My opinion

[Saran]

No one forced you to buy MS in the first place. Try hard to get over
your hate vendetta about it and then we can all hear less about it.

Maybe not directly, but in general, over the many years, they have
limited the choice, by getting their OS on all new PCs rather than
allowing people to have a choice. Dell seems to have take a step in the
right direction by offering both bare systems and preloaded Linux
systems.

I have no vendetta, I'm just saying what is. No more, no less. It
doesn't help when people like you try to paint Microsoft as being all
rosy.

-saran

 

[Saran]

There is no question of Vista locking hardware.. if the hardware
manufacturers will not release XP drivers for new equipment, take it
up with the hardware manufacturers..

And who do you think is telling them not to release XP/other drivers?
Ion't think Microsoft can force everyone, or maybe thne can, I don't
know, but like I said, it comes down to lack of choice being allowed and
THIS is the problem, so stop trying to avoid it.

Same for software.. they would never sell new stuff if everything
from 15 years ago was still compatible..

So then thats an excuse to make poor and buggy software then? I can't
remember the last time I serviced a machien with properly owrking copy
of Norton or Macafee. The point is, many softwares available today that
have running roots were actually better back then.

And why do you avoid my question of why must new versions, that don't
really do anything new over older versions, take up 2, 5, or 10 times as
much resources? What real reason is there? Releasing a new somewhat
prettier version and tacking the next year number onto it, jsut for the
sake of releasing a new version that doesn't do anything new is just
wasteful and greedy, when the previous, more streamlined version worked
just as well, if not better, and took up much less overhead.

I really don't care if a company doesn't sell as much more. If they are
just sellign the same thing at full price that has much more overhead,
then why in the blue hell should we buy it???

No new sales = no new revenue = companies going to the wall..

If it doesn't offer anything new over the old version to justify it's
cost, other than a prettier exterior, then they don't deserve my money.
Why should I buy a newer version that might have one or two new nifty
things and takes up 3 times as much memory? IMHO, It's not worth it.

Photoshop CS, for example, was PS 7 wit ha couple of new things, but
mostly the same, and took up more than twice the memory foot print in
our tests. Any of the new CS/CS2 things can be in PS7 by way of plugins,
and still take much less memory.

All basic economics..

Only from a CEO's point of view.

Vista is just one part of the original Longhorn project, not all of
it..

That doesn't change the promises they made and seemingly flat out broke.

Had you been around for the release of XP, all that has happened with
Vista is 'déjà vu..

What a load... trust me I was there when XP came out, as well as
previous OS's, and Vista's release was a nightmare in comparison. It was
never so problematic with XP. Yes, some hardwares manufactures had to
catch up, but most that alreayd had 2000 drivers didn't have to change
much. XP wasn't perfect,

the driver situation for Vista is vastly improved, and most software
is compatible..

Thats not the reports I'm constantly hearing...

there will always be some companies who flatly refuse to continually
support older stuff such
that it will continue to run in any future OS releases.. as I said,
take it up with them..

Give me a break, many manufactures still crank out NT and 98 drivers,
let alone 2000 and XP. I seriously doubt XP is going anywhere fast.

DRM is the work of the entertainment industry.. all but the
entertainment industry would like to see the back of it.. another
cause for you..

Just don't say it's some how a good thing. Just tell me why I should use
an OS that's being a puppet for these entertainment industries, limiting
what I can do?

Complain to the right people and you may get something done..

Certainally not you.

-saran

 

[Steve K.]

We all have an excellent idea of just how idiotically stupid you
sound! Frank

And what exactly have you contributed to this thread? I for one am sick
of al lthe Microsoft/Vista advocates that really can't see past the nose
on their face. I say, grow the hell up and look around you and try to
figure out what the hell is actually going on before making yourself
look so dam stupid.

 

[Frank]

And what exactly have you contributed to this thread? I for one am sick
of al lthe Microsoft/Vista advocates that really can't see past the nose
on their face. I say, grow the hell up and look around you and try to
figure out what the hell is actually going on before making yourself
look so dam stupid.

If you're tired of Vista advocates then go on over to the open sores pit
(trash dot) and vent your anger.
Otherwise, screw you!
Frank

 

[Adam Albright]

And what exactly have you contributed to this thread? I for one am sick
of al lthe Microsoft/Vista advocates that really can't see past the nose
on their face. I say, grow the hell up and look around you and try to
figure out what the hell is actually going on before making yourself
look so dam stupid.

You can't reason with fools like Frank. They have their head shoved so
far up Microsoft's butt they haven't seen daylight in years.

 

[Saran]

And Windows 2000 performed way better than XP on a machine
'designated for XP'..

Maringally. In general, in my experience, the difference was small,
though 2000 was a littler lighter then XP overall. Though I find it hard
to comapre the performance difference of a healthy XP install to a new
Vista install. In most cases in our shop, Vista is just dog slower. XP
was never so much slower than 2000 like Vista is beside XP.

Most new machines are dual core CPU types, but I see that
manufacturers keep the price down by fitting less RAM than they
should..

I've seen machines with 2gz of ram fly on XP yet crawl on Vista, or
atleast run significantly slower.

I didn't think that big business was ever too fast upgrading to the
latest technology.. for sure, they run it alongside what they already
have, and it can take two years or more to assess the benefits.. of
course, during that time, the initial problems will have been ironed
out.. even so, I have seen companies still running DOS and Win 3.1
where it has been found cost effective to leave things as they are..

One reason many don't always jump to upgrade is because there is little
reason to do so. New version of many softwares just don't really offer
much in the way oif any thing new or inovation to warrent their inflated
price tags. Vista seems to fit in this category.

Video remains an issue regarding overall Vista performance, but
drivers are now being produced for new graphics cards that will score
5 and higher..

That's an understatement. Gamesl ike Quake or HL (in general, OpenGL and
DX 9 and lower games) run significantly slwoer on Vista due to the
poorly designed emulation layer (unless you can actually find working
OpenGL drivers foryour particular video hardware.)

Laptop graphics performance, and in fact general all round
performance will be constrained by the ability to keep the system
cool enough, thereby having to stay with lower end hardware options

I find it funny my 6 year old XP laptop can run Half-Life (the newest
Steam version) better than Vista on incredibly newer hardware. Tell me
again how this equals progress?

Remember the good old 5.25 floppies? Then somebody decided to supply
software on 3.5's, so we all bought 3.5 drives.. some gotten caught
with 2.88's.. then 100mb ZIP drives.. 650mb CD's.. now 4.3gb DVD's..
certainly, if one has to upgrade 1000 machines to DVD, there is a
cost hit, except that companies having 1000 machines will feed Vista
images down CAT5 cable, so upgrading older machines to DVD capability
is not so important

Yes, this can qualify as progress, but what does it have to do with
Vista?

Vista is improving, and yes, that means it is not perfect but then
only idiots would claim that it or any other OS is perfect..

I would hardly claim an OS that's so broken and restrictive (in regards
to so called "content protection" DRM) top be perfect, so no worry
there. Maybe they are improving some things here and there, but in the
end it's still a slow OS that practically forces you to guy new hardware
just to make it run worth beans.

Just don't try to tell me it runs anywhere near as fast as it should on
all the new hardware out there.
-saran

 

[Clenna Lumina]

"Saran" complained...

You mean, given how long Vista code was available to developers,
there is no excuse for hardware and software to not be compatible
with Vista. I was looking at USB network adapters recently, to see if
I could spot any "Vista" stickers yet. I spotted three models with
*works with* or "upgradeable to" Vista, meaning you have to download
the drivers seperately, and dozens with "Now fully compatible with
XP" stickers. I guess you weren't around yet back then, but XP has
had compatibility issues with third-party software programs written
for Win95/Win98, too. But, hey, you believe what you want, and I'll
live in reality.

Thats because so many things already work with XP/2000/2003, and Vista
was supposedly the next iteration of that, so i find it inexcusable that
so many things simply don't work, and suprisingly many of the road
blocks are artificially placed within Vista's internals... otherwise
many types of hardware and software that refuse to run/install would
work. This is all published fact (just do a search on google or so), so
it is mainly Microsoft to blame here for basically breaking so many
things.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Windows 2000 was NOT marginally slower than XP..

You are comparing an OS that has been around for four years, had two service
packs and a further eighty assorted updates since with an OS that has yet to
get one service pack...

Latest reports suggest that Vista is getting way better for more people, the
last two kb's helping immensely..

I think that we should drop the term perfect with regard any OS.. all have
issues..

The 'drives' part shows one of the hardware upgrade paths required over
time..

Like it or not, Vista will replace previous versions for the most part, and
it will mature as all previous Windows versions have..

Few machines running Win 98 were able to run XP decently, many having to
either buy complete new machines, or upgrade memory, video cards and HDD to
accommodate it..

If you don't like Vista, use something else..

Maringally. In general, in my experience, the difference was small, though
2000 was a littler lighter then XP overall. Though I find it hard to
comapre the performance difference of a healthy XP install to a new Vista
install. In most cases in our shop, Vista is just dog slower. XP was never
so much slower than 2000 like Vista is beside XP.


I've seen machines with 2gz of ram fly on XP yet crawl on Vista, or
atleast run significantly slower.


One reason many don't always jump to upgrade is because there is little
reason to do so. New version of many softwares just don't really offer
much in the way oif any thing new or inovation to warrent their inflated
price tags. Vista seems to fit in this category.


That's an understatement. Gamesl ike Quake or HL (in general, OpenGL and
DX 9 and lower games) run significantly slwoer on Vista due to the poorly
designed emulation layer (unless you can actually find working OpenGL
drivers foryour particular video hardware.)


I find it funny my 6 year old XP laptop can run Half-Life (the newest
Steam version) better than Vista on incredibly newer hardware. Tell me
again how this equals progress?


Yes, this can qualify as progress, but what does it have to do with Vista?


I would hardly claim an OS that's so broken and restrictive (in regards to
so called "content protection" DRM) top be perfect, so no worry there.
Maybe they are improving some things here and there, but in the end it's
still a slow OS that practically forces you to guy new hardware just to
make it run worth beans.

Just don't try to tell me it runs anywhere near as fast as it should on
all the new hardware out there.
-saran

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Adam Albright]

Windows 2000 was NOT marginally slower than XP..

You are comparing an OS that has been around for four years, had two service
packs and a further eighty assorted updates since with an OS that has yet to
get one service pack...

What you are really saying is Microsoft doesn't learn from it's prior
mistakes. How many times does the apologist crowd have to be told that
Windows is a mature product, one that has been under development for
over 21 years and STILL as each new version is released the same kind
of problems keep cropping up like they have for the past two decades.

1. incompatibility/poor performance with current hardware

2. slow file processing, features missing, broken or poorly
implemented

3. system hangs, crashes, BSOD's, restarting. sputtering

Damn man, wake up and smell the coffee. If any other company ran their
business like Microsoft does; releasing a "finished" product with
known bugs, offering up the same limp excuses, maybe we'll fix that in
the first or second service pack, it ain't our fault, blame the
hardware or software vendors, etc., they would be laughed out of
business.

I'm sick of the same tired excuses. Why can't Microsoft release a
version of Windows that works correctly the first time right out of
the box?

Latest reports suggest that Vista is getting way better for more people, the
last two kb's helping immensely..

That's only an acknowledgment that issues reported here and elsewhere
were right on target and who could forget all the fanboys and MVPs
saying problems, what problems, we don't see any problems.

ROTFLMAO!

If you don't like Vista, use something else..

The lamest excuse of them all. Hey, we know Vista is broke, we know it
desperately needs fixing, we know Microsoft is feverishly working to
rush out SP1, but hey, you don't like it, use something else.

Damn, you guys should do a bit on the comedy channel. Your hilarious!

 

[Saran]

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

[Please, if you can, post in context - right below the line you are
replying to - so that the thread is easier to follow]

Windows 2000 was NOT marginally slower than XP..

When did I say 2000 was slower? It's the other way around, so please
don't change what I say.

You are comparing an OS that has been around for four years, had two
service packs and a further eighty assorted updates since with an OS
that has yet to get one service pack...

So after all these OSes, you'd think they would of have learned better
ways of doing things, instead of making more mistakes. Or at the very
least not break so many thing.

Latest reports suggest that Vista is getting way better for more
people, the last two kb's helping immensely..

From what we've seen speeds are still lacking comapred to the
hardware... I'd expect so much mroe from a dual core 2.8+ gz machine,
for example.

I think that we should drop the term perfect with regard any OS.. all
have issues..

Agreed. Vista has a long way to go to be anywhere as close to perfect as
it's predecessors were. Not that 2000 or XP were perfect, but they
worked well and didn't feel so over weight. I still say this is one of
the bigger seperators from Vista and the previous versions.

The 'drives' part shows one of the hardware upgrade paths required
over time..

Yes, because it was necessary. Data became more complex, so more storage
space is needed. The problem is too many software vendors release new
versions that don't really bring much new to the table, yet charge full
price and take up so much more resources. And some even force you to
upgrade (many tax and av suites for example.) The path portable and
fixed storage has gone is no way the same. Upgrading only for the sake
of upgrading is not the same as upgrading for progress and betterness. I
don't find much new in Vista, Officed 2007, and many "new" releases of
existing software.

Like it or not, Vista will replace previous versions for the most
part, and it will mature as all previous Windows versions have..

I don't think it can ever "replace" in it's current state. It might
eventually surpass XP in sales, who knows, and it may end up being on
more systems then it presently is, but I doubt it will ever replace XP
in terms of freedom of what you can do (face it, content protection
sucks), and probably speed (Vista is just slower on equally healthy
setups - if you consdier most Vista setups to be healthy when they crash
so randomly, which almsot make it comperable to a damaged XP or so
installation.)

Few machines running Win 98 were able to run XP decently, many having
to either buy complete new machines, or upgrade memory, video cards
and HDD to accommodate it..

XP actually broguht something significatly NEW over 98, that made the
upgrade really worth it. I don't see the same with Vista. Too little
new, too much bulk, thus seemingly like a downgrade in many ways, namely
speed. Again, upgrading for the sake of upgrading is not a good reason
to upgrade. And when one upgrades, I like to think, "by "upgrade", you
get sopmething new, smooth and with fewer problems. In this regard,
Vista is a joke.

If you don't like Vista, use something else..

I'm currently using XP on one system, 2003 on another, and Linux on yet
another, and 2000 (in VM Ware.) I hardly ever have ANY problems and have
yet to see something in Vista that I cannot do in XP, 200x or Linux, and
with less overhead. No hardware issues, no software compatibility
issues - I can even run Win 16 apps just fine. Most DOS apps run ok in
XP, with the exception of some games, which is over come with the newer
versions of DosBox. Now tell me, did Vista get better or worse in this
regard?

-saran

 

[Leythos]

And Windows 2000 performed way better than XP on a machine 'designated for
XP'..

Mike, I've been doing this a LONG time, like I said, and the difference
between 2000/XP and the XP/Vista is dramatic to say the least. The 2000
machine that would run on 128MB RAM, fly on 256, needed 196/256 for XP
to be happy, and once you bloated it with Office XP/2003 you really
needed 512MB for XP. With vists, yea, I know they changed memory, 1GB
RAM is not enough for anything, even a machine with the crap turned off
with 4GB of RAM will sit at 900MB used before loading office 2007.

Most new machines are dual core CPU types, but I see that manufacturers keep
the price down by fitting less RAM than they should..

And most P4/3.x ghz machines still fly with XP, even 1.x Ghz machines
work well for most people with XP. The sad part is the it doesn't seem
to be the CPU as the limiting factor, it's the video system, and that
seems like a very large mistake to have a pretty desktop to me.

I didn't think that big business was ever too fast upgrading to the latest
technology.. for sure, they run it alongside what they already have, and it
can take two years or more to assess the benefits.. of course, during that
time, the initial problems will have been ironed out.. even so, I have seen
companies still running DOS and Win 3.1 where it has been found cost
effective to leave things as they are..

But MS is making things harder - like discontinuing Office 2003 so that
you can't even downgrade to it with a 2007 license, and who knows what
will happen with the next version so that you may have to own Vista to
get it to work. We're already seeing how the new document format DOCX is
playing heck with people that have converted to it and don't understand
that office 2003 won't read it without a patch...

Video remains an issue regarding overall Vista performance, but drivers are
now being produced for new graphics cards that will score 5 and higher..

If MS had fixed this flaw before releasing it, Vista, IMO, would have
been a great thing with all of the new security features, but to have a
machine that flys in XP to be worse than a TRS-80 with Vista, well,
that's just a mistake that can't be blamed on Video card vendors - MS
released something that was not supported, they should have provided
better Video support for the masses.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Vista User]

If MS had fixed this flaw before releasing it, Vista, IMO, would have
been a great thing with all of the new security features, but to have a
machine that flys in XP to be worse than a TRS-80 with Vista, well,
that's just a mistake that can't be blamed on Video card vendors - MS
released something that was not supported, they should have provided
better Video support for the masses.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

What a lot of people just don't seem to understand is Microsoft does NOT
provide the drivers for hardware like a video card.
Its up to the hardware manufactures to write the drivers. The manufactures
had access to Vista well before the release to create compatible drivers.
Its only now six months after the release that manufactures are starting to
release compatible working drivers for Vista.
How is it Microsoft's fault that the manufactures didn't release drivers for
there hardware products?

 

[Adam Albright]

What a lot of people just don't seem to understand is Microsoft does NOT
provide the drivers for hardware like a video card.
Its up to the hardware manufactures to write the drivers. The manufactures
had access to Vista well before the release to create compatible drivers.
Its only now six months after the release that manufactures are starting to
release compatible working drivers for Vista.
How is it Microsoft's fault that the manufactures didn't release drivers for
there hardware products?

The reason so many vendors are late to the Vista party is they've been
bitten before by Microsoft incompetence so it makes little business
sense for hardware vendors to waste hundreds of man hours writing a
driver or designing hardware when Microsoft changes something in the
specs at the last minute that caused the driver to require rewriting.
Ask Roxio, that got burned by Vista at the last minute. One big
software house that has refused to bend over for Microsoft is Adobe.

 

[Leythos]

What a lot of people just don't seem to understand is Microsoft does NOT
provide the drivers for hardware like a video card.
Its up to the hardware manufactures to write the drivers. The manufactures
had access to Vista well before the release to create compatible drivers.
Its only now six months after the release that manufactures are starting to
release compatible working drivers for Vista.
How is it Microsoft's fault that the manufactures didn't release drivers for
there hardware products?

And what you don't seem to understand is that if MS were to release an
OS that has no support, why would they/you expect people to be happy
with it or even to purchase it?

The entire point is that quality hardware does not mean you get a good
experience with Vista when NT4, Win 98, Win 2000, Win XP, Win 2003 all
seem to provide a good experience on most of that quality hardware.

It doesn't matter if MS is waiting on drivers for Video, it doesn't
matter if Blue is Green, what matters is that it's very poor performing
on a LOT of hardware out of the box.

Your usenet client is broken, it's not properly removing signature
lines.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Vista User]

And what you don't seem to understand is that if MS were to release an
OS that has no support, why would they/you expect people to be happy
with it or even to purchase it?

The entire point is that quality hardware does not mean you get a good
experience with Vista when NT4, Win 98, Win 2000, Win XP, Win 2003 all
seem to provide a good experience on most of that quality hardware.

It doesn't matter if MS is waiting on drivers for Video, it doesn't
matter if Blue is Green, what matters is that it's very poor performing
on a LOT of hardware out of the box.

Same thing happen with NT4, Win98, Win2000, WinXP all had driver problems
when they were released.

 

[The poster formerly known as the poster formerly k]

There is no question of Vista locking hardware.. if the hardware
manufacturers will not release XP drivers for new equipment, take it up
with the hardware manufacturers..

Same for software.. they would never sell new stuff if everything from
15 years ago was still compatible..

No new sales = no new revenue = companies going to the wall..

All basic economics..

Vista is just one part of the original Longhorn project, not all of it..

Had you been around for the release of XP, all that has happened with
Vista is 'déjà vu.. the driver situation for Vista is vastly improved,
and most software is compatible.. there will always be some companies
who flatly refuse to continually support older stuff such that it will
continue to run in any future OS releases.. as I said, take it up with
them..

DRM is the work of the entertainment industry.. all but the
entertainment industry would like to see the back of it.. another cause
for you..

Complain to the right people and you may get something done..

If DRM is the work of the entertainment industry, they must have gotten
their hands on the source code for vista and put it in there themselves.
It couldn't have been MS and their programmers that did it, right?

Oh please Mike. MS also has their own brand of buggy DRM with WPA,
WGA/N. I remember when they started it in the SR2 version of office
2000. MS is to blame for DRM too.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

I doubt if they had much choice in the matter.. as they were and are trying
to protect their own stuff, they could hardly tell the entertainment
industry to go shove it..


"The poster formerly known as the poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy"

If DRM is the work of the entertainment industry, they must have gotten
their hands on the source code for vista and put it in there themselves.
It couldn't have been MS and their programmers that did it, right?

Oh please Mike. MS also has their own brand of buggy DRM with WPA, WGA/N.
I remember when they started it in the SR2 version of office 2000. MS is
to blame for DRM too.


--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[norm]

I doubt if they had much choice in the matter.. as they were and are
trying to protect their own stuff, they could hardly tell the
entertainment industry to go shove it..

Just to provide a different take, the following (long read) reaches a
conclusion (among many conclusions) different from your statement:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

 

[Frank]

The reason so many vendors are late to the Vista party is they've been
bitten before by Microsoft incompetence so it makes little business
sense for hardware vendors to waste hundreds of man hours writing a
driver or designing hardware when Microsoft changes something in the
specs at the last minute that caused the driver to require rewriting.
Ask Roxio, that got burned by Vista at the last minute. One big
software house that has refused to bend over for Microsoft is Adobe.

Only a a paid lying accountant for blood sucking attorneys would be an
apologist for lazy incompetent hardware manufacturers who've had 5 FUKK
YRS to come up with decent Vista drivers.
Quite a few didn't even bother to do beta drives.
You got that you ignorant lying drunken bastard!
Frank

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Shame on you all!

A customer who is very disapponted.

Opinions are a dime a dozen and everyone got an opinion. It was a worthless
dozen, but you posted the dozen anyway.