Page 1 of 6
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:19 pm
by Leisher
From here.
Edited By GORDON on 1183573079
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:25 am
by TheCatt
Here's one fix they should do:
Current "upgrade" prices:
Home Basic - 99
Home Premium - 159
Business - 199
Ultimate - 259
Change that to....
Home Premium - 79
Business - 99
Ultimate - 129
Then it'd be like the XP pricing, without some stupid new crippled version of the OS.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:05 pm
by Vince
Leisher wrote:Best quote from that one and everything you need to know about Vista:
Windows Vista is destined to be compared to Windows Millennium and why Microsoft is already directing significant efforts on producing something to replace it within the next two years.
My prediction is this won't happen. We'll end up with a 2nd Edition/Service Pack 2 solution a year to two years down the line.
I'd also have to argue the point that it breaks most software. So far the only issues I've seen with software is with CD/DVD writing software. From what I've read, MS moved all the CD/DVD driver stuff out of the kernel (which was causing blue screens in XP at times) and that's killed those software packages. Also, Cisco's VPN client doesn't work with it.
If you'll recall, all the modem communications software died when 95 was released because they incorporated all the communications into the OS instead of running it as an outside app as they did w/ Windows 3.0-3.1. People pitched a bitch about that.
Other than that, I haven't had any software fail to run.
Edited By Vince on 1172952696
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:53 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:Here's one fix they should do:
Current "upgrade" prices:
Home Basic - 99
Home Premium - 159
Business - 199
Ultimate - 259
Change that to....
Home Premium - 79
Business - 99
Ultimate - 129
Then it'd be like the XP pricing, without some stupid new crippled version of the OS.
I'd change over a lot faster if this were the case.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:05 am
by Leisher
My prediction is this won't happen.
Time will tell, but I've heard two different rumors:
-The next OS was scheduled to be released in 2011.
-The next OS has been in development since prior to Vista's original release date in 2006.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:35 am
by Vince
Leisher wrote:-The next OS has been in development since prior to Vista's original release date in 2006.
Well, given how far Vista got pushed back, that'd still likely give it a 2011 release date.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:05 pm
by GORDON
Promoted to front page.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:56 am
by Leisher
I made an error: re-release XP as a viable alternative to XP
. It should obviously say "Vista" instead of "XP" at the end.
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:05 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:18 pm
by GORDON
Today at the tire place (fucking Detroit fucking roads ripped up some 3 month old tires....) I was wearing my Gateway jacket. The tire guy asked me if he should upgrade from XP to Vista, because his new Dell came with a 'free upgrade to vista' certificate. I asked, "Does XP do everything you want to do?" "Yes." "Are you a gamer?" "No." Then you have no need to upgrade to Vista." "Cool, thanks!"
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:15 am
by TheCatt
I'd send in the certificate just to get the software.
Then, I'd have an extra coaster in the house.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:04 am
by Paul
I'd send in certificate to get the software as well.
That way I could install a few years from now, if a good reason arose.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:50 pm
by Leisher
I have a Vista test machine in my office. Basically, just a desktop running Vista that I install our programs on to see if they'll work for when we eventually get stuck with Vista.
So, today I install Office 2007 on it. I then go to grab any updates and get the following error:
The Office Update service is currently not supported on Microsoft Windows Vista. You can, however, get Office updates for Office XP, Office 2003, and the 2007 Office system by opting into the Microsoft Update service.
Could they have fucked up this launch any worse?
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:56 pm
by Vince
http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2003p018id78073.htm
Just to remind people that there's nothing new under the sun.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:25 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote:Just to remind people that there's nothing new under the sun.
Vista itself does that.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:29 pm
by GORDON
Did XP actually base itself on the idea that it was going to allow the user to do less than he could with Win98? I'm thinking the hardware DRM required to run high def video on Vista.
Drivers will catch up, but some things are a dick in the ass no matter how you look at it.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:25 pm
by Vince
When XP came out, a LOT of software that talked directly to the hardware under 98 couldn't do that anymore in XP. So in essence, yes. You could do less with XP than you could with 98. But it was way more stable. After a while.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:04 pm
by TheCatt
XP was much more stable out of the box than 98 ever dreamed of.
Heck, if I do a clean XP install without updates it's more stable than it is today.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:59 pm
by Vince
I never had any problem with XP being stable, except for things related to my SB Live card. From what I could tell, Creative never quite got the drivers right for it. Sometimes while playing a game the PC would just reboot. But from what I've read there were others that had a lot of crashes early on.
But then again, I've been reading a lot of people complain about so much software that doesn't work with Vista and I haven't seen much of that either.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:13 pm
by GORDON
I just don't see Vista bringing anything new to the table, except that Microsoft needs a new revenue stream because XP is a mature market.