Microsoft now: "XP sucks, upgrade!"
http://www.microsoft.com/canada....de.mspx
Microsoft a few years ago: "XP is great!"
They can lick my balls.
I won't be "upgrading" my company to Office 07 let alone Vista.
My current plan is to buy a bunch of XP licenses and then see if we can hold out for 2 years when the new OS hits the market.
History tells us that it should be better (95 --> ME --> XP).
Maybe Microsoft is going into Star Trek mode and every other OS will be good?
I fully expect XP and Office 03 to start behaving oddly for people after its "end of support" date hits.
Edited By Leisher on 1197300875
I won't be "upgrading" my company to Office 07 let alone Vista.
My current plan is to buy a bunch of XP licenses and then see if we can hold out for 2 years when the new OS hits the market.
History tells us that it should be better (95 --> ME --> XP).
Maybe Microsoft is going into Star Trek mode and every other OS will be good?
I fully expect XP and Office 03 to start behaving oddly for people after its "end of support" date hits.
Edited By Leisher on 1197300875
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
We went with Office 2007, cuz we're a new company, and had nothing to upgrade. I do generally prefer 2007, even though Word/Excel are annoying. I used group policy to make all files be saved as 2003 versions for compatibility.
We buy Windows Vista licenses, because you get free downgrade rights. So we run XP Pro, but could upgrade to Vista for free if we ever wanted... not that I see that happening, since software is totally incompatible in too many cases. (we use a lot of external web-based stuff that doesnt even work in IE 7)
We buy Windows Vista licenses, because you get free downgrade rights. So we run XP Pro, but could upgrade to Vista for free if we ever wanted... not that I see that happening, since software is totally incompatible in too many cases. (we use a lot of external web-based stuff that doesnt even work in IE 7)
It's not me, it's someone else.
There is one thing I like about Excel 2007: you can have up to 1.2 million rows instead of 65k. That's a HUGE plus with the data I'm used to working with.
Everything else about it sucks in comparison to the prior version.
Everything else about it sucks in comparison to the prior version.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Just 2 quick finds after minimum search. I'm sure there's a slew of them. There's nothing new being said about Vista that wasn't said about XP...
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/1005978098
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos....54cbe6f
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/1005978098
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos....54cbe6f
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
"The benefits of upgrading from Vista to XP..."
http://dotnet.org.za/codings....xp.aspx
Paging Vince.
Edited By GORDON on 1197777485
http://dotnet.org.za/codings....xp.aspx
Paging Vince.
To be honest there is only one conclusion to be made; Microsoft have really outdone themselves in delivering a brand new operating system that really excels in all the areas where Vista was sub-optimal. From my testing, discussions with friends and colleagues, and a review of the material out there on the web there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that that upgrade to XP is well worth the money. Microsoft can really pat themselves on the back for a job well done, delivering an operating system which is much faster and far more reliable than its predecessor. Anyone who thinks there are problems in the Microsoft Windows team need only point to this fantastic release and scoff loudly.
Edited By GORDON on 1197777485
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Tried to use my wife's laptop (Vista) to burn a CD of photos last night. This happened twice:
Speaking of which, please excuse me for a few minutes, Windows Explorer has now been 100% hung for 5 minutes, despite my asking Vista to restart it, and despite me pushing Ctrl-Alt-Del several times over those 5 minutes. So I'm going to have to hard-reset my laptop.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Read the article. The guy's a moron.
Please explain to me how a company that doesn't write drivers for their hardware under Vista is somehow the fault of Microsoft. Again, XP had the same issue and it boils down to limited resources on the part of the hardware developers. There's no money is updating drivers for existing products.
Sluggish startups is explained to my satisfaction here. This goes back to a lot of the software compatibility issues as well. I read elsewhere (too lazy to hunt for the articles, but saw it in a couple of places) that Microsoft has tightened it's programming requirements for Vista.
They put in place "Best practices" on programming and how the OS would handle things. They released their requirements long before Vista was released. Actually they released them and were going to include them in XP, but they got such a negative response from the software developers that they kept the changes out of XP. They were told however, that the changes were coming and to tighten up their coding practices. Stop taking shortcuts. They've had 7 years to do so, but many haven't. Thus broken apps.
And XP isn't much faster. In many was it's slower when it comes to launching apps. One of the big ignorant complaints I see about Vista is how much memory it uses. While the OS does use more memory than XP (duh), part of the memory that they're seeing being used up is from Vista's pre-fetch. Vista tries to keep up with the apps you run often and preloads part of their code into memory in anticipation of your launching them. If you run something else, or memory becomes an issue, the OS dumps that memory to make room. Most of my common, smaller apps actually launch quicker under Vista than they did under XP.
The "hangs" he talks about makes me wonder when the last time was that the author actually ran Vista. When I first installed Vista the beginning of this year I also noticed that it would hang up after certain tasks or functions were performed. I thought, they're gonna have to fix this. Apparently they did. Upon reloading it about a month or so ago and applying the updates, those have gone away.
Vista isn't perfect. It's had the growing pains of any new OS. But I haven't experienced any BSD's, which were quite common under XP until SP2 came out.
I'd challange any of these idiots to reload XP and only apply patches up to SP2 and compare.
Please explain to me how a company that doesn't write drivers for their hardware under Vista is somehow the fault of Microsoft. Again, XP had the same issue and it boils down to limited resources on the part of the hardware developers. There's no money is updating drivers for existing products.
Sluggish startups is explained to my satisfaction here. This goes back to a lot of the software compatibility issues as well. I read elsewhere (too lazy to hunt for the articles, but saw it in a couple of places) that Microsoft has tightened it's programming requirements for Vista.
They put in place "Best practices" on programming and how the OS would handle things. They released their requirements long before Vista was released. Actually they released them and were going to include them in XP, but they got such a negative response from the software developers that they kept the changes out of XP. They were told however, that the changes were coming and to tighten up their coding practices. Stop taking shortcuts. They've had 7 years to do so, but many haven't. Thus broken apps.
And XP isn't much faster. In many was it's slower when it comes to launching apps. One of the big ignorant complaints I see about Vista is how much memory it uses. While the OS does use more memory than XP (duh), part of the memory that they're seeing being used up is from Vista's pre-fetch. Vista tries to keep up with the apps you run often and preloads part of their code into memory in anticipation of your launching them. If you run something else, or memory becomes an issue, the OS dumps that memory to make room. Most of my common, smaller apps actually launch quicker under Vista than they did under XP.
The "hangs" he talks about makes me wonder when the last time was that the author actually ran Vista. When I first installed Vista the beginning of this year I also noticed that it would hang up after certain tasks or functions were performed. I thought, they're gonna have to fix this. Apparently they did. Upon reloading it about a month or so ago and applying the updates, those have gone away.
Vista isn't perfect. It's had the growing pains of any new OS. But I haven't experienced any BSD's, which were quite common under XP until SP2 came out.
I'd challange any of these idiots to reload XP and only apply patches up to SP2 and compare.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Wait till the Microsoft Command Shell is finished.GORDON wrote:Or, Vista could be right alongside Windows ME in the shitcans of history.
Christ, that name just sounds scary.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
With Me, 2000 and XP weren't far around the corner. Too much has been invested in Vista and Microsoft has nothing new coming any time soon. If Vista dies, Microsoft is on life support.GORDON wrote:Or, Vista could be right alongside Windows ME in the shitcans of history.
Besides, for all the pissing and moaning I hear about Vista, it makes up about 20% of the Windows OS that hit the web today. Saw that stat a couple of weeks ago. This wasn't "units sold" or any of that. It was OS's actually being used browsing the internet.
I suspect within another year Vista will make up 60%.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren