hinted that Microsoft might extend the June 30 deadline for Windows XP. Earlier this month at the RSA conference in San Francisco, David Cross, a product unit manager at Microsoft, said the User Account Control feature in Vista was designed "to annoy users."

These public comments couldn't come at a worse time for solution providers who've been dutifully chipping away at the market's calcified disdain for Vista, which is fueled by negative feedback both from organizations that have deployed the OS and organizations on the sidelines parroting the 'Vista sucks' meme.



In a Sunday blog post, Susan Bradley, a Microsoft Small Business Specialist partner in Fresno, Calif., implored Microsoft to stop making the task of selling Vista more difficult by publicly discussing its shortcomings.

"I'm not asking you to lie to your customers nor your partners, but a little Vista love out in the marketplace would go a long way to showing me that you understand that your business impacts [our] business," Bradley wrote.

Microsoft has been making statements about Vista that differ from the established party line, but that's just because the vendor is being more realistic about Vista than in the past, said Matt Makowicz, president of Endeavor Technologies, a Somerset, N.J.-based solution provider.

"Microsoft used to say, 'Vista is fantastic, what's the problem?' But now, Microsoft's field reps are talking with partners and acknowledging that not everything is perfect with Vista, but also assuring them that Microsoft is working on fixing the problems," said Makowicz


http://www.crn.com/software/207402573;jsessionid=5...

Conclusions-

All this does not do any good to his image & of M.S.

All this does not do any good to VISTA SALES.





Why?
By XBoxLPU on 4/29/2008 9:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
Dell has to do this because a lot of businesses have not migrated to Vista/IE7/Office 2007. As at my work place we have issues with IE7 with a few applications we have to run. As well as the IT department has to test Vista to be suitable for every instance we run into.. still running XP on all the PCs here.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














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