:LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL: I laugh at you all.  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL: 

 :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL: I laugh at you all.  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL: 

I'm sorry, it didn't show me the second page so I hit the button again.  I don't have an edit button either. (:( 

What I find bothersome is that the response that people who have problems with Vista get is.. " Works fine for me !"


I could write an article pages and pages long about nightmares, deficiencies, shortcomings, not just in skinning abilty but production, compatibilty and useabilty related issues. I'm not going to for this very reason, I'd hear, "doesn't make sense to me, works just fine for me"

That and it would just take up too much time I dont have.

Now... back to skinning the aggravating son of a *&^%$  :NOTSURE: 

Did I once say "Well it works fine for me, so go away"? No, my post had nothing to do with it working fine for me, it was a response to the first post.

I work in a production plant that just added computers to the production floor. It took only six weeks to get a log on that worked and just last week the printer died.
Lucky for me we have a HELP DESK. Plant mgr. feels we dont need a in house comp tech.
Now if I ever get a phone at that desk i'll be all set. Nearest one is fourty feet away and crosses the fork trucks path. I don' know what we use but I only can assume its the most up to date.

Commburu, I'm the kind of guy you find on the other end of that help desk phone. I also get to influence buying decisions, even if I don't make the final call. (::sigh:: Someday...)

The only reason I will see Vista on any machine I'm supporting in the next 2-3 years is because somebody who's much further up the chain than I am gets a bug up their butt and decides the Microsoft Kool-Aid tastes just fine, thank you very much.

I know XP. I'm familiar with XP's problems. I know XP's system requirements, and I do NOT even want to contemplate explaining why 75% of the thousands of computers in my area of responsibility do not have the hardware capabilities to load this pretty desktop screen Mr. High Muckity-Muck can see on his brand-new Core 2 machine with a GForce 8xxx graphics card and 3 gigs of RAM.

I really, really don't want to think about what we'd have to cut to pay for replacing all those machines. Half the support personnel? The new server racks we need for the back end stuff? How about the generator so we can maintain 99.999% uptime even during a power failure? Yeah, any of those would pay for it, but none of them are actually worth the Aero interface and hideous user transition period.

But it does... honestly!!! Seriously, tho, I know people who have had issues with Vista not being compatible with their hardware/software and not performing to their needs, and yeah, I do feel for them because it is a genuine problem they're having and not just a swipe at Vista/a gripe about nothing in particular.

Got my HH CD's today. Micro-WHO?

I run a test pc with Vista that has 1GB ddr400 memory (cheap stuff) and an AMD Athlon 64 4000+ cpu & a Radeon 9250 flawlessly, granted there isnt aero support but it runs fine. (it was running a 6800gt but that recently up and died)

I've gotten three new computers in the last year. I've nuked the bundled Vista off all 3 of them.

What sucks is those three probably count as "sales" of the Vista OS.

That's because they were... sales, that is.

Dunno about anywhere else in the world, but what I'm seeing here in Oz is that all major PC manufacturers/distributors/stores have fully switched to Vista.... no XP machines are being advertised anywhere anymore, not in junk mail, newspapers or on TV. The major retailers who sell propriety brand PC's have stopped selling XP based machines entirely, so it would seem the transition to Vista is fairly much complete here (long before MS' cut-off of June 08)... meaning, like it or not, Oz businesses will have to go with Vista if/when they have to upgrade their hardware.

In fact, the owner of my local (small) PC store told me that he can no longer get XP in the OEM or retail versions from any of the regular distributors, that once his current stock of 17 copies) is gone that's it, no more XP based PC's from him, either.

Today I saw an article on the ExtremeTech website that compared Vista w/SP1 against WinXP w/SP3 as a gaming platform. Previous gaming comparisons had shown Vista to be about 10% slower overall. According to this latest comparison, it now appears that Vista has closed the gap (but has not pulled ahead so that you would notice). There seems to be no strong reason to switch to Vista unless you want DirectX10.

MS does not appear to be devoting a lot of effort on improving Vista, either. Instead they seem to be pushing real hard on Win7. Gates announced earlier this year that the Win7 release has been pushed forward and we should see it next year. Vista could become another Win ME. My guess is that Win7 will try to take advantage of the multicore CPUs that the hardware folks are cranking out.

When Vista was announced, I hated to see it's requirements for a more powerful system. My take is that you upgrade your system for the applications the operating system supports, not for the operating system itself. This I believe to be the reason corporate America resists Vista. Why spend money to upgrade my systems to run the same apps I am now running on my present system?

Correct but also incorrect, Microsoft released a press statement after he announced that saying he meant to say it would enter the Beta process.

Theres this little version of Vista called 64 bit, Ultimate Edition it has support for up to 128gb of memory, not sure on the amount of CPU's allowed but it's well above 8.

Grr no edit button.
I just wanted to add that wherever your getting the info about Vista vs. Windows 7 is wrong. I'd also like to add that everything said about Windows 7 is purely speculation at this point, its currently in the Milestone testing stage and hasn't even hit the beta stage. Microsoft says everything is moving along quite well but that can change overnight. At the same time they are very cautious about saying what has been added and haven't even announced what many of the new key features will be.

Umm - no, not really. Uptake on XP was *much* faster in percentage terms than Vista has been. As of (something like) last November, Vista had achieved 12% of the market. XP market share hit 50% during the same period.

So, no, it's verifiably *not* the same thing. We can have rational arguments about *why* XP was doing so much better at this point in it's life cycle, but that it was doing better is indisputable.

Jonnan

*sigh*

What you want in an OS isn't necessarily what a CTO/CEO/CFO of a large company wants in an OS that he needs to deploy to thousands of PCs running lots of applications ( again , some of them being custom apps ) in a corporate enviroment.

It has little , if anything to do with how good (or bad) Vista is ( or Windows Seven for that matter.
Article is fail.

It's true that every new Windows version has met (well-deserved) skepticism. That was true for XP, ans still holds true for Vista. However, the difference is that people were nevertheless willing to put up with XP's shortcomings. There were a lot of complaints when XP got released, but people adopted it nevertheless. Eventually XP matured, and now it's actually as sound and solid an OS as Windows gets.

Compare this to the continuous news of people demanding XP on their new PCs, of PC distributors who ship XP discs with their PCs so that their customers have a choice between pre-installed Vista and XP, and you see that the situation is diferent now. People *complained* about XP, but used it. Vista however gets outright rejected from many potential customers.

It's not as bad a failure as Windows ME was, probably due to the fact that ME had even stronger in-house competition. But I suspect that Microsoft is already running a "cover your losses and move on" strategy with regard to Vista.

Fast? Define fast for me please, even small business didn't upgrade "fast". I recall doing some work for a small Mortgage company with about 20 computers, half of which still ran Windows 98 and the rest where Windows 2000. And it's not like it was a year after XP was released either, SP2 was out and about for some time. This process will reoccur when Windows 7 is out, it just seems worse because a larger percentage of people have computers with XP than they did with previous operating systems.


I don't understand how people can even compare Vista to ME. Windows ME didn't even use the NT kernel.

Because Vista, like ME, started with stability problems, a lack of drivers, lots of compatibility issues, and got rejected by many potential customers.

Not for everyone, many people had and still have no issues.

So did XP when it was first release, does that mean XP can be compared to Windows ME as well?

Again, not everyone had these issues.

I somehow doubt Vistas 'skinning ablity' had high production-priority, since it's not the main function of an OS
Besides that - there's more to life than skinning ;p

Oh.... and it works fine for me too.....

Works fine for me too!

Oh golly gosh, I've gone and said it...  ;p

Funny, I just had a Drive crash. It died really. the technician who repaired it said you may be able to find a copy of XP on e-bay, but they are going fast. I however have XP Media Center Edition and when the computer company who replaced ny drive (and Motherboard) free, sent me another copy of XP MCE.
I'm all set for a while until I can find a STABLE system. If my drive had not died, Xp which came on the system 3 years ago would STILL be working.

VIVA XP!

Oh . . . Joy.

For future reference - if you go to advanced mode having typed a long post, the system does not carry what you typed over. This is important information.

Shucks and other comments.