Windows 7, or Vista Second Edition?

As an early adopter, I’m a bit used to being burned by my purchases. Formats die, product availability and support are usually low, and the next revision always does twice as much for half the price. Those assumptions aside, I still feel a bit disappointed with my purchase of Windows Vista, particularly with the recent details of Windows 7 and the strong possibility of it being only a year away.

I paid over $250 for my copy of Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade in February 2007, which puts me at about the 18-month mark of daily Vista use. The first year was certainly not a fun experience, but SP1 came along and did away with many of the initial bugs. Drivers have finally gotten most of their kinks out, too, and software support is growing at a noticeable rate. Yet I’m still left waiting for the revolutionary user experience akin to Windows 95 that was promised to me. So far, the only real benefit Vista has brought me is support for my eight gigs of RAM. If not for that, I’d probably be just as content back on Windows XP. I should qualify that statement by describing my usage habits, though, since Vista does bring a great new search function, an enhanced Media Center, a 3D-accelerated interface, and enhanced security. Simply put, Windows Vista is my gaming OS, and I rely on a MacBook to fulfill my other computing needs.

For those wondering, I paid more for Vista Ultimate because I wanted Media Center Extender functionality for my Xbox 360, the ability to Remote Desktop into the machine, and 64-bit installation media included in the box. I ended up shunning Windows XP x64 Edition because, while Vista did have problematic driver support for the first year or so, it still supported my hardware better than XP x64. Beyond that, I have a hard time buying OEM operating systems due to how often I change hardware. I’ve been told that a quick call to Microsoft will resolve any activation issues that could arise, but from what I can tell by looking at the license agreement, constantly changing hardware and OEM licenses don’t mix. For my usage habits at least, Vista was the better choice.

Regardless, I now find myself reading about this great new operating system. Its UI changes should improve productivity and ease of use, and it could deliver better performance for both new and old systems. This is exactly what I’ve been waiting for! There’s only one problem: it’s Windows 7, not Windows Vista SP2.

I really didn’t buy into the “Windows Vista = Windows ME” talk when Vista launched. Although I still have problems with the analogy, Vista really is starting to feel a lot like Microsoft’s previous ugly duckling. To be fair, it’s not the broken, unsupported mess that ME was, but it already seems poised to receive similar treatment from Microsoft. Rather than continue to upgrade and enhance the OS as it did with Windows 98 and XP, Microsoft seems content to fast-track a replacement. Just two weeks ago, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said that “Windows 7 will be Vista, but a lot better.” So what was Vista, a practice run? Microsoft is addressing the problems it introduced with Vista (like UAC), but rather than offer free fixes, it’ll offer to sell us Windows 7. When asked why new users should now make the upgrade to Vista, Mr. Ballmer almost seemed dismissive of the current flagship OS, saying that “if people want to wait they really can.” From the perspective of a Vista user, that almost sounds like abandonment of the platform.

Perhaps Windows XP gave me an unrealistic sense of what to expect from an operating system. After all, it had an unusually long life-cycle for a Microsoft product, lasting over five years and receiving two service packs before finally being supplanted by Windows Vista. Since then, XP has received its third service pack, and only recently has Microsoft started phasing it out of the pre-built PC market. Those service packs not only fixed bugs and security exploits, but they also added a multitude of user interface and functionality enhancements like improved Wi-Fi support, Data Execution Prevention, and a much better integrated firewall, just to name a few. When I see the changes Windows 7 is bringing to the table, particularly with regard to performance, I find myself wondering: why isn’t this coming in Vista Service Pack 2?

At the end of the day, the answer is very simple. It’s a PR move. Windows 7 could very easily be Windows Vista Second Edition, but there’s one word in the name that just can’t stay. “Vista” has become such a taboo word in the PC market that even my computer-illiterate friends are determined to avoid the OS just based on the FUD that’s been spread around. Windows 7’s short development schedule could well be Microsoft’s response to the Vista public relations failure. Thank Apple commercials. Thank evening news programs. And of course, thank Microsoft itself, since it failed to handle Vista’s launch in a responsible manner. At this point, the company just wants to be rid of the whole darn thing, and I really can’t blame it. This may well be the right move for Windows customers, too, particularly the large number that are still on Windows XP. While Vista users might feel like Microsoft is double-dipping with Windows 7, the XP users I’ve talked to are genuinely excited for Windows 7โ€”if only because it’s not Vista.

Speaking of Apple, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the much shorter Mac OS X release cycles, which Microsoft could end up mirroring with its future OS updates. Do I have a problem with that? No. The key difference is that Apple’s operating system upgrades cost $129. You don’t have to worry about what edition to buy, and the full-featured retail version doesn’t have a $399 MSRP. I’ll happily withdraw my complaints if Microsoft can match the competition with Windows 7’s pricing scheme. Otherwise, I’ll count the days until I need to give Microsoft more cash to deliver on the promises of an OS that’s already cost me $259.

Comments closed
    • tsoulier
    • 11 years ago

    Windows 7

    • AMDisDEC
    • 11 years ago

    Money to burn!

    I still use XP-64 and have absolutely no problems with hardware support. After running both Vista 64 and XP-64 on my system, XP-64 provides better all around support on my Quad Opteron, 12GB, RAID’ed system. Although, neither will support mu ATI All-In-Wonder board.
    XP-64 sees my X-Box just fine, and detects and installs drivers for my Cakewalk Firewire Personal Studio also.

    Still, most of the time I now have dropped Microsoft for exactly the reasons you provide above. I am now a very pleased and content Ubuntu user. Microsoft will have to come out with something much more compelling than Windows 7 to get me to spend good money on them again. Perhaps Windows 9 will offer more.

    • kilkennycat
    • 11 years ago

    In their continuing pursuit of domination of the PC market, Microsoft has completely lost customer-focus and as far as their OS business goes, MS is now teetering blindly on the brink of an abyss. And there seems no way back, without sacrificing their near-monopoly….
    ——————–
    You have an OS (inc. libraries etc..) and you have an Applications Layer, including the UI and many other convenient utilities. A long, long time ago in the distant past, certainly in the world of the multitasking Amiga ( ~ 1985 !) and even in the Microsoft world, these were two very distinct entities. However, in their quest to retain their OS monopoly and attract new customers, starting with Windows 9x, Microsoft began to deliberately tightly bind applications features such as IE with the OS and accelerated the addition of tightly-OS-bound ‘bells’n whistles’ applications when they introduced Vista. Any attempt by governments, 3rd-party developers and other interest-groups around the world to separate Microsoft applications layers from the core Windows OS has been met by strenous legal resistance from Microsoft.

    Microsoft has finally been “hoist on their own petard” with these Microsoft-imposed mandatory applications-offerings bloating the size and slowing the core OS. Endeavoring to continue their OS monopoly with Windows 7, MS dare not remove features that people have valued in XP and others that they have started to value in Vista. Microsoft also dare not cleanly separate the now hugely-bloated applications/UI layer from the core OS, (a) because they could not charge anything near the current prices for just the core OS (think Linux..) and (b) that would potentially open up the OS to 3rd-party development of UI and applications packages far superior or far more efficient than those currently packaged with Vista.

    Of course, Microsoft could come up with a slimmed down OS just for netbooks ( er, maybe Windows XP…. sorry, I forgot WinXP has been forcibly discontinued, except for OEM netbooks for a grace-time entirely under MS control…). However, since the typical customer expectations for a netbook is a total transparency between the netbook, laptop and desktop, a netbook OS package missing some laptop or desktop features is unlikely to fly very well.

    There are many thousands of 3rd-party and custom applications developed under XP ( the growth of the PC business literally exploded during this 6 years.. ) that fail completely or sporadically under Vista, regardless of the so-called “backward compatibility” of Vista. For that reason, penetration of Vista within business, educational and government entities has been pitiful. Only those businesses using standard office and data-base software have seen any successful penetration of Vista. Intel, for just one example, has refused to adopt Vista as their default Windows OS, due to its poor backward compatibility with 3rd-party and custom applications developed under Win XP. Which business in its right mind and in these recession-type circumstances is going to invest development and test resources just to patch an application for a new OS when it works perfectly fine under Windows XP?? There is no declaration from Microsoft of any intent to improve Windows 7 backward-compatibility over that of Vista for legacy WindowsXP-developed apps. And of course, Windows XP has been deliberately discontinued (and Dx 10+ mandatorily only available on Vista/Windows 7), so that Vista (er, I mean Windows 7) can be jammed down the customers’ throats. Except that many of those professional customers who cannot or will not accept Vista/Windows7 as an “upgrade” from Win XP are moving to Linux for their future OS and applications development-platform and in the meantime sticking with Windows XP.

      • Krogoth
      • 11 years ago

      The entire problem with poor 3rd-party application compatibility is a result of bad programming habits.

      2000 first introduced LUA, but no programmer took it seriously and assume that their programs will always have administrative rights. 2000 and its siblings never enforced it. It is no surprise that Windows OS based on NT 5.x kernel are not secure by default and have been plagued by stupid viruses and worms.

      Vista is the first Windows OS that started to enforce LUA policy. Boom, the programs that were written with the assumption that it always will have and must have administrative rights go “OMFGWTFBBQ!” The end-users go barking up the wrong tree.

      Vista’s primary problem is not so much from compatibility issues rather it is from that offers very little over XP in the enterprise world. It is not worth the $$$$ or time to make the transition. The infamous network stack bugs are not making it any easier.

      It is not much better for *nix adoption, since that will also require a lot of time and $$$$$ from training to updating the entire software infrastructure.

    • stmok
    • 11 years ago

    Didn’t I say Vista was a failure when Ballmer made the admission? And guess who paid? You did. The consumer. US$259 in Matt’s case…And you’re going to keep paying until you wake up to this nonsense.

    What’s worse, you folks keep going back for more! Its like battered wife syndrome. (Constantly giving him chance after chance because you’re so dependent on him).

    Maybe its more like a prostitute…The one hot one that you can’t get enough of, no matter how badly she treats you, you keep going back and paying. Oh! You can’t do it with the other girls? Because she’s one that does these things no one else can? And when your friends point the situation out, you fiercely defend it! Oh no, nothing is wrong. Its all good!

    Sad. Really sad.

    Well, its your choice. So keep paying, and keep giving Microsoft chance after chance. And if Windows 7 doesn’t work out for you? Heck, there’s always a Service Pack 1, right?

    And if that doesn’t fit your bill, well there’s Windows 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, … Oh gosh! It doesn’t end, does it?

      • ECH
      • 11 years ago

      Stmok makes a great point. It’s sad when people don’t learn from past mistakes but get upset when others point them out. I was generally excited about Win7 but in my eyes it appears to be nothing more then a Fuji update (Vista SP3 if you will). If the final version doesn’t show any substantial performance boost I’m just sticking with XP. I find no reason why peer pressure should dictate an OS purchase (as others are so willing to do).

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      You’re right, people should wake up. After Windows ME, they should’ve never given Microsoft another chance to deliver Windows XP.

      I find your argument to have lots of holes and a bad basis to begin with.

      • Krogoth
      • 11 years ago

      Vista is not a failure for crying out load. Sales and adoption figures simply do not add up. At best, it is just a disappointment to MS shareholders. It did not meet their desired projections.

      “7” has a new brand name to counter the senseless FUD that has plagued the Vista brand and still persists for whatever reason.

      7 is just another refinement of UI and a few things. It still the darn kernel when you boil it down.

      Vista is going to be another classic case on how powerful FUD and negative marketing perception can be.

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 11 years ago

    With the exception of my LifeDrive not yet having support for Vista (Palm’s fault, it’s been years now), Vista HP x64 works fantastically for me. Hasn’t hard crashed since I bought this machine 14 months ago, and the computer runs pretty much 24/7. Doesn’t slow down no matter how much I have going on at once….solid all-around. Guess I’m a lucky “Group B” user.

    • Kurotetsu
    • 11 years ago

    [best-troll-impression]
    A). Vista absolutely sucks in every way imaginable and is Second Coming of Windows ME! Its slower than molasses rolling uphill in January, none of my hardware works, my software randomly crashes for no readily apparent reason, UAC goes off every time I type a character in Notepad and it needs 120GB of RAM before it can run smoothly!

    B). Vista is perfect in every way imaginable and is the Second Coming of Windows XP SP2! Its faster than a speeding bullet, supports all my hardware out of the box, its as secure as a bank vault, is as stable as John Wayne in a gunfight, and can run smoothly on as little as 1GB RAM!

    C). Hm, Vista looks nice enough. I like the GUI and some of the security features are spiffy. But all in all there’s not much here that I can’t do on XP. Since I already own XP and it runs everything how I want, I don’t see a point in upgrading to Vista just yet. Maybe when more DirectX 10 games come out…

    Its absolutely hilarious how 99% of people commenting on it automagically polarize into A (PRIME1-type) or B (Meadows-type) based on my strawmanned descriptions, with a pathetically small handful of people falling into C (Levelheaded-type). Oh, and I’ll mention this before a bunch of people start falling over themselves claiming to be a C-type, a maximum of only 3 of them have posted in this thread. They know who they are. I’ll also cheerfully admit to being a B-type.

    Of course, in addition to that you have category D (AMDisDEC-type) who believe Vista is the herald to the Golden Age of Linux (which is so incredibly hilarious I can barely type straight), and category E, the OS X-philes who actually have a valid point in saying that Vista has done alot to push forward Mac OS X to consumers.

    And yes, I have put Macintosh-ites last just because I dislike you that much.
    [/best-troll-impression]

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Long live B-types!

      • PRIME1
      • 11 years ago

      Based on Windows 7 rush to market I’m guessing Microsoft is an A type.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Ask them instead of giving your opinion into their mouths.

          • PRIME1
          • 11 years ago

          You mean like how they said Windows 7 would be “less annoying” than Vista, or how Ballmer was telling people to skip Vista?

          Oh wait…..

          HA!

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Oh, really. Where and when?
            You’re creating tangents out of some of their simple statements.

            The only time they said Vista was “annoying” was then they talked about UAC – it was deliberate, as customer complaints would help kick the ass of software developers who would then /[

            • PRIME1
            • 11 years ago

            So now YOU are putting your opinion in their mouths. You really must look up the word irony.

            • Fighterpilot
            • 11 years ago

            You really must look up the -[

            • PRIME1
            • 11 years ago

            So is “Meadows” your work screen name?

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            I am Prime1. My favourite ice cream flavour is strawberry. There’s a new flavour out at my local ice cream shop, that’s walnut. I couldn’t hate walnut more, I think it’s terrible. I will ignore the millions of happy customers who are more than satisfied by the pleasant taste of walnut, and I’d rather stick to the flashy and far-too-sweet strawberry that’s been around for a while. I hate walnut so much, I’m sure the shop is displeased with it too, although I have no clue since I haven’t actually asked. How could anyone like walnut when I don’t?

            • PRIME1
            • 11 years ago

            I am Meadows. I used to eat strawberry ice cream, but the company came out with a new flavor, “Salty Donkey Balls”. Now it does truly taste like ass, but because of all the marketing and hype I just had to get it.

            Even though the old flavor was smoother and more popular and many people are going out of their way to get it, SDB is Meadows flavor of choice, especially when topped with a thick irony sauce.

            • adisor19
            • 11 years ago

            LOL

            That post just made my day. Thank you ๐Ÿ™‚

            Adi

      • crazybus
      • 11 years ago

      Aren’t you neglecting the group of people who use Vista but acknowledge it has flaws?

      IMO, dismissal of Vista usually coincides with over glorification of XP.

        • DrDillyBar
        • 11 years ago

        agreed

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Pointless.

        • ClickClick5
        • 11 years ago

        Windows 9 is now out, and for slower hardware, Windows 5.

        lol

    • RagingDragon
    • 11 years ago

    EDIT: post in wrong place.

    • yogibbear
    • 11 years ago

    The things i like in Vista are the easy to find Event Viewer, and the Reliability and Performance Monitor. Those tools are wicked.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      They’re good help for maintenance crews fixing problematic PCs, but personally I haven’t touched them ever except checking them out the first time.

    • no51
    • 11 years ago

    /[

      • gooch02000
      • 11 years ago

      Actually, since apple went x86 a while back, their software runs on almost anything. There are plenty of “pcs” that are running mac os x.

      • Tamale
      • 11 years ago

      apple charges $129 for what microsoft calls ‘service packs’ and releases for free

        • ludi
        • 11 years ago

        Bingo. Mac OS isn’t any cheaper than WIndows over the long run, you just buy it on the installment plan.

        • bozzunter
        • 11 years ago

        #150, apple charges $129 for what microsoft calls ‘service packs’ and releases for free

        New features from one Os X to another are far more than from Windows 95 to Vista. But I guess you’ve never seen Os X, so go on this way, another absolutely useless post to be classified under “Long live Microsoft” in a PC website where 95% of people don’t know both Windows and Mac OS but post just because they need to post.

          • Tamale
          • 11 years ago

          I work with macs every day. XP’s addition of the zero-config wireless utility in service pack 2 would have been heralded as a huge feature for a new version of OSX. Same with IE 7.0 or new versions of DirectX

    • PRIME1
    • 11 years ago

    Either way I guess the death of Vista can’t come too soon. Not even for Microsoft. At least they are admitting what a defective product they released, it’s just to bad they are going to make us pay (upgrade) for their mistake.

    Here’s to hoping that MS does the right thing and include a lot of the “fixes” in SP2.

      • no51
      • 11 years ago

      What a POS Windows 2000 must have been. XP was released a year after it! Microsoft couldn’t wait to get that steaming pile behind them.

        • PRIME1
        • 11 years ago

        Windows 2000 was meant for business only. XP was pretty much Windows 2000 with some updates and was intended to combine one OS for both home and office.

        This was probably all before your time though.

        EDIT: Besides MS already admitted the problems with Vista, even going so far as to say it’s annoying and people can just skip Vista.

          • no51
          • 11 years ago

          I don’t get what you’re trying to say. XP Home was for consumers… XP Professional was for businesses.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            XP Professional was for… professional users. Though I still remember I picked Pro back in the day simply because Home couldn’t even do antialiased stretching of wallpapers and I couldn’t be assed to find pictures of the exact right size.

            Then again, my best experiences to date have been with Vista, and I’ve seen all the Windowses.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Vista won’t die until at least 2012.

        • PRIME1
        • 11 years ago

        It’s dead already.

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          That’s what you wish.
          Just because _[

    • axeman
    • 11 years ago

    “Windows 7” looks to be merely a rehash of Vista – it’s using kernel 6.1 just like Server 2008 right now, making the “7” moniker marketing alone – makes me even less likely to give Microsoft money in the future. Justified or not, the damage Vista has done to Microsoft’s image makes me think that Microsoft might be better off in the long run to either make Windows 7 free for existing Vista users, or make it very,very cheap. Did they spend a lot to develop it? Probably. Does that mean charging everyone 100 bucks or more to “upgrade” to what Vista should have been a good PR move? I doubt it. Even in the corporate world, where products are more likely to be evaluated and tested by technical people before implementation, it seems Microsoft has an increasing unawareness of what people might actually want and what they’re trying to sell; like pre-SP1 SCCM 2007 or Office 2007. Fortunately for them, enterprise licensing agreements make sure we’re paying for 12,000 copies of Office 2007 every year even if we are unlikely to implement it anytime soon. The next couple of years are shaping up to be EXTREMELY interesting. We’ll have to see what transpires. Microsoft, the ball is in you court.

    • Pax-UX
    • 11 years ago

    I follow the golden rule with all Microsoft products don’t pick-up till at least one Service Pack is out the door, seriously! If you buy a MS product before SP1 you’ll have problems. To be fair this isn’t just limited to MS.

    I also don’t see the need to buy anything more then an OEM, and you can get two OEM for the Price of a regular Vista that allows multi-install, so given the short shelf life Vista apparently will have spending more mightn’t not be a wise investment.

    This next Windows is going to be no different, this is just more hype. If you really believe everything is some how going to be all better your wrong. Vista is now really good, the Alpha version has moved onto a Beta with SP1. I can use with it without any issues and after a little tweaking I prefer it to Windows XP. All that will happen is people will be using the Vista engine (so to speak) with a new theme under Aero. I agree that there should only be a 64bit release. 32bit is now obsolete.

    We don’t need new Operating Systems every 2 years! We just need the patches to fix the problems. That’s the real issue with all MS products. Since Windows 2000 I’ve only upgraded because of games. I don’t need XP but if I wanted SLI I had to. I don’t need Vista, but I want DX10 I had to. Once Windows gaming move on to the next big thing or copy protect required biometrics to play I’ve very little reason to upgrade. As it stands I have a laptop & gaming PC running vista, all my older systems run Linux. I still find Linux on a laptop a bit of a pain. OS X isn’t all that amazing but it is a nice blend of BSD + pretty graphics.

      • axeman
      • 11 years ago

      Personally I’ve waited until SP2 or later to adopt most Microsoft products, the experience of upgrading is generally far less painful that way.

      • Mystic-G
      • 11 years ago

      Isn’t 7 taking what Vista’s already done and moving forward? If that’s the case then there’s technically more than a service pack already.

      I just loathe how MS focuses on pointless features that a very small percentage will use. Try focusing more so on core things many care about.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    Oh, I see that my that MS and especially Windows being one of the topics that gets huge frontpage comments is holding true ๐Ÿ™‚

      • no51
      • 11 years ago

      My fear is that TR would devolve to a more tabloidal style of reporting (if it hasn’t already). After all, mo’ clicks means mo’ money, mo’ money.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 11 years ago

    In the end I paid $500CDN for my Ultimate the day it came out. I don’t know why everyone is so bent out of shape for paying 1/2 that. Seriously. I’ll probably end up getting whatever version of Windows 7 mirrors Ultimate too, full Retail.

    • StashTheVampede
    • 11 years ago

    Windows7 is the next XP. It takes the v1.0 of changes that come in an OS and really tweaks them (along with a few years of hardware advancements) for end users.

    It’s too bad that Vista was targetted at consumers AND businesses. Like Windows 2000, it should have gone to IT staffs first, hammered it out, THEN to consumers like XP (you could have gotten 2000 on default system installs, but there were more rare).

    • ludi
    • 11 years ago

    /[<"Perhaps Windows XP gave me an unrealistic sense of what to expect from an operating system. After all, it had an unusually long life-cycle for a Microsoft product, lasting over five years and receiving two service packs before finally being supplanted by Windows Vista. Since then, XP has received its third service pack, and only recently has Microsoft started phasing it out of the pre-built PC market. Those service packs not only fixed bugs and security exploits, but they also added a multitude of user interface and functionality enhancements like improved Wi-Fi support, Data Execution Prevention, and a much better integrated firewall, just to name a few."<]/ Short memory. Windows NT 4.0 saw six service packs in 3.5 years, with a final security roll up released in 2001. Microsoft didn't formally discontinue all NT support until 2004 (8 years). Windows 95 didn't become fully unsupported until the end of 2001 (6 years), and Windows 98 didn't become fully unsupported until 2006 (8 years). Windows 2000 launched in early 2000 and may have felt like it had a short life, because XP and Server 2003 came hot on its heels, but it was widely deployed in business environments and saw four service packs, with the final security roll-up being released in 2005. Extended support is still available until 2010 (5/10 years). IMO the only reason why XP might /[

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      “Windows 2000 launched in early 2000 and may have felt like it had a short life, because XP and Server 2003 came hot on its heels, but it was widely deployed in business environments and saw four service packs, with the final security roll-up being released in 2005. Extended support is still available until 2010 (5/10 years).”

      Aye, but at least in my case, Win2K stopped being viable for me after 2004 as a consumer. Why? Because that’s around when MS end of lifed it. Security updates, ok, but no video cards after 2004 were released with drivers for Win2K. ATI Radeon x850. nvidia Geforce 6800. For business, yes, doing good. We still use 2K and appreciate the support. For consumer use, which is what XP is directed to more than 2K, there was really a good reason to switch–new hardware, new games.

      I also had to switch from 2K at home to XP because games would begin to refuse to install on 2K.

      I suppose there’s “support” versus “effective life”. And it’s really context-sensitive. For home use, 2K was never really a great choice. For business, yes, solid and I love it.

      But in the context of the blog, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to mention NT4 or Win2k3 because a consumer, and that’s what this blog author, using his windows box to play games, is, would never be running NT4 or Win2k3 for their game machine.

      What the blogger should have mentioned was where he was getting that perspective from. If he’s a longtime mac user, he’s seen the quick release schedule of OS X in the early days. What was it, a new OS each year for the first three releases? In that context, XP has been around foooorrrreeeeever.

        • ludi
        • 11 years ago

        Yeah, but the point was, it is fairly typical for Microsoft operating systems to have 5-8 years of support in their target market. Vista won’t necessarily whither up and vanish just because the name is tarnished. Windows 2000 got XP enhancements like “Run as previous version…” and some of the newer security features in later service packs, and given how similar Windows 7’s codebase is to Vista, it will be trivial for Microsoft to quietly release service packs for Vista simultaneously as it buttons down and improves Windows 7.

        Matt says he got a year and a half out of Vista so far, and I can’t see why he wouldn’t get at least two more years if he really wants them. Read between the lines, and it seems like the real complaint here is that his Early Adopter Syndrome will drive him to buy Windows 7 just because it’s “new”.

          • Jambe
          • 11 years ago

          “Read between the lines, and it seems like the real complaint here is that his Early Adopter Syndrome will drive him to buy Windows 7 just because it’s ‘new’.”

          Indeed; it’s called the r[

    • WaltC
    • 11 years ago

    /[

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      You need to work on your criticism writing. Not bad, but stuff like where you address his liking of shorter release schedules as:

      “Right–if Apple’s cycles are shorter it’s OK, but if Vista’s cycle is shorter, it sucks.”

      …then ignore the statement that qualifies why he’s ok with that in your response, instead choosing to treat it as an entirely separate thought as your next point actually makes you look a little petty, like you’re nitpicking and can’t come up with any good argument without taking stuff out of context.

      Just sayin’, you should look out for that so that your responses are more airtight.

      I did want to clarify this:

      “So how’s about the several *years* of “system upgrades* that you get with Microsoft’s OSes for free through Windows update? Forgot all about that, right?”

      OS X also has a similar service called “Software Update”, just like Windows Update. It pops up from time to time and you either get security patches, application patches, or bundles of fixes in OS version increments (say, 10.5.0 to 10.5.1 to 10.5.2, etc.) You could consider those bundles as “service packs” as they also sometimes add or change functionality as well as straight up bugfixes.

      The author was referring to the major releases of the operating systems. Going from 10.2.x to 10.3.x to 10.4.x to 10.5.x where each new version costs $129. That would be akin to going from Win98 to Win2K to WinXP to Vista and paying $129 each time for the BEST possible version, rather than paying depending on what features you want (XP Home versus XP Pro, Vista Home Basic versus Vista Home Premium versus Vista Ultimate).

      I think if you look at the time that OS X was out and compare that with the MS releases, you probably sink overall more money into OS X if you had bought every single version. Mainly because MS had that long stretch where their consumer OS line just sat at XP so there was nothing to buy. Though also you can consider that the frequency of releases gave people the option to skip certain releases if they didn’t want to upgrade to quickly. I guess, much like many people are doing with Vista–waiting for W7 instead. And before someone throws out 180 million units shipped or whatever, there has to be SOME reason that Microsoft is rushing out W7 possibly a year before the projected 3-year cycle of 2010. I highly doubt that they are rushing it out under a different name to capitalize on the huge popularity and adoption of Vista, if you get my drift.

        • WaltC
        • 11 years ago

        /[<...then ignore the statement that qualifies why he's ok with that in your response, instead choosing to treat it as an entirely separate thought as your next point actually makes you look a little petty, like you're nitpicking and can't come up with any good argument without taking stuff out of context.<]/ The "separate thought" as you put it was offered as a statement in the context of what it was he didn't like about Vista--the "thought" may have been different--but the context was not, of course. To say that you're "OK" with shorter cycles for OSX but to criticize Vista because of its presumed short cycle (he is simply asserting a short cycle because a ship date for "Windows 7" hasn't been announced) seems to me to be not only nitpicking but looking for something to criticize when there isn't anything there. His reference to OSX was what was out of context, of course. /[

    • Ricardo Dawkins
    • 11 years ago

    woooohoooo, I paid 250 USD for my Zune 80 almost 1 year ago….now you can get one for 199 USD

    is this Techreport or whinereport ?
    Come on, you cover computers news and such. What is (one of) the basic rule of computing ? you buy today it cost less tomorrow.

    Windows XP has 3 Service Packs. get the facts. and SP2 was more security related than anything.

    Windows Vista will get at least 2 Service Packs.

      • MaxTheLimit
      • 11 years ago

      He said ( accurately ) that at the time of Vistas release there was two service packs for Windows XP. Service Pack 3 didn’t come out until after Vista was released.

      the exact quote was:
      “…receiving two service packs before finally being supplanted by Windows Vista”

      As for the price thing he is relating the Microsoft price scheme and release schedule to the Mac price scheme and release schedule.

      He’s saying he paid more money for an OS that was up to date for as short a time as a cheaper OS…He’s mentioning the value of his purchase.

    • End User
    • 11 years ago

    Great post! My thoughts exactly.

    • darc
    • 11 years ago

    If MS wants to get it right this time, they really need to make Windows 7 64-bit-only, and push the industry forward. 3 flavors of one OS, in both 32 and 64-bit versions, is a disaster, promotes confusion over hardware and driver compatibility, creates unnecessary work for 3rd party devs, and results in a lot of people not leveraging their CPUs to their full capacity.

    The arrival of 64-bit more or less concurrently with Vista was an opportunity, and would have provided a genuine reason for users to upgrade – beyond funnelling cash to Seattle – and MS blew it. I hope they aren’t planning on doing the same all over again.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      I agree with that, or at least that 64 bit ought to be the default.

        • packfan_dave
        • 11 years ago

        64-bit will be the default, I expect. Heck, I think 32-bit Win7 will be nearly impossible to get at retail or from a major OEM in first-world countries, except possibly in netbooks. It exists for third-world countries and really large corporations that roll-out OSs on a company-wide basis, but still have some old non-64 bit P4s, Athlon XPs, and Pentium Ms around (remember that Intel laptops were 32-bit only until C2D came out; even Core Duo/Yonah was 32-bit only).

          • MadManOriginal
          • 11 years ago

          Yea I was going to say something about systems that any CPU released within 3 years of the time of Win7’s release should be fine but then I thought about how many P4 systems with slow graphics are in corporate boxes, plus the 32-bit laptop CPUs you mentioned. A trimmed down UI 32-bit version for special purposes only will be fine, or they can designate Vista for that purpose (lol ;)) but 64-bit should be the default and should be all that’s shipped on prebuilt systems.

            • darc
            • 11 years ago

            “…or they can designate Vista for that purpose…”

            Better still, then can designate XP for that purpose (ie. what they should have done when they released Vista.) It’s what most of their customer base has done for them anyway. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • YvonneJean
          • 11 years ago

          Things are even worse than you think. I work for a company that still has hundreds of computers with Celrons, the old ones, still running. We are just moving to XP.

      • nerdrage
      • 11 years ago

      I agree, and I’m really confused why they’re going to offer a 32-bit version. Making Win7 64-bit only would exclude Athlon XP and almost all Pentium 4 users, but I can’t imagine that Win7 will run very well on those anyways. But I’m guessing the reason they don’t do it is because of all the Pentium M / Core Solo / Core Duo laptops out there.

      I would argue that most users don’t upgrade their OS anyways — they usually get their OS upgrades with new hardware purchases. The older systems can run 32-bit Vista.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Windows 7 can run perfectly on any Athlon XP or P4 system.

          • ew
          • 11 years ago

          Stop trolling.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            If truth is trolling, then I’ll rather stay in business despite your wishes.

            • ew
            • 11 years ago

            Hm… maybe you were right. My bad.

            • moshpit
            • 11 years ago

            He’s not trolling. He’s right. Windows 7 will be able to run on low powered netbooks with Atom CPUs, it’ll definately run on Athlon XP or Pentium 4 without a sweat. The only thing though is that Atom might actually be faster on Windows 7 then AXP or P4 simply because of having more cores then either of those two.

          • Hance
          • 11 years ago

          Being able to boot up the OS doesn’t mean it will be a pleasant experience. If the OS is 32 bit then pretty much any x86 processor would be able to boot the operating system. Just imagine Vista on a plain Pentium processor, sure it would run that doesn’t mean its usable.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Unlike you, I’ve actually used Vista on Athlon XP and P4 Celeron systems for real, and they worked fine.

            • Hance
            • 11 years ago

            Works fine to one person ( you ) is so slow that it would drive some people ( me ) absolutely bonkers. I have used vista on way more modern hardware than an Athlon XP or P4 Celeron and the UI was so slow it drove me crazy.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 11 years ago

            Of course Vista has an GPU accelerated interface, so as long as the Athlon or P4 had a decent graphics card, it should be fine.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Of course you can have the best intel quadcore but if you also use their integrated graphics then the UI will lag no matter what.

            • Hance
            • 11 years ago

            The system that drove me nuts with the slow UI was a 3.2ghz C2D, 2 gigs of ram and a GeForce 7800GTX.

            • TechNut
            • 11 years ago

            Not to troll, but what did you consider slow? I use Vista on a 24″ LCD @ 1900×1200 with a 6600GT and it is not “slow”. Do you mean that the windows fly away or do things like that? The only time the video is slow here is when I do full screen 1080p. The 6600GT I have only has 128MB RAM, and going full screen causes it to start using system memory which it stutters. But asides from that, everything else works as expected. I do word docs and excel mainly on this system so I don’t need the worlds best GPU.

            • Hance
            • 11 years ago

            Basically everything in the UI happens slower in vista than it happens in widows XP. The time difference is small but its enough to drive me absolutely crazy. Even opening the start menu drove me crazy. I would click and in the short time it took for the start menu to open maybe 1/4 second or less i would have time to click again closing the menu. I ended up clicking the start button again because the time lag made me think it had somehow missed me clicking on it.

            The windows flying away and doing the fancy animations doesn’t do IT for me either. If I click on the window to close, minimize or maximize it do it and do it NOW don’t waste my time with eye candy that adds nothing.

            • Krogoth
            • 11 years ago

            That is part of the animation. FYI, it can be “disabled” if it so bothersome.

            Go to Control Panel => System => Advanced System Settings => Advanced => Performance => Disable/Enable window animations.

            • Hance
            • 11 years ago

            I know you can disable them but the animations were just the tip of the iceberg of things I didn’t care for in vista. Other things were a lot more bothersome than the windows animations.

            Being able to set UAC so it doesn’t prompt so often in Win7 is nice. I had to turn it off in vista because it drove me crazy. The other changes to Windows 7 I will just have to try when the beta comes out.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            You’re very easy to drive crazy.

            • Hance
            • 11 years ago

            When you go from an OS like XP that works so well with so few problems to a new OS like vista and its a PITA to use it tends to drive one crazy.

            How many of the people that like UAC in vista actually click no when it pops up? I bet you all click on yes far more often than you click on no. If your clicking on yes more often than no the feature must not be very smart about how it handles the prompts.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Since no malware got on my computer, no, not many times.
            There have been other computers in the family where UAC stopped boot-time viruses from setting root, I know because I manage all of our computers.

            The point isn’t clicking yes all the time – the point is not seeing prompts at all, in an optimal case, and teaching users that high privileges outside the system core are _[

            • Hance
            • 11 years ago

            I out grew needing my hand held a long time ago. If the way UAC worked actually did more good than harm I would be OK with it. I forced myself to run vista for six month and not once in that time did I have a UAC prompt where I clicked on no.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            “Handholding” is just the thing that UAC is not. It’s a common misperception where the uninitiated mistake it for an “Are you really, really sure?” dialogue.

            Besides normal prompts, UAC governs startup programs (and stops those that want to execute high rights during booting) and browsing, whether online or offline (due to the fact (Internet) Explorer is pretty much an all-around integrated program you may like it regardless of your real online browser).

            • TechNut
            • 11 years ago

            Hmm, you where complaining about the UI being slow, not how UAC or other features where enabled. The UI is working as designed, the fade in/out, are part of the eye candy.

            My point is it’s not slow if it’s acting as it’s inteded too. You’re comparing XP which really saw it’s last upgrade in 2002/2003. It was based off of Windows 2000 and ran well on a 433Mhz machine. So, of course it’s going to run well. The features are also still 1990’s in there implementations.

            With Vista, MS attempted to move the bar ahead and start the process of modernizing the Windows interface. The UI got some eye candy upgrades, albeit, they are tiny and I didn’t really notice to be honest.

            I have a feeling people will complain about Windows 7..8..9.. also long as XP runs on faster newer hardware. In 2011 if a 32nm Intel processor and board are able to run XP, you’ll still be saying Windows 8 is slow compared to XP!

            You could make the same argument for Linux. A 2.4 kernel will run circles around a 2.6 one on newer hardware.. if you can get it to boot. 2.6 will not run on a 386, but 2.4 does.

            It’s all about perception here. MS trying to kill XP is the right thing to do. As long as it’s available, it will undermine whatever they want to do because it’s much simpler, and does not take advantage of the hardware’s capabilities.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            I turn off all that sliding/fading/animation crap in Vista, it’s not terribly hard to do once when setting up a new system, but a good deal of it was in XP too so it’s not a valid XP vs Vista argument.

            • willyolio
            • 11 years ago

            it runs, usably, on a Via C-7. now stop spewing FUD.

    • packfan_dave
    • 11 years ago

    I moved from XP to Vista because I had an MSDN subscription (so it didn’t cost me anything) and an almost brand-new laptop, but my general policy is to only switch OS versions with new hardware. Win2K->XP wasn’t a huge upgrade (though if I’d been runnin Win98 or ME, it might have been a different story), certainly not worth the fuss of installing a new OS, but not a downgrade on current hardware either. Same with XP->Vista. And XP->Win7 looks like that, too; there’s a reason the server version is Windows Server 2008 R2, not Windows Server 2010 (though Win2008 R2 is dropping the 32-bit versions, unlike Win7).

    • herothezero
    • 11 years ago

    q[

    • ritzcracka
    • 11 years ago

    The main problems with Vista at release were drivers. Far too many terrible “WHCL certified” drivers, particularly for graphics cards, were released.

    If they want to ensure a good launch for Windows 7 they need to give WHCL some teeth. Block drivers that are not WHCL-compliant from being installed. PERIOD. And make WHCL actually MEAN something, by only certifying drivers that are of good quality.

    While it’s not entirely Microsoft’s fault that Vista was plagued by bad drivers for the first year of it’s release, they do deserve a good chunk of the blame for even allowing the type of shenanigans displayed by Nvidia and Creative Labs to go on.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      I do kinda feel for them.

      Block the driver release? Why, Microsoft is FORCING you to BUY NEW HARDWARE to work with Vista!

      Allow the buggy driver? Why, Microsoft’s new OS is BUGGY and DOESN’T WORK with my existing hardware!

      I think Vista was too rushed for MS to really beat the vendors and software companies into line. And, from what I recently read, MS kept changing the OS enough that the driver writers had a moving target up until the time of launch and so couldn’t write finalized drivers until after launch anyway. Think I read that on Ars or here in the last week. Too lazy to look.

      MS has to be resigned about the whole thing. At this point Vista really is just a transitionary OS designed to force the new driver model and program security model down everyone’s throat, keep and hold the stigma, and let MS move on with new brandings of the same OS but without the stigma that is attached to the Vista brand name. I don’t think that was MS’s intent at the beginning, but it’s the only really practical route for them to go now.

    • thermistor
    • 11 years ago

    Butrovich…I had to look twice at the author’s name. I can image grade-schoolers having fun with your name.

    Vista was a joke for the first year. It was only around last x-mas when all the drivers started getting up to snuff that Vista started looking good.

    I also re-installed to 64-bit Ultimate about 90 days ago, and got all the patches, etc. (that was a loooong weekend). Vista 64 is very good. It is stable, and I like the explorer, and network/sharing…it’s well thought out.

    Windows 7 should really be a SP2, with some options to re-configure UAC, etc. Why shake me down for a product that wasn’t really finished its first year of general release?

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 11 years ago

    Good analysis. I appreciate the insight.

    What I keep thinking is that MS needs to re-think the release price and such. Here’s what I think they should do:
    $75-$150 Windows 7 Upgrade – Only for Vista Users
    $150-$250 for Everyone Else

    And there would be 3 price points within those to align with 3 versions:

    Home- no domain or RDP support
    Business – domain, RDP, no Media Center
    Ultimate – domain support. RDP, and Media Center

      • Hance
      • 11 years ago

      So vista users get a price break because they put up with vista for a year or two ?

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Yes, much like how Windows upgrade versions have worked for many years. Besides, for me it was a pleasant experience, not something I “had to endure”.

        • opinionated
        • 11 years ago

        No, Vista users get a price break because they bought Vista and contributed to Microsoft’s bottom line already. XP users didn’t so should not get the price break.

      • StashTheVampede
      • 11 years ago

      MS should go back to two versions: home and professional.

      Home *should* lack domain connection, but SHOULD have all the ultimates enabled/installed by default.

      Professional *should* have it all, except that the MCE portions aren’t installed by default.

      Lack/inclusion of RDC is debatable, but having too many versions of the OS really doesn’t help their cause with Vista.

        • FroBozz_Inc
        • 11 years ago

        I agree wholeheartedly. Go back to 2 versions.

        • kaikara
        • 11 years ago

        If you are talking about XP there were never two versions. You have XP Home and Pro. Then there is XP MCE. Then you have to get XP x64 if you want to run a 64 bit version. You also have the starter version for developing countries and the N editions of Home and Pro. So in reality there were more versions of XP then there are of Vista.

        Windows is fine in 4 versions – Basic (for low powered devices and developing countries) Home (which would include Media Centre), Business and Ultimate. If you can’t keep 4 different versions straight in your head you are an idiot.

      • FubbHead
      • 11 years ago

      I completely and utterly hate the idea of different “models”! Buy a windows license, and it should work with any Windows, wherever and whenever. Then they can charge extra for utility upgrades on top of that.

    • AMDisDEC
    • 11 years ago

    Any Windows release has no more value then $29.95.
    That’s it!
    The best and most reasonable pricing from Microsoft was the Windows 2000 pricing where a 10 seat CD cost you 249.00. That put the per seat price around $25/seat.
    Anything more is a rip-off for sucker.

    • PeterD
    • 11 years ago

    Interesting: Matt Butrovich’s Win machine is… his gaming machine!
    And he relies “on a MacBook to fulfill my other computing needs.”
    Does that mean that Windows has in essence become a toy?
    I remember Sir Clive Sinclair once saying that he had lost interest in his own Sinclair Quantum Leap because people started to use it as a toy in the first place, and not as a business machine.

      • Peldor
      • 11 years ago

      More interesting is that he thinks Win 7 is going to somehow provide him with something different. Prediction: He’s going to pay top dollar for whatever MS decides to segment 7 into, still use it primarily for games, still rely on his MacBook for ‘other computing needs’, then whine about it.

      This is fundamentally as baseless as any of the myriad other Vista whines we’ve heard over the last couple years.

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        Why do Vista fanboys always dismiss valid reasons, often valid business reasons, as “vista whines”?

        There’s been several Vista-related discussion threads on TR where several people gave concrete examples where Vista causes them headaches when XP and 2K did not. Sometimes it’s ok to accept that things aren’t always perfect and that people providing examples and assertions contrary to your bias aren’t lying idiots.

        Just sayin’…

          • Fighterpilot
          • 11 years ago

          Probably for the same reason XP fanboys just can’t accept that the majority of people who use Vista and find it great don’t post on Tech Forums…only the few who have problems with it.
          180 million copies so far and regular complaints from a hardcore of about 0.01%.
          Comments about it being “stellar” as above are blindly ignored in the interest of”making damn sure my problems get heard about” and “I’ll prove its broken cause it won’t work for me” etc etc…

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Yes of course the squeaky wheel complaining out of proportion is part of it. For myself it is true that Vista x64 does 98% (or whatever high amount) of things I need to do correctly and well, it’s just that other few percent rather than being minor quirks are really irritating and frustrating.

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            “This is fundamentally as baseless as any of the myriad other Vista whines we’ve heard over the last couple years.”

            Yes, but some of the whines aren’t baseless, which is my point. 180 million OEM copies shipped with computers. How many were later downgraded? My household has 50% of its Vista computers downgraded to XP and it wasn’t even my doing or encouragement; I use Vista on my primary machine.

            My place of work currently has 2 copies of Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition sitting in their original boxes. We did a test deployment and it didn’t interact well with our internal applications and those from our vendors. We were able to solve most issues but there were several hangups that prevented us from deploying it to replace our Win2K machines. We’re migrating to XP in the meantime. That’s 2 sales, 0 uses for those sales.

            What about the large companies that have come out and said that they will be skipping Vista deployment entirely? TR’s had some articles on that once or twice. I’ve also seen some articles either here or at Ars that described how the sales figures don’t count the machines that vendors are pre-downgrading to XP for customers. We are ordering a HP from CDW and one of our requirements was that it could be downgraded to XP. But hey, I’m sure that will count as a sale of Vista.

            I grant you that 180 million sounds like a huge number. But that doesn’t make me convinced that they are all actively deployed. If we knew the real number of in-use Vista installations versus the “sales” or “shipped” numbers MS reported, that’d be far more telling.

            Would your opinion change if you found out that out of 180 million claimed Vista sales, only 75 million were actually being used? Something to consider as it would indicate that many people weren’t actively using Vista, for one reason or another, despite being “sold” Vista.

            • TechNut
            • 11 years ago

            I do agree with you that it’s not all rosy for deploying Vista, especially in the customer application space. MS Channel 7 Blog covered this issue a while back.

            The fact is Vista moved to a more modern model for drivers, API’s and some other under-the-hood features. In your case, I can understand custom apps having problems, especially with the new security policy. XP would “just work”, and I agree this is a valid reason for going with XP.

            Fact of the matter is, if your application has a problem with Vista, it’s likely to have a problem with 7 as well. They share the same underlying kernels and API structure. So, it’s a pain for business, but you’ll eventually have to upgrade those apps.. or well, run them as long as you can continue to get XP to work on whatever hardware you buy/keep around.

            Now, I do admit, I wish MS did this the way Apple did. They should start with a clean implementation of a new OS (Singularity is a good start!) and then using virtualization add a Legacy XP/Vista mode vis a vi virtualization technologies. This would allow you to run your custom application, with the benefit of using modern hardware. A plus for your custom software investment.

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            Ya, you know, I saw that whole “do it like OS X did” and “run WinXP in a VM” or “implement something like WINE for legacy Win32 apps” idea bandied about sorta recently and I think that’s a neat idea. I totally didn’t think about that, but it makes sense and has precendence. The example I saw talked about OS/2 implementing Win3.1 compatibility rather than using the OS X example, but the gist is the same.

            I think it’d make sense but I don’t know if MS will ever do it. They were trying to move their OS to some subscription-based thing and have all of their software in the cloud on .NET, also subscription-based. I wonder how long until they try to make their standalone OS little more than an implementation of Larry Ellison’s thin client dream back in the 90’s.

            Maybe that’s a tad cynical, but that solution seems to have some great positives to it. Maybe that’s why I don’t see MS ever implementing it. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • mbutrovich
        • 11 years ago

        l[

    • Xenolith
    • 11 years ago

    I actually liked Windows Me. It seemed more stable/usable than 95/98.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      I’ve used it for a long time (relatively at least) before upgrading to XP well past its release. I was actually reluctant to upgrade things back then. The Sims 2 was just released, and a bug in the Catalyst drivers (yes sir, used ATI before I woke up) crashed the game whenever the love graphics appeared above a character. I had to upgrade to XP to be able to install the latest drivers and play. I was disgusted by the interface, and I still am, but I’ve come to terms with the OS quite quickly.

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        Why not run XP with the classic start bar and the classic theme? It’s pretty close to the Win9x Win2K UI then.

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          Because frankly, that looks /[

            • MattMojo
            • 11 years ago

            For once, I agree with you Meadows. Vista interface is a nice change.

            I love Vista — and I still think XP is good too. That said I have all Vista machines now (home and work) and that was by choice — and I have not looked back yet.

            Windows 7 looks fantastic, especially from a deployment stand point at work; plus all the other behind the scene stuff that enhances on what Vista already delivered.

            For me, if I can effectively use it for work purposes and do so with increased efficiency then I’ll make the jump in a minute.

      • pogsnet
      • 11 years ago
      • StashTheVampede
      • 11 years ago

      As one that supports a WinME system … ~6000 miles away, I’d have to say it’s held up better (along with the P3-550) than I imagined. The one great thing about it: none of the recent virus or trojans specifically target the OS or the default browser on that OS.

      This system is directly connected to the net (not 24/7, lol) on Japan’s fiber system (I think it’s 40Mb/symmetrical) without a router or firewall in between.

    • El_MUERkO
    • 11 years ago

    Vista is good … now, except for UAG which is a colossal pain in my balls.

    I look forward to Windows 7 in the hopes it will iron out the kinks and go back to a suitably long release cycle. Also it’d be nice if they released a single 64bit version.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    btw I like that TR has put the blogs in the front page article list.

      • ScythedBlade
      • 11 years ago

      1/3 of the chance … Just refresh~

    • Meadows
    • 11 years ago

    g{

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      Yup, I mentioned that and XP was the main Windows OS for a very long length of time. However Vista pricing made up for that…if MS wants to do a release every 2 years it had better be less expensive. I don’t have a problem paying a few hundred (even though I didn’t – upgrade edition workaround ftw) for an OS that will be the major one for 4-5 years but that price is pushing it for 2 years.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        I think it will be less expensive – I also took Vista’s price as “making up for the lost time” but didn’t mind it much (after all I’ve saved money for years by using XP up until then).

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      You must be insane to call OS X “service packs”. If Windows 7 has taught us anything it’s that version numbers are meaningless. Apple probably should have numbered the OS differently:

      10.0, 10.1, fine…
      10.2 = 10.5
      10.3 = 11
      10.4 = 11.5
      10.5 = 12

      That’s more accurate in terms of where we are today as far as I can tell.

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        Didn’t 10.4 add the first 64-bit memory support for OS X? I dunno, would that be worthy of a new version on your scheme, or no? It seems like a decent differentiator.

        Thing is during that time they were also changing so many core components and breaking applications, too. Like the CoreAudio and the QuartzExtreme junk and stuff, working their way to 10.5 when they “finalized” the platform that people could write to and whatnot.

        Maybe you’re right that it’s a 11.5 type of thing, but seems really transitional between 10.3 and 10.5 (which makes logical sense, durrr) and different enough that maybe it should get its own version number. Lotta programs required 10.4 or greater, too, whereas with Windows I didn’t see many programs say they required … ok yes, I do see programs say they require certain service packs installed for XP and 2K. Nevermind.

    • Meadows
    • 11 years ago

    I’m actually fighting my computer illiterate and literate acquaintances alike to drop the FUD and give it a try. I’m pretty much the only computer-literate person in my family, which has 6 PCs altogether for example, and I’ve upgraded them all to Vista and nobody ever complained.
    I must be doing something right where others fumble, I’m not sure.

    Anyway, I’m also an early adopter and I won’t hesitate to buy Windows 7… whenever. It’s even more of a no-brainer than what Vista was back then, since I have to do nothing but move my current drivers over to it and it’ll work top-notch from release day.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      It also could be that your illiterate family members aren’t really pushing Vista too hard. For a while, when I was building my new computer up (or putting off building it up), I just used it to browse the web and do webmail. And hey, Vista worked great for that casual use. I was wondering why people were whining about things.

      It wasn’t until I tried restoring my old workflow and habits that I used to have under Win2K/WinXP that I started running into compatibility issues and UAC-induced nerd rage. Homeworld 2 won’t work unless I disable DEP. Beetle Buggin’ (hey, it’s a fun game!) randomly freezes. My video encoding software had issues and I found out Vista is a bitch when you try to edit .ini files in c:\program files\ because that’s a protected directory now (I know I know blame the software maker, not microsoft) and I have to manually launch notepad as admin to edit some video encoding scripts. When I tried to update it (update or full install, uninstalling old version first and installing full new version, various version combinations also tried), I always got some random error with my scripts which didn’t show up in the scripts themselves. I ended up wiping that program out, installing it to another drive (f:\program files\) and it worked perfectly.

      I scrubbed the registry and looked everywhere (user data, profiles, whatever vista calls it and I’m too lazy to look even though I’m using vista right now) for any residual .ini files related to that program, looked through more registry entries than I ever want to again, found nothing. Yet somehow Vista retained some odd random extra MINUS sign in a random part of the script and injected it after a fresh install. Yet when I moved it out of the protected c:\program files\ directory and installed there, it worked PERFECTLY.

      It’s the little annoying shit like that. If I was just browsing the web, yes, Vista was nice. Sure, playing DVDs causes WMP to crap itself and freeze for 10 seconds, but then it works… most of the time. But when I tried to use Vista for more than casual stuff, that’s when I realized what a pain in the ass it can be.

      Maybe your family doesn’t use Vista like that and will never run into this stuff. Cool beans. For a while, I didn’t, either. But the crap I’m running into now isn’t FUD, it’s affecting my workflow. And I don’t care if it’s the software vendors who are writing poorly designed programs, in the end the only thing that changed was the OS and stuff that used to work perfectly no longer does. That’s what Vista’s meant to me. Blah.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        I’m a power user, albeit the only one here, ergo I won’t qualify myself as proof or anything, but my experience isn’t compromised. To mention a few, Nero 9, Photoshop and Premiere Pro, home LAN and internet, movies (whether “classic” TV quality, H.264 or HD) all work fine (WMP, most of the time), my games and programs run perfectly, and nothing ever needs to wake UAC except when I tinker with RivaTuner. The computer is exceptionally fast and rock-stable, too.
        It is this that makes me seriously wonder what the whining people are doing to their PCs all the time.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    I have no serious problems with Vista x64 i[

    • pluscard
    • 11 years ago

    I’m not pleased with Vista. I consider it broken, and I haven’t yet found anything in Vista that is an improvement over XP.

    I have the following issues with Vista:

    1- I can out type Vista. This occurs in AOL IM, but also in many other text box windows. Most of the time it catches up without losing characters – but if I persist, it will drop chars. If I want to backspace, I have to delay a second to make sure all the typed chars display before hitting backspace.

    2- I’ve had to close the taskbar and restart it many times.

    3- I routinely have to close IE, and restart.

    4- Ok – this is trivial, but Freecell doesn’t even work right. It tries to anticipate how many cards I’m moving in a stack, and highlight them, but it doesn’t work. When moving a stack – I frequently have to go back to the “from” stack, and click it again – making sure it highlights, then drag it to the new location. I never had this problem with XP. I think it’s a classic case of trying to do “too much” and failing to meet basic functionality instead.

    I have purchased a copy of XP, which I’m going to use to replace Vista.

    Plus

      • Sandok
      • 11 years ago

      IE is quite stable on my Vista PC (well technically, it’s a puny laptop) and as for the out-typing, never happened to me and I didn’t even know that such a thing could be possible?

      Maybe it was just a bad install or drivers or whatnot? The first 3 issues sound like that to me.

      And no, I’m not defending Vista (even though I do enjoy using it), I still prefer the simplicity of my XP rig.

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        I’m not seeing the same issues with my Vista, but I do have my own problems. My wife actually wiped her Vista OEM install on her own system and installed XP because of hatred of Vista issues (browser issues, I forget what exactly, maybe youtube videos freezing during playback?, programs didn’t work, UAC all the time until she turned it off, WMP freezing during playback, WMP never STARTING playback, hard drive always churning with that turbocrash crap or memory prefetch or something, etc.)

        I’m still sticking with Vista, but it doesn’t play nice with her XP box. I can’t copy stuff to or from HER but she can do the same to and from ME. When I drag something from her mapped hard drive to mine, Vista tells me I don’t have rights to write a file TO MY OWN HARD DRIVE. In a folder I just created. And I’m an administrator. And all the permissions say I should be able to do it. This issue drove me so crazy I just gave up and now she has to do all the copying of stuff (video files I encode, mostly, and she masters to DVD).

          • PeterD
          • 11 years ago

          Quote from Scrotos: “When I drag something from her mapped hard drive to mine, Vista tells me I don’t have rights to write a file TO MY OWN HARD DRIVE. In a folder I just created. And I’m an administrator. And all the permissions say I should be able to do it.”

          That’s just awfull.
          And as W7 has the same kernel as Vista, I think that lots of problems will reappear in W7, whatever the hurah-camp may say at the moment.
          Oh, yes, the demo’s will work fine. But the demo’s will be on specially prepared machines.
          I had a similar experience with speech-to-text software once too: the demo was great, but at home I discovered it was not interesting to use. Flashy? Yes. Productive? No.

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 11 years ago

            The demo is on a disk that the person can install on their own computer, IIRC.

    • Beastie
    • 11 years ago

    I believe the official name for Windows 7 is “Vista Reloaded”

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      i believe you have two different accounts.

    • thebeastie
    • 11 years ago

    I believe the official name for Windows 7 is “Vista Reloaded”

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      i believe you have two different accounts.

    • Corrado
    • 11 years ago

    There’s nothing wrong with Vista right now. The problem is that it doesn’t do anything better than XP in a lot of users eyes. It does things DIFFERENT, but not necessarily better. I’ve been running Vista Ultimate x64 for about a year now and I have zero complaints. Running it on a quad core Phenom with 8gb of ram and a 4850 so yeah it runs really nice, but it also runs more than acceptably on my MSI Wind with 2gb of ram in it.

    • holophrastic
    • 11 years ago

    I simply don’t get it. I’m running vista ultimate x64, and having no problems with it, and loving it. I’m running dual monitors, and 4megapixels on one of them. I have no complaints. I play games, I watch video, I program, I do graphic design. It’s a business machine, and a fun one at that.

    I have no problem paying for windows 7, or vista sp2. Better is better, not mandatory. I don’t expect more for free — from anyone, ever. Vista’s a perfectly good and sound product, and I look forward to yet another one in windows 7.

    That’s not to say that vista’s perfect in every way, there are boat-loads of things that I’d change to suit me. But vista’s not designed to suit only me — it’s supposed to suit you too. It’ll take me yet another six months to get all of my customizations figured out just right, and to learn the remaining few IT tools that I’ve been avoiding.

    But really, why would I complain? It’s more and better than XP. More management tools, better visuals, more power, 64bit, drivers and hardware work fluidly. x86 applications still work.

    I think those of you who prefer XP simply do so out of familiarity. I wonder if you preferred XP when it was new.

    If windows 7 is nothing more than a few upgrades to vista, that’s fine. Quite frankly XP sp2 was a huge upgrade, and could have itself been a new OS. It brought firewalls, and security, and pretty well IE7, along with a whole host of tools. If windows 7 is bringing new control consoles, a new taskbar, and a few interface tweaks, really that’s all I expect from a OS upgrade after a year or two. And it’ll solidify IE8 as well.

    I think you guys simply expect too much out of an OS for a mere $300. Look at all it does and can do. Granted you likely don’t use most of it. Hence the multiple versions. So for $150, what is it that you’d want? Perfection across third-party applications? The perfect interface?

    Come on! Virtually all of the windows 7 UI changes are purely out of the ubiquity of higher resolutions! Bigger icons, touch controls, gadgets, fancy effects. None of that is possible at 640×480. Not even 1024×768 could handle a sidebar, a big taskbar, a quick-launch, and a system tray. How big can your icons be if you need to fit a few dozen on your desktop? How useful are transparent windows when you’re blurring low resolution pixels.

    It’s simply an incremental upgrade, but every OS is just that — another iteration. You don’t need to purchase each and every one of them. You can skip an increment whenever you choose. Just stop complaining about increments that you feel are unnecessary. Others, such as myself, very much enjoy Vista. Hey, my primary machine jumped from 98 to Vista, completely skipping both ME and XP. To me, they were the worthless steps, because they brought nothing particularly useful — to myself and to my business — over 98. I got ten years out of 98 — first edition.

    Have fun.

      • Fighterpilot
      • 11 years ago

      You have it exactly right.Vista 64 is very good.

      #1 How appropriate that you find it to be a pain in the butt…

      • kvndoom
      • 11 years ago

      l[

      • bozzunter
      • 11 years ago

      I simply don’t get it. I’m running vista ultimate x64, and having no problems with it, and loving it. I’m running dual monitors, and 4megapixels on one of them. I have no complaints. I play games, I watch video, I program, I do graphic design. It’s a business machine, and a fun one at that.

      This is your very experience, of course and, I assume, the only one you can talk about. You should just ask companies, how they feel about Vista. My two companies had to format all our PCs and revert to XP, for instance (aside from buying 10 Macs), because of networking problems, problems with the copy of big files, links in the Start menu which didn’t work after an upgrade, bugs, crashes… Hell, even my wife Dell’s was sold as it was basically unusable, it simply displayed grey screen and didn’t boot, while with XP it didn’t have problem.

      No doubt Vista works on some PC, the problem is the big numbers, something no company is willing to risk for sure. And this is the reason why companies used to skip it altogether. Otherwise why Dell would be offer XP so long? It’s against their interest, one Vista PC is likely to be sold with more memory, a decent video card, etc…

        • WaltC
        • 11 years ago

        /[

          • bozzunter
          • 11 years ago

          Just how old was “your wife’s Dell” I wonder? Obviously, it was out of warranty, so I’m guessing she bought it long before Microsoft shipped Vista. IMO, people really show their ignorance when they talk about things like this and manage to leave out *all* of the pertinent data while doing so.

          In this forum to say stupid thing is really cheap. My wife’s Dell was brand new (bought one year after Vista’s release) and my IT is not a jackass. But I assume you don’t even know about how many companies decided not to upgrade to Vista, as Vista in your little home worked well. Fine.

      • sdack
      • 11 years ago

      Sorry if it offends but you need to do more thinking.

      You say you do not expect to get anything for free and for anyone, and I believe that you do. But do you expect to pay the same price for only a little change? So I hope you will agree that when I say that Microsoft needs to adjust their own expectations, too.

      They are clearly charging too much compared to what one already gets with Vista and if people do not protest then the price for the update version will be as high as usual.

        • Bigbloke
        • 11 years ago

        Why do people (like you) think or even expect that you should get the latest OS version for free (or close to free)?

        Do you go into the car forums and complain when a car company brings out a newer version of your car that it costs the same as your car did when it was new? How many extra features has that new car got over yours? A few probably, but fundamentally it still drives and gets the job done. Exactly the same as an OS.

        This is the reason companies don’t rush to change up from XP. It is getting the job done. That wasn’t the case before XP though. Unlike a car however an OS doesn’t wear out, so no need to replace it every x years. Only when it or the machine it is running on is too slow/compromised for the job.

        Plenty of companies are using Vista now it has stabilised a bit, but they won’t all rush to change to Windows 7, for exactly the same reasons that they didn’t switch to Vista from XP. If it works don’t fix it! The average IT guy has enough to deal with dumb corporate users doing stupid things and learning new, possibly unstable/incomplete OSs isn’t a sensible use of their time. That’s where the whining and complaining geeks like us come in. We get it fixed and then business will adopt it.

        Live with it!

          • Scrotos
          • 11 years ago

          Depending on the severity of the issues the car has, the manufacturer will offer free recalls/service to fix defective or faulty parts. My new car back in 2001 (p.s. never buy a new car, worst mistake EVAR) had a recall to fix some defective child safety harness thing. I took it in, the dealer serviced it for free.

          My used truck from 2004 (it was a 2000 model) had basically the same thing. I looked up the service bulletins on it, found that there were one or two that applied, and brought it in to a dealer for airbag-related service, which was done for free.

          If you’re going to use a car analogy, remember that some people might claim that parts of Vista were DEFECTIVE or FAULTY on the onset and therefore deserve to be FIXED FOR FREE by that same logic. This is why some people are getting angry at paying for something fluffy like Vista Ultimate and seeing some of the things they felt MS promised end up being fixed or delivered in something else they will have to PAY for, rather than as a service pack or free upgrade.

          For my place of work, we were going to migrate from Win2K to Vista x64, maybe even Vista Ultimate. We bought some copies of Ultimate for evaluation purposes but our software vendors refuse to support Vista or are still working on upgrades to their products. Hell, even the Federal Reserve currently refuses to support Vista and IE7, if memory serves me correctly. And our biometric devices? Drivers still under development, YEARS after Vista’s release. No more Office Update for our company-wide Office 2000 deployment, either. Nope, have to manually download each patch and install after checking to see what you’re missing. Works perfectly in Win2K and WinXP, though. THANKS MICROSOFT.

          We’ll probably look towards migrating to Windows 7 instead. UAC and some of the UI elements would cause support nightmares for us to retrain our users, as well. We’re currently slowly migrating to XP for now with some leftover volume license we never bothered to use, one machine at a time. And even then, we are running into some compatibility issues and some in-house applications that used Access 2.0 (yes, yes, I know) won’t run on XP because Access 2.0 won’t run on XP. We don’t have the resources to rewrite a bunch of business applications for an OS upgrade and with Vista is just was even worse.

          Luckily we’re migrating all that junk to .NET 2.0 and MSSQL, but that’s long-term. Short-term, XP = painful and Vista = completely unacceptable in our business due to vendor support.

            • Corrado
            • 11 years ago

            Fixing things that are broken and a safety hazard is the same as hotfixes. Adding new features is akin to buying a 6 cylinder mustang before the 8 cylinder version is out and then being pissed ford would charge you more to trade in your old car for the new one. Or asking them to retro fit power windows and heated seats for free, or put in the fancy dvd navigation because your model doesn’t have it. Its like saying “I bought this Sony TV, and its not HD… but Sony sucks because they won’t give me the upgrade to HD for free!”

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            And again, some people feel that MS marketing promised them a certain experience or certain compatibility or certain functionality that was not delivered. So I’m just saying that in their perspective, as you say, the car was “broken”. Or the salesman said the Sony TV had HD when it really didn’t. So they bought the car or the TV based on false expectations, perhaps due to the marketing/salesman, perhaps due to the previous version of the product working great. But then they got the new product and stuff didn’t work how they thought it would work. So they were waiting for their recall or they were waiting for the salesman to swap the TV because they like the promise of the product enough that they want to keep it, they just want it restored to the state they felt it was promised to them.

            Does that make sense? Mind you, *I* am not saying I demand W7 to be free or that I think it’s nothing but a glorified SP, but I am trying to outline the reasoning of the people who would assert something like that.

            People get swayed by marketing. Look at that Vista Capable class action lawsuit that Microsoft got into. How about some of the iPhone lawsuits about 3G reception or batteries? How much of the bitterness of Vista is due to Microsoft marketing saying that Vista would be the ultimate be-all end-all OS of the entire universe, then when it shipped there were issues?

            It’s easy to dismiss people as ignorant or idiots, but then discussion is just trifling flames back and forth. I think it’s more useful for people to understand where the other perspective is coming from. Microsoft promised us a big block 8-cylinder OS with Vista and we ended up getting a 4-banger econobox. SP1 brought us up to a decent V6, but some people still are holding out for that 8 cylinder.

            It’s all in perspective. Perspective and horrible car analogies. I can see where the bitterness comes from, but I don’t have a vested interest in it because 1) I expected the worst from Vista before using it, not the best and 2) the cost of my Vista was rolled into a new computer purchase, so I’m not out the cost of a retail copy and it doesn’t feel like I dropped $250 on something that frustrates me on a daily basis.

            If it gets you angry for free, it can’t be all that bad, right?!?

            It’s all about the promise people feel that Vista or Microsoft made. They are bitter because they feel the promise wasn’t kept and instead they are being forced to pay for the product that MS should have released in the first place. It’s as simple as that.

          • sdack
          • 11 years ago

          “Why do people (like you) think or even expect that you should get the latest OS version for free (or close to free)?”
          I was not asking nor expecting to get it for free. Where did I say that?

          But wait, Linux is for free so why not Windows, right? But seriously, read my comment again and see if you can understand me.

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            It’s also kinda funny that while Windows 7 is adding a bunch of new stuff, they are also removing a bunch of bundled functionality too with their included applications.

            Why? I mean, they work, right? I guess they want to move to the online services model with Live and all that crap, but why rip out the parts of Vista that were actually working? Seems like it’s fixing the wrong problem.

            So when people do the W7/Vista comparison, it’ll be even more whack due to the stuff that’s added AND removed. Going by that “free” comment that people will probably hang on, I wonder what the net value difference between Vista and W7 would really be, once you consider the “fixes” versus the “removals”?

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Linux is only free if the user is willing to take 100% responsibility for the OS. Haven’t that been beaten to death by now?

            • sdack
            • 11 years ago

            Linux beats hard disk to death – user takes full responsibility and faces life sentence.

            Windows beats hard disk to death – user walks away free, leaves sad SATA cable behind.

            Hooray!! Another victorious day for Windows.

            • Bigbloke
            • 11 years ago

            “But do you expect to pay the same price for only a little change? So I hope you will agree that when I say that Microsoft needs to adjust their own expectations, too.”

            That tells me you don’t want to pay for the small changes.

            • sdack
            • 11 years ago

            It is interesting to see what you put into it, but if you really want to know more than you should try asking.

      • PeterD
      • 11 years ago

      W7 will become mandatory after a while.

      And: most people who will jump W7, wil do that because they want to escape Vista. That doesn’t prove W7 is better, only that it will be felt as a relieve.

      • shank15217
      • 11 years ago

      Try windows xp 64, more stable and faster.

        • willyolio
        • 11 years ago

        i used windows XP x64 for several years before i switched to Vista x64. it is neither faster nor more stable.

    • Krogoth
    • 11 years ago

    Excellent blog. I have the same exact thoughts.

    Vista is not a bad product rather it got plagued by mindless FUD to the point that MS has to change the name around for what is effectively Vista SP2.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Not exactly, because I trust there _[

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        There’s already test seeds of Vista SP2, actually. I think it’s designed to coincide with Windows Server 2008 SP2 (or RC2?) since MS consolidated and synched their codebase with Vista SP1 and the initial release of WS2008 (which was released as WS2008 SP1).

        I think TR had an article describing some of what’s going to be in Vista SP2. Most of it looked like crap I could care less about, like Windows Search 4.0 (wooo) rather than anything really interesting, but we’ll see what SP2 brings.

        • Krogoth
        • 11 years ago

        Yet another parallel to my analogy.

        Vista = Windows 95 2.0, expect 3.1/DOS 6.22 was a very solid combo.

        Vista SP1 = Windows 95 OSR1 2.0

        Vista SP2 = Windows 95 OSR2 .20

        Windows 7 = Windows 98 2.0.

        Windows 98 was effectively 95 OSR2 with a sightly different UI. I have a very strong hunch it that will be the same deal with “7” versus Vista SP2.

      • eitje
      • 11 years ago

      i wonder if you consider it an excellent blog because it mirrors your own thoughts, or if those two statements are disjoint.

      nothing against you, i just wonder about stuff like that.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 11 years ago

    Butrovich is on point.

      • DrDillyBar
      • 11 years ago

      I was thinking the same

    • Vasilyfav
    • 11 years ago

    Windows costs money? Seriously? You know, to be honest, I really can’t see what Windows 7 will bring to the table either. It will still come in 32 and 64 bit versions, it will still be Vista core, Vista interface, except with more ribbon interface, slightly improved UAC controls and a new cool name.

    Oh sure touchscreen support will make “hip” businesses come in their pants and greatly improved boot times will make vista users switch (I doubt they will make boot times better than xp though), but what about your average Joe the Plumber (god, please don’t kill a kitten for me using those words) ? Does he really need new and improved Paint with a ribbon interface?

    There are millions of people completely content with XP and millions more than don’t even want to switch to Vista for free. What makes MS think a rebranded Vista will make people shell out 300$ ? Except for the fact that MS will forcefully phase out XP ?

      • moog
      • 11 years ago

      There’s a lot going for Win7
      – Stable
      – Easy to use
      – Optimized (reduced memory consumption, reduced power usage, increased speed)

      It’s a very nice OS.

        • Satyr
        • 11 years ago

        Firstly, how do you know that? And secondly, those are not new things… XP is all of those.

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          XP is definitely not stable in the wrong hands, and not too easy to use either.
          Vista is easy to use, and Windows 7 capitalizes on that. And it’s stable even in the wrong hands. You’ve lost.

      • Corrado
      • 11 years ago

      Why shouldn’t they forcibly phase out a nearly 10 year old OS? Its a bitch to add new technologies to old OSes. See USB support in Win9x.

    • kvndoom
    • 11 years ago

    WinME was such a disaster that I still think MS should’ve given anyone who bought it a coupon for a free XP upgrade. I mean the product just plain didn’t work. Period. Most companies would have folded under class action lawsuits after releasing a product like that.

    Vista is definitely not the second coming of ME. While I don’t have it and really haven’t used it, the outrage isn’t really there. It’s just not so much better than XP that a lot of people see the need to spend money to upgrade. Microsoft is basically competing with themselves by trying to outdo an OS that is still good enough for most people, regardless of its age.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      I think you’re right. All MS can really do is kill XP sales and force people to get Vista as OEM installs. They tried to create excitement for people going out and buying the retail version, I dunno, to be like Apple, but people use Windows because they have to, not because they want to.

      Apple products are more like luxury items. People buy them and use them because they want to, not because they have to. And because they want to use the products, they get excited with new revisions of the OS.

      I could give a rat’s ass what OS I run as long as it does what I need it to do. I’d love to be running OS X. Right now I have a Powermac G3 with 10.3 on it and I don’t use it very much. My main machine is an Inspiron 530 Q6600 with 3 GB of RAM and Vista OEM on it (I dunno, home premium basic ultimate edition or whatever). I currently primarily use it to browse the web, hop on irc, do video encoding/transcoding, and play some games (integrated intel graphics ftw!) If I could get a Mac that would play Homeworld 2 (which Vista doesn’t unless I turn off DEP–no thanks to that) and do the shit I do on a daily basis, I’d probably use a Mac more. I… don’t know if I could force myself to use unix. I want to actually USE my computer, not edit .rc files and compile things.

      Though ironically I am using virtualbox to set up some win2k and winxp VMs specifically as compiling environments so I don’t screw up my main Vista install with fluff like the windows sdk or visual studio. Which reminds me that I should uninstall tortoisecvs sometime, too…

      I would be using XP right now (though I prefer 2K, no more drivers are made for it for new video cards and newer games refuse to install) but Vista came free with the new machine and I figure I might as well get used to how the new environment will force me to change my workflow. But really, there was no incentive to run out and buy Vista for me. XP (and 2K) did everything I needed–and all my games worked!@#

        • BobTheBacterium
        • 11 years ago

        I don’t think that all OSX users choose the OS because it is a luxury. In my department a lot of the professors use it because a lot of the programs needed for protein work require either X11 or linux. Even scarier, some of the professors I know use OSX because they consider windows too difficult or don’t understand it well enough

    • schadenfreude
    • 11 years ago

    Speaking about your 8 gigs of RAM, your many computers for different tasks (counting a Mac, no less =0 ), your buying the most expensive among the expensive versions of Vista, and your frequent hardware changes, somewhat undermines your right to whine about having to buy another OS because it’s too soon or whatever ๐Ÿ˜›

    Other than that, it’s hard not to agree with your reasoning: With Windows 7 MS is simply selling us a Service Pack, and we’ll be happy about it because it’s not called “Vista”. Gotta love PR people. And how stupid we users can be, too.

    • PRIME1
    • 11 years ago

    I have Vista Ultimate and it’s a pain in the butt so far. While I hope Windows 7 is better I sure don’t want to shell out another couple hundred bucks to pay for their mistakes.

    I bet people who bought Windows ME are having wicked flashbacks these days.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      I got it preinstalled with a Dell back in the day. I think I used it for a few weeks before wiping the entire thing and installing Win98SE. I don’t have flashbacks–I think my brain repressed that entire experience. It’s like a giant blank part of my life. MICROSOFT STOLE MY LIFE FROM ME!

      ::sobs::

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This