469,325 Members | 1,661 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,325 developers. It's quick & easy.

Is Vista replacing XP or Not?

MMcCarthy
14,534 Expert Mod 8TB
When I bought my new system a couple of months ago I actually paid extra to have XP Pro installed rather than Vista. Apart from anything else most of my clients still use XP. Eventually I will have to partition my system to allow for Vista to be loaded as well (I have a home licence) just to test compatability.

I've also noticed we are getting more questions from members who are having problems on applications when moving them to Vista.

I would be very interested in the opinions and experiences of this community on this issue.

BTW, can we just accept that Linux is the best thing since sliced bread and keep this topic purely on windows?

Mary (digg it)
Sep 28 '07 #1
92 7193
Plater
7,872 Expert 4TB
I will admit that I have not yet used Vista (waiting for a reason to upgrade...harddrive fail whatever) but I do remember that XP was horrible when it first came out.
I would say that Vista will replace XP, but that Microsoft is pushing it too much too soon. I have enough trouble getting my boss to let go of windows2000 (hello 8year old operating system!). XP was out by 2002 though, so it's almost as old. I would say that within the last 2 years it has finally come into its own as champ. (Ignoring server2003)
I am looking forward to moving to Vista, but as many of us have learned, you never buy the first model of something. (Anyone's Xbox360 caught fire lately?)
Give it a few more updates and patches and I think Vista will do very well. Microsoft is borrowing more and more from it's *nix counterparts (system identification is getting huge).

And now that I've blathered on, someone much smarter than me can post.
Sep 28 '07 #2
sicarie
4,677 Expert Mod 4TB
Psh, you should just put Linux...oh, wait. Sorry.

I do not believe Vista will fully "replace" XP, but I do think that it will become widely adopted (as when you buy a computer it now comes with Vista on it, and most people don't know that you have another option, much less do they want to deal with it).

I found this article yesterday, but given Microsoft's dominance, I don't believe they will ditch it for quite a while - they have the clout and the reach to hold on to this and force it into some sort of widespread adoption. Having used Vista, it's shiny, and not all horrible, but I'm a Linux person, so I'm biased from the start anyway.

(I certainly hope their 'monad' shell will eventually lead up to an OS that has size and security in mind from the start, but I don't think it's likely to happen.)
Sep 28 '07 #3
Savage
1,764 Expert 1GB
When I bought my new system a couple of months ago I actually paid extra to have XP Pro installed rather than Vista ...
In future yes, but right now no.

Vista is unstable, full of bugs and everything appositive. Just as any new MS OS.

When they make a service pack then it might be better OS than XP.

Also, haven't you heard that MS is forming a campaign to downgrade from Vista to XP for corporations that are still not ready to use Vista?

Savage
Sep 28 '07 #4
Savage
1,764 Expert 1GB
Just a single look on this video tells you all about what most of (former)customers think of Vista.

Savage
Sep 28 '07 #5
JosAH
11,448 Expert 8TB
I only trust early releases as far as I can throw a rock at them or as close as I can
keep them from me with a pointy stick. I just can't risk it: my customers demand a
four nines uptime at least; the terrible dramas I've read about it convince me that
I should at least wait another year before I recommend Vista anywhere.

If people want fancy graphics they should buy Macs. At least those thingies are
(sort of) stable. No Vista for me (yet).

kind regards,

Jos
Sep 28 '07 #6
Frinavale
9,735 Expert Mod 8TB
I'm actually wondering the same thing myself.

Is Vista going to become the new standard operating system of the general public?

All the new PC computers are coming packaged with Vista.

I have recently purchased a laptop with Vista. I could have put XP on it, except that I have a feeling that Vista is going to eventually take over so I want to learn it. I'm not thinking within the immediate future, but in the long run. I'll be developing on that computer for my school work so I'm going to get a full Vista-experience. Hopefully I'll be able to stay ahead of the questions that are going to start appearing here on theScripts.

The thing is, the public is resistant to Vista. From what I've heard, Dell had started packaging their systems with Vista only...and originally they wouldn't allow anyone to purchase a new system without it. But that changed with a high demand for XP and so you're given an option now.

And just yesterday, my sister and I were watching some "know-it-all" guru answer caller's questions about "technologies and the future" on the city news. One caller asked for advice on how to make their system faster and this guru suggested uninstalling Vista and reinstalling XP.

There's a lot of resistance to the new operating system.
But all new technology meets with resistance when coming out, so why is it a consensuses amongst my friends that Vista's not going to make it?

The general public is just looking to buy a PC and use it...and Vista is pretty flashy. They don't care about the configurations or setting anything up. All they really want to do is start checking their emails and surf the web...or maybe write a paper.

So, yeah I have the same question.
Is Vista going to become the new standard amongst the general public?

I have a strong feeling that it will...eventually....but that right now it's too new for people to acknowledge that fact.
Sep 28 '07 #7
Savage
1,764 Expert 1GB
I only trust early releases as far as I can throw ...
I agree with Jos, it will pass at least 1 year until Vista becomes operable. Don't forget that history repeats itself. (Same was when XP came out).

Savage
Sep 28 '07 #8
Ganon11
3,652 Expert 2GB
I've had a laptop with Vista for about a month now, and honestly I can't see why people think it's so terrible. Maybe it's just because I'm Windows through and through, but I'm loving Vista so far. That being said, I don't notice a huge difference between XP and Vista other than shininess. (And who doesn't like shiny things?) I think Vista will eventually be the norm. XP became the norm despite the resistance to it. And since I don't know anyone that's stuck with Windows 98 in favor of XP, I think eventually we'll make the shift to Vista. Probably after a Service Pack, yes, but that will come.
Sep 28 '07 #9
missinglinq
3,532 Expert 2GB
Hey, I love Linus and his blanket...oh, sorry... you said Linux!

Love the video, Savage!

Having just been forced to give up my Windows 98SE machine (which, as Billy Crsytal says, "Was vetty, vetty good to me!") I'm just getting used to XP! Also, being in forced retirement, I have the time to contribute not only here but to four or five other forums on a regular basis, and I can tell you, posts concerning the many, many problems caused by Vista are popping up everywhere like toadstools after a hard rain! What I haven't heard, from any source, is that Micro$oft is doing anything to address the situation! It's bad enough when a version of Windows causes problems with other companies' software, but it's truly mind boggling when it's not compatible with the company's own major software products!

I've made it a policy for a long time now of staying several years behind the so called "leading edge" when it comes to software upgrades, and even then only doing so if I see what I consider to be major improvements. The other thing I think a developer needs to take into account is the clientel he/she is dealing with. Many companies, both large and small, are slow to upgrade OS and software, and my personal belief is that you're always better off developing with the lowest common denominator in mind.

I think we're going to see XP around for a long, long time yet.
Linq ;0)>
Sep 28 '07 #10
Savage
1,764 Expert 1GB
I've had a laptop with Vista for about a month now, and honestly I can't see why people think it's so terrible. Maybe it's just because I'm Windows through and through, but I'm loving Vista so far. That being said, I don't notice a huge difference between XP and Vista other than shininess. (And who doesn't like shiny things?) I think Vista will eventually be the norm. XP became the norm despite the resistance to it. And since I don't know anyone that's stuck with Windows 98 in favor of XP, I think eventually we'll make the shift to Vista. Probably after a Service Pack, yes, but that will come.
Shyness is proportional to bugs.

And until I find a good example and good proof, this is a postulate.

And also one major difference in Xp and Asta la Vista is that the second one has that boring and anoying features,like "Do you trust this setup?" If I don't tust it I wont run it.

Savage
Sep 28 '07 #11
MMcCarthy
14,534 Expert Mod 8TB
Many companies, both large and small, are slow to upgrade OS and software, and my personal belief is that you're always better off developing with the lowest common denominator in mind.

I think we're going to see XP around for a long, long time yet.
Linq ;0)>
Most of the clients I work with have only upgraded to XP in the last couple of years and many of them still use Office 2000. The Office 2003 upgrades are slowly creeping in but I agree with Linq. Companies are very slow to upgrade as they need to know the system they use is tried and tested.
Sep 28 '07 #12
Scott Price
1,384 Expert 1GB
Microsoft's business model for many years (hugely successful I must add... Look at their cash balance) has been to never get caught perfecting a given piece of software for a given level of hardware. This works wonderfully because the hardware is advancing (at least has been for the last however many years) so rapidly that to get stuck working on software for one level of hardware complexity means that you get left behind.

So M$ (this my opinion, freely stated :-) has aimed for an 'acceptable' level of mediocrity on new releases, then released patches, hotfixes and service packs to solve the problems they created by knowingly releasing imperfect software.

Again, I must say they have managed to ride the wave of increasing complexity quite well (anyone remember why Commodore went out of business?) but they also give folks like us (who try to iron out their problems for other people) plenty of grey hairs, frustrations and *work* also...

Now if they would just pay us for fixing their problems :-)

All this verbiage means that eventually (after the first one or two service packs) Vista will also be a reasonably reliable operating system, however, in the mean time it has it's set of garbage that needs fixing.

As a software help forum, *someone* here should probably learn Vista so as to know what they are talking about from first hand experience :-) However, I think most of us are waiting until the service packs come out before upgrading.

Regards,
Scott
Sep 28 '07 #13
ak1dnar
1,584 Expert 1GB
I'm also using this <there is another word here> windows XP in my PC. and really don't have any idea to upgrade it to the latest. what's the difference, I don't need lot of graphics with full of bugs on it. but as soon as possible I wanna replace this with a mac box.
Sep 28 '07 #14
nateraaaa
663 Expert 512MB
I think Vista is a long way from becoming a widely used operating system. Until businesses start upgrading to Vista from XP I don't believe Vista will be widely used. I know several of my coworkers bought new computers with Vista and after about 2 to 3 weeks they blew away Vista and replaced it with XP Pro. Sound problems and lagging were the 2 biggest problems. Plus the graphics cards needed to run Vista optimally can be pricey. Vista is just not up to par at this time. I have no intention to upgrade to Vista any time soon.

Nathan
Sep 28 '07 #15
Savage
1,764 Expert 1GB
Hey, I love Linus and his blanket...oh, sorry... you said Linux!

Love the video, Savage!

...
The video is funny, but in some hand it's showing the cruel reality.

Microsoft is playing with his customers releasing "unusable" products, and because of Linux complexity and Mac Os price, they are like pion's on a chess table for dominating Microsoft. Customers are David's and MS is Goliath.

Savage
Sep 28 '07 #16
epots9
1,351 Expert 1GB
Vista of course will be the way to go, cuz whatever is newer wins...can't get updates/support for any Microsoft software below windows 2000.

Vista has its advantages and disadvantages like any OS, its networking isn't the greatest (at work we use P2P for now) and vista uses windows 95 or 98 (i forget witch one right now) networking style; the configuration is weird.

I don't plan on upgrading to vista to at least SP1 is released, cuz i don't feel like buying a new computer at this moment.
Sep 28 '07 #17
mlcampeau
296 Expert 100+
I got a new computer this month and it came with Vista, and I like it for the most part, but the problem is that so many things just aren't compatible with Vista yet. I had Quicktime on my computer and anytime it opened up, I would get the blue screen of death. After googling the problem, I found out that Quicktime just isn't compatible yet. In order to get things like my printer and some other software working on my computer I had to download a bunch of drivers. Vista will definitely take over XP over time, but Microsoft needs to iron out a few kinks and the rest of the computer world needs to become compatible with Vista.
Sep 28 '07 #18
prn
254 Expert 100+
Is Vista going to replace XP? Eventually.

Microsoft has the clout to shove it down our throats regardless. Right now, at work, I have a Laptop with Vista, a desktop with XP and a desktop with Linux. Most of my work these days takes place on the XP machine and the Vista laptop is one I was issued to look for problems and incompatibilities. I have found a few. That machine is not really strong enough to be happy running Vista, though.

OTOH, Moore's Law, if nothing else, says that Vista will run with OK performance within a year or two. Whether it will ever run with pre-Vista hardware (either CPUs or peripherals) is a different question, but older hardware will eventually go away.

I can't say I'm thrilled with it, but we're a largely Microsoft shop. (I'm one of the few weirdos who do things with "other" OSs too.) We're moving toward Vista and I'm nothing but a small pebble in the road.

That's reality from what I can see. I'm sure I sound like a curmudgeon and I suppose I am, but I'm not opposed to progress, I'm just not convinced that Vista is anything but a money-maker for Microsoft. I don't object to companies making money either, but from the (potential) customer point of view, I'd like to see something in it for me, and I don't at this time.

Paul
Sep 28 '07 #19
Atli
5,058 Expert 4TB
When I first installed Vista I thought it was kind of buggy and annoying, but just to get the feel of it I resisted the urge to downgrade to XP. After a couple of days tho, all the annoyance was gone! I found that I was just so used to XP that I kept looking for XP features that had been moved or removed to be replaced by new Vista features. Some of the bugs were just new features I wasn't used to.

And now, after having reverted back to XP I find myself missing a lot of Vista features. Like the nice search thing in the Start menu and the pretty network manager.

I've read a lot of people saying MS stole a lot of the new features from MacOS and the other popular Unix system. But what is wrong with that. They all steal from each other, always have (anybody seen Pirates of Silicon Valley!). And if they are stealing nice features that make the OS better, I'm not complaining :)

It is true, however, that a majority of MS's clients are against upgrading to Vista. But there is a very simple explanation for that. They are humans, and as such they are afraid of what they don't know or understand. They have gotten used to XP and are not willing to learn the differences between it and Vista. This is of course not helped by the Linux and Mac fanatics who take every opportunity they get to lash out at Microsoft, giving the already spooked MS users reasons to hide behind (however weak those reasons may be).

I do believe that Vista will take over in a couple of years, once MS has fixed most of the critical bugs and game developers start making DirectX 10 games (which will happen soon).
Sep 28 '07 #20
For us people that work with computers everyday it will seem as though Vista has replaced XP in the next couple of years. Even though XP has become a very reliable and popular system I still run into clients that have windows98 or CE or millenium. I think that in 5-7 years from now XP will have become the old windows 98. If microsoft really wanted to move its product faster(albeit with a large risk of pissing off a lot people) they would stop supporting XP much sooner than they did with the Windows98 OS. This would beneifit them greatly because instead of paying people to keep aging code up to specification with new hardware and protocol they could focus on making their flagships, Vista and Server 2007, a better product.

A note on Linux. Yes it works great. If you know what you are doing then setting up servers is a snap. The problem I run into is "knowing what you are doing". I have quite a bit of experience in using linux, mostly setting up servers like apache, sendmail, I even got a nameD server working once, but when working with a team you can't always rely on the other people to know what they are doing. Linux needs what Linux has always needed; more popularity. It's so much easier to get a job administrating a Windows based network because they outnumber linux by a lot so that is what people study for in school.

Anyway, "... and that's all I have to say about that." Forest Gump
Sep 28 '07 #21
AricC
1,892 Expert 1GB
I've actually heard some really good things about Vista. I've also heard some really bad things though. My two main concerns are 1) You need a ton of memory to run 2) It's a big size compared to other OS's ; Neither of these are too concerning with the price of memory and hard disks these days but I've seen a SUSE install that was ~ 750MB of course it only had some basic features.
Sep 28 '07 #22
weaknessforcats
9,208 Expert Mod 8TB
There's very little more I can add.

Of course, Vista replaces XP. Hackers have forced issues.

The hard part is that some drivers that work on XP won't work on Vista due to crappy code. So, there is heartburn in user land where the technical smarts lean toward the sloppy and the incompatible with anybody else. I expect another round of bad ol'Microsoft trying to put common hard-working folk out of a job. Now if these folks would just learn to code properly...but, I digress.

I would wait for Service Pack 1 before installing Vista. I should also be sure I have 1GB of RAM, or more. Further, you should run the analysis program provided by Microsoft to see if your drivers and installed products are Vista compatible.

In short: when a new version appears, you should upgrade. Otherwise, you should still be feeding your horse oats.
Sep 28 '07 #23
r035198x
13,262 8TB

...
And also one major difference in Xp and Asta la Vista is that the second one has that boring and anoying features,like "Do you trust this setup?" If I don't tust it I wont run it.

Savage
That's supposed to be a good feature. Vista's security model is a big improvement from XP. I used Vista Business for three months without an antivirus just running the Windows defender and the Windows firewall. I never got a problem with any viruses. Vista always blocks new programs from accessing system critical areas until you authorize those programs.

The majority of the software I used on XP had compatible versions for Vista (except DB2 v8.2 which needed a fixpack from the IBM DB2 site). I got DB2 version 9 instead which ran wonderfully on Vista but was apparently not supported by my Rational v6. So I ended up dumping all IBM products but now I digress ...

Software compatibility is IMO the main reason why an OS becomes famous or otherwise. The more major software companies produce Vista compatible software the more popular Vista is going to become.

The scheduling still appeared as suspect to me as on XP though.

If you are making software that you want to be around for some time you better make sure it's Vista compatible because from the little time that I used it, it was quite apparent to me that Vista is here to stay.
Sep 28 '07 #24
Savage
1,764 Expert 1GB
That's supposed to be a good feature. Vista's security model is a big improvement from XP. I used Vista Business for three months without an anti virus just running the Windows defender and the Windows firewall. I never got a problem with any viruses. Vista always blocks new programs from accessing system critical areas until you authorize those programs.

The majority of the software I used on XP had compatible versions for Vista (except DB2 v8.2 which needed a fixpack from the IBM DB2 site). I got DB2 version 9 instead which ran wonderfully on Vista but was apparently not supported by my Rational v6. So I ended up dumping all IBM products but now I digress ...

Software compatibility is IMO the main reason why an OS becomes famous or otherwise. The more major software companies produce Vista compatible software the more popular Vista is going to become.

The scheduling still appeared as suspect to me as on XP though.

If you are making software that you want to be around for some time you better make sure it's Vista compatible because from the little time that I used it, it was quite apparent to me that Vista is here to stay.
Yes,that's something like Kaspersky's Proactive defense.Every time I run a browser he opens and starts yelling even if I do check options "Add to shared DLL's list"and "Don't ask me again".

My experience ended with this when this smarty pants identified a system exe as a spy ware and deleted it in a scan.

Savage
Sep 28 '07 #25
Shashi Sadasivan
1,435 Expert 1GB
Hi All,
Guess its the way Microsoft approaches making softwares to build it, run it in the market and keep putting in updates. This way they can concentrate on upgrading or improving sections which are more needed than others.

So they have always had the concept of Service paks.
Vista's service pack is yet to be released and with this, a lot of compatibility issues will be solved.


Im currently working with .Net 2.0 on a vista machine even though all the systems at our client site use XP, Why....well so that if they switch over to XP (which they would once the vista updates arrives and all drivers are supported properly and stuff) then i dont have to spend time building the application upwards. Eventually with vista XP will be demoralized by Microsoft and will lead everyone to using Vista. (in between, I still believe that Windows 95 was the most stable release)

cheers
Sep 28 '07 #26
Frinavale
9,735 Expert Mod 8TB
I got a new computer this month and it came with Vista, and I like it for the most part, but the problem is that so many things just aren't compatible with Vista yet. I had Quicktime on my computer and anytime it opened up, I would get the blue screen of death.
...

QuickTime didn't work?

I'm having the opposite problem...I'm finding that QuickTime is opening when I haven't actually asked it to open....I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this (it's not in the start up programs...etc.etc...I'll figure it out sooner or later).
Sep 28 '07 #27
Savage
1,764 Expert 1GB
QuickTime didn't work?

I'm having the opposite problem...I'm finding that QuickTime is opening when I haven't actually asked it to open....I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this (it's not in the start up programs...etc.etc...I'll figure it out sooner or later).
LOL

Savage
Sep 28 '07 #28
mlcampeau
296 Expert 100+
QuickTime didn't work?

I'm having the opposite problem...I'm finding that QuickTime is opening when I haven't actually asked it to open....I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this (it's not in the start up programs...etc.etc...I'll figure it out sooner or later).
Nope it definitely did not work. Every time I tried using it, the blue screen of death appeared and my computer restarted. When I looked it up online, I noticed tons of comments regarding ITunes and Quicktime not being compatible. I don't like Quicktime so I wasn't too sad to uninstall it, except for the fact that I need it to view any videos I capture on my digital camera. But that's what my old computer with XP is for!
Sep 28 '07 #29
r035198x
13,262 8TB
Hi All,
Guess its the way Microsoft approaches making softwares to build it, run it in the market and keep putting in updates. This way they can concentrate on upgrading or improving sections which are more needed than others.

So they have always had the concept of Service paks.
Vista's service pack is yet to be released and with this, a lot of compatibility issues will be solved.


Im currently working with .Net 2.0 on a vista machine even though all the systems at our client site use XP, Why....well so that if they switch over to XP (which they would once the vista updates arrives and all drivers are supported properly and stuff) then i dont have to spend time building the application upwards. Eventually with vista XP will be demoralized by Microsoft and will lead everyone to using Vista. (in between, I still believe that Windows 95 was the most stable release)

cheers
The beta SP1 was released 4 days ago. I'm not sure it's available to the general public yet.

I thought all Vista Editions ship with .NET 3.0. Which version do you have?
Sep 28 '07 #30
jhardman
3,406 Expert 2GB
So I am a Mac user at home and a windows user at work, but I was planning to get a windows OS on my next Mac just so I can switch back and forth faster. I was assuming that I would choose vista, but this discussion has made me questions that.

When it comes to compatibility and moving programs from one OS to another (or from one version of an OS to another) I have never understood why Windows is so far behind. Yes, Macs can't run software designed for windows, but my mac can run anything designed for any old mac OS and and even Unix without any kind of special add-on. Is it just shoddy coding that makes Windows programs not forward compatible or Windows OS not backward compatible?
Shininess is proportional to bugs...
This wouldn't explain why Macs have been shinier and less buggy than M$s for more than a decade. :-)

Jared
Sep 28 '07 #31
NeoPa
32,178 Expert Mod 16PB
Getting back on topic, I would take issue with a number of posters who basically follow the line that if M$ are pushing it (which they decidedly are) then it will inevitably pull through to be the main Windows OS.
Anyone remember Windows ME?
It 'replaced' Win98SE (a thoroughly solid and efficient OS to my mind - various things wrong but good for its time) but fell flat on its face. It was a cr*ppy OS and had gone in fundamentally the wrong direction.
I believe Vista may well go the same way. M$ are soiling themselves with worry about this and are pushing as hard as they can so it's possible that it may push through in the end, but to my mind it's still in the balance.
With some useful security enhancements (at an operator cost of having to understand this a lot better or almost everything is blocked) it has introduced a lot of sexy new 'detritus'. I don't know of any System Administrators who are looking forward to working with it.
In short, almost all users wait some time before upgrading to a new Windows OS. I believe Vista will cause most of them to wait longer than they have for all the other Windows OSes.
I more likely scenario (IMHO) is that a newer version will be released to replace it without all the negative memories and after M$ have done a lot of work ironing out the cr*p that should never have got in there in the first place. Then M$ will drop Vista like a dead rat.
Sep 28 '07 #32
Frinavale
9,735 Expert Mod 8TB
Anyone remember Windows ME?
It 'replaced' Win98SE (a thoroughly solid and efficient OS to my mind - various things wrong but good for its time) but fell flat on its face. It was a cr*ppy OS and had gone in fundamentally the wrong direction.
I believe Vista may well go the same way. ...
I was thinking about the same thing but didn't mention it because it's still to early to tell if Vista is really all that bad.
Sep 28 '07 #33
NeoPa
32,178 Expert Mod 16PB
If there is one thing different it's that ME went quite quietly. Vista is being pushed harder so everyone is getting to hear about the good and the bad. It's just unlucky for Vista that the good is so heavily outweighed :D
Sep 28 '07 #34
Denburt
1,356 Expert 1GB
Yes I think Vista will be around for a while but I wouldn't be surprised if they make some serious changes and try to get us to buy the next release.

I have been thinking about purchasing a copy just to keep up with things. Personally I like XP and I don't like all the hype about Vista issues. I remember when Windows ME came out, well I almost bought it. Fortunately for me one of my clients gave me their original disk and they reverted back to a previous OS. I didn't care for it and it didn't impress me, it also didn't hang around very long from what I remember, I only know a handful of people that even tried that OS. That said I will probably buy it when the first Service pack comes out only to find out that Windows Vista SE will be following shortly. Oh wait everyone got upset when they used that SE extension for the 98 second edition. Hmmm lets try to think like Microsoft. O.K. lots of people have XP and like it Vista isn't doing to well lets call the next release Vista XP we can dumb it down, remove a few features, make it look more like XP, but you need to know where that check box is and probably a couple of registry entries that you can't access or you don't even have, then tell them it is much faster and MS will laugh all the way to the bank.

Now for Linux or wait it is Linox, my wife hears that word and her mouth is off and running (usually with my checkbook) she can tell you all about it. The only thing is once she starts rambling you finally realize she is talking about Linox (Fine China) and not Linux.

Enough rambling for now, thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
Sep 28 '07 #35
Savage
1,764 Expert 1GB
If there is one thing different it's that ME went quite quietly. Vista is being pushed harder so everyone is getting to hear about the good and the bad. It's just unlucky for Vista that the good is so heavily outweighed :D
Perhaps they know that without extremely good marketing it will pass just as ME.

Now every newer product has Windows Vista compatible sign on it.

Savage
Sep 28 '07 #36
jhardman
3,406 Expert 2GB
I didn't think that my mac rant was really off topic, although I might not have explained myself well. I meant to say that one of the biggest issues in my mind is backward and forward compatibility. I believe that is the biggest reason that all mac users use the latest OS available (that and they are more likely to spend for "cool gadgets" like the $600 iPhone) and PC users don't. The reason I'm not updating my PC OS right now is that I am not sure that my old software will run. But I don't have that worry for my mac. I know that either a new OS will be backward-compatible enough to run my old stuff, or my old software is forward-compatible enough to run on a new OS. I can even go to the library and check out 10-year-old software for my kids and as long as it was compatible with an old version of MAC OS, I can still run it. Is that off-topic?

For me that's the big issue. I don't think "how you set system settings" matter that much to the common user, and experienced users know enough to figure out the new ways.

Jared
Sep 28 '07 #37
NeoPa
32,178 Expert Mod 16PB
Point taken Jared.
I was simply conscious of the OP's original request to avoid rants about other OSes so the focus can be kept on Vista (the question). If your rant was relevant to that then I see no problem with it.
It's not like me to be too quick to judge (Oh rats - there I go lying again!)
Sep 28 '07 #38
nico5038
3,080 Expert 2GB
Due to the fact that Vista is being delivered on new computers, it will penetrate eventually, but I hope it will be slow.
Vista is one step further in the "Big Brother is watching you" scenario. The other week I couldn't download a free MS sample as their "Genuine Advantage" server was down and they accused me wrongly of having an illegal version of XP installed on my laptop.
I'm afraid that MS is going to integrate this scenario more and more in their software and finally will implement a "pay per use" model.
Thus everybody is paying them to use software of a quality most people wouldn't accept from a car manufacterer. Ever seen MS calling back and repairing an application not functioning according the specs? Nope, the stupid MS customers accept "buy the next release that's not having this flaw anymore, but a dozen of others".

Nic;o)
Sep 28 '07 #39
MMcCarthy
14,534 Expert Mod 8TB
Hi everyone,

I have submitted this thread on digg.com so if you are a member please go ahead and digg it.

http://digg.com/microsoft/Is_Vista_replacing_XP_or_Not

Mary
Sep 28 '07 #40
Denburt
1,356 Expert 1GB
If anyone is curious here is some interesting information about Vista cut off dates as well as making mention of a rollback feature from Vista to XP.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7017624.stm
Sep 28 '07 #41
drhowarddrfine
7,435 Expert 4TB
Most people will get Vista because they think/feel they have to or are supposed to whether they need to or not. Nobody needs to.

My son got Vista with his new notebook and said the same as above. It's like XP, only shinier. So why did he need all this extra power?

I've noticed a lot of people on forums talking about how they've given up on Windows and are switching to Linux. I don't think that will be the 'everyman' thing, though.

I think Vista may be another crack for Google, and others, to get a wedge into for their online apps. Microsoft dwells too much on the personal power and those who only want to surf the web and write letters (most people) already question what they're spending all that money on.
Sep 28 '07 #42
Frinavale
9,735 Expert Mod 8TB
Most people will get Vista because they think/feel they have to or are supposed to whether they need to or not. Nobody needs to.

My son got Vista with his new notebook and said the same as above. It's like XP, only shinier. So why did he need all this extra power?
...
I don't think it has much to do with "extra power".
I have a feeling its because Microsoft is trying to undo the ActiveX security holes in their operating system by converting a lot of its components into .NET... I could be off here..though so if anyone wants to correct me go right ahead.
Sep 28 '07 #43
Atli
5,058 Expert 4TB
The other week I couldn't download a free MS sample as their "Genuine Advantage" server was down and they accused me wrongly of having an illegal version of XP installed on my laptop.
Are you sure that was the problem? I only ask because by default, if the WGA servers are down, your system will pass the validation.

There was a problem with the WGA server in august tho. Maybe you were one of the lucky 12.000 people who were affected by that.

You can read about it here
Sep 28 '07 #44
nico5038
3,080 Expert 2GB
Are you sure that was the problem? I only ask because by default, if the WGA servers are down, your system will pass the validation.

There was a problem with the WGA server in august tho. Maybe you were one of the lucky 12.000 people who were affected by that.

You can read about it here
Yep, it was in the Dutch news:
http://www.nu.nl/news/1210691/50/rss...piraterij.html

Remains the fact that even a customer like me, having payed my yearly contribution for TechNet, is accused of illegal activities. I think it's a perfect sample of "Big Brother is watching you" and that we get less control over our own machines...

I know that hacking is a problem, but with Vista MS did move the problem of their incapability to write solid code to the desktop of all customers.

Nic;o)
Sep 28 '07 #45
NeoPa
32,178 Expert Mod 16PB
I'm inclined to agree with you Nico.
For years they've been going around disabling things with a claim that it's higher security. Any idiot can go down that path. It just ends in turning off the PC altogether.
Sep 28 '07 #46
Atli
5,058 Expert 4TB
I think Microsoft is doing this all wrong. They're putting way to much effort into protecting themselves against people hacking their software. They should just accept the fact that their software will get hacked and stop trying to prevent it.

As you say, all this anti-hacking protection is doing nothing but get in the way of the paying customers, but it is doing little or nothing to prevent the hackers. Honestly, it's probably easier to get and set up a hacked version than a genuine version. The hacked versions are usually just "plug and play", while the genuine versions will require several different authentications, which have a bad habit of failing even for genuine customers.

I've always thought they should just make a free public version of Windows that people can use on their home computer as well as a business version to sell to companies and such. They could publish Vista Home Basic free and offer upgrades to Premium and Ultimate.
Sep 29 '07 #47
Frinavale
9,735 Expert Mod 8TB
I think Microsoft is doing this all wrong. Their putting way to much effort into protecting themselves against people hacking their software. They should just accept the fact that their software will get hacked and stop trying to prevent it.
There are so many reasons why this statement is just.......wrong.

It's not just their software that they are trying to protect. They're trying to protect against billions of dollars in losses due to some virus attacking business computers...because they have a hole in their software's security....

I' don't think you know the what the impact of disregarding the security of software would have on the world....our societies are becoming more and more technology based....just think about it...even power grids are on the internet...some of which are running Windows!
Sep 29 '07 #48
Atli
5,058 Expert 4TB
There are so many reasons why this statement is just.......wrong.

It's not just their software that they are trying to protect. They're trying to protect against billions of dollars in losses due to some virus attacking business computers...because they have a hole in their software's security....
I may have put that the wrong way :P

I don't mean they should stop protecting against viruses and people trying to hack into other peoples' systems.
I mean, they should stop trying so hard to protect their software from being pirated, copied and used unlicensed, because that is something they cannot stop. They could just as well publish some of it for free and focus their attentions on something that will actually be useful.

I' don't think you know the what the impact of disregarding the security of software would have on the world....our societies are becoming more and more technology based....just think about it...even power grids are on the internet...some of which are running Windows!
Yes, I do realize this. I've seen Die Hard 4.0 :)

P.S. I think we're getting a bit off-topic here... sorry about that.
Sep 29 '07 #49
xNephilimx
213 Expert 100+
Hi everyone!
I think Vista will eventually replace XP, but not for a long time, like XP did with 98/2000. It took some time for people to adapt, and the software itself to become "stable".
I do think as it's been stated before, here, that the releaseing of garbage OSs is a very good marketing technique, knowing that the majority of people need windows, because they've been -sort of- born with it, or because M$ just knew the way to carve the idea that windows it's easier to usen on people's minds, once windws is settled, once windows won that battle against the natural resistace for people towars change (because people in general are always reluctant to change in all aspects, it's part of the human nature) they knew they could just do about anything. So they knew that even releasing a totally unusable OS, people would still buy it, the common of the people just doesn't even care to know the system's details. Eventually M$ will release a patched version of Vista, leading the ones that had the older version to upgrade and the ones who still doesn't have them buy it, so from release to release they will always have customers.

I haven't experienced Vista by myself, I've been told that's a total wreckage of a system, too much shinines that engulfs tons of memory, being totally unnecesary, incompatibilities all around, and stuff like that. But I can't give you my opinion on that, because I haven't tried it. I also not going to until I'm forced and until it is as stable as (or more than... ) XP

Also, I think that this security issues and stuff is just because they start building upon weathered foundations, sooner or later it will fail. Anyway in the meantime, they will continue selling, because of what I exposed earlier. So they will never loose, even if they release a system worse that millenium.

In conclsion, I do think that Vista will replace XP, but some of us that have more knowdlege and experience than regular users, will still wait until it becomes stable.

Best regards!
The_Nephilim
Sep 29 '07 #50

Post your reply

Sign in to post your reply or Sign up for a free account.

Similar topics

13 posts views Thread by Mark Rae | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXJX?= | last post: by
19 posts views Thread by =?Utf-8?B?TWlrZTk5MDA=?= | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by 13Rockes | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by idoublepress | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
reply views Thread by Gurmeet2796 | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.