The Vista Death Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
so we don't need a windows 7 or 8 or 9. All we're ever gonna need is here: DOS to XP, Anything beyond that sucks because is SLOOOW...
 
Because Microsoft should have made it able to run on more configurations.

Such as low spec systems,

I refer to my previous post.

About Vista needing more resources, that's just the evolution of the technology world. When XP came out, it required a 300 MHz proc and 128 MB RAM was recommended. It wouldn't run on some Windows 95 computers which required a 486 (or 386 with math co-processor) and 8 MB of RAM. It's just the evolution of computers and OS's that Vista would have bigger requirements.
 
I refer to my previous post.
I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out.
Vista is still far more bloated than it should be.

When you see new Linux distributions, you often see them using less resources upon new releases, and not more.

one of the big reasons Microsoft OS's use more resources, is because they add more useless features to make them sell better.
 
I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out.
Vista is still far more bloated than it should be.

When you see new Linux distributions, you often see them using less resources upon new releases, and not more.

one of the big reasons Microsoft OS's use more resources, is because they add more useless features to make them sell better.

Maybe what I said was a cop-out, but what you say is just not true. What I gave you were actual requirements of those OS's. I have used Linux extensively, and I like it. While it's resource requirements are much lower than Vista, with each release they do require more resources, definitely not less. If you run Ubuntu using Gnome and Compiz/Fusion, it doesn't hurt to have 1 GB of RAM or more, and a good proc and video card. Sure you can run XFCE or something like that with very low requirements, but it doesn't have nearly as many features, either. I could probably run Windows 3.11 on my computer, too.
 
I have to agree with Eric, I haven't seen vista do anything except look pretty.

The few customers I have that use it have nothing but problems one even runs it in classic mode cause it's so slow.

and Outlook 2007 is another POS btw. :p
 
I have much experience with Vista and used it for a long while. While I love Vista as an OS and I like the interface, I still choose to use XP for various reasons. XP is much faster on about any machine today than is Vista. It also runs games flawlessly which Vista does not. What prompted me to go back to XP initially was the inability to get Half Life 2 Episode 2 to work correctly on Vista.

For those who mention cutting backwards compatability, thats exactly what MS should NOT do. The biggest problem with Vista in the eyes of the average consumer is that even it does not have enough backwards compatability. Believe it or not, many businesses are still running programs from the MS-DOS era and Vista just does not work for them. What really needs to be done though is a transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. Its appalling that pretty much all retail PCs today carry the 32-bit version of Vista. I understand having a 32-bit version for those with older computers, but the 64-bit should be the main and marketted version. Last I read, intent was to keep Windows 7 as 32-bit as well, which I dont see happening as average RAM will be above the 3.2GB barrier by the time the Vista era ends. Also, the Home and Pro versions of XP worked real well....we don't need 6 different versions.

As for me, I look forward to a time when I can use Vista and get the same productivity as I get on XP. OS upgrades should provide greater functionality, not take it away.



Well, no, we don't need more than XP, actually.

Just make DirectX 10 for XP 64, improve its security, and I'll run it on my system for years.

nothing more really needs to be said
 
Your signature says it all, some people can't handle the truth..

But, we can't expect large companies to NOT be greedy..

So nothing will change, MS will never do what it "should" do..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom