vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
Funny thing is 'ol Peter loves his OSX. Wonder why he does not run all his apps on XP if its good enough.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
Don't skip Vista, says Microsoft
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Funny thing is 'ol Peter loves his OSX. Wonder why he does not run all his apps on XP if its good enough.
Arthur
Honorary Master
And remember how Mac users were moaning and groaning about the endless delays in releasing OSX? Seems they're also victims, like us MS users. And then the frenzy when the latest Ubuntu finally, eventually hit the pipes.Funny thing is 'ol Peter loves his OSX. Wonder why he does not run all his apps on XP if its good enough.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
And remember how Mac users were moaning and groaning about the endless delays in releasing OSX? Seems they're also victims, like us MS users. And then the frenzy when the latest Ubuntu finally, eventually hit the pipes.
Reality is all technologies go through hiccups. Part of progress.
We bear it as the outcome provides something better. And if you don't want to endure it, stay with what works (just remember to forget that it too once went through growing pains
)But because the changes tend to be incremental one should pause every now and then and look back 5 or 10 years to realise how far we've come.
Unlike many who's been blasting Win-7 here, I actually use it in production. It gives me a 64-bit platform with proper memory and multi-core management. (Everything Vista promised and XP can't not deliver). And it runs ALL my apps.
So it's perfect for my desktop. Just as Linux is perfect for my back-end servers and thus fulfilling that role.
windowlicker
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
That is exactly how I saw it. I have not read the article, just the headline, but it does come across as that.
Funny thing is 'ol Peter loves his OSX. Wonder why he does not run all his apps on XP if its good enough.
Everything must be black and white for you guys
.1. OSX is just plainly superior to anything Microsoft under Ballmer or any other executron will ever be able to come up with. MS is not a company which innovates but a company which sells vapourware and assimilates other companies. Just look at all the security holes in Windows, Office, ActiveX
and all their other products.
2. For office tasks and casual stuff Windows XP I believe is GOOD ENOUGH. I don't see a reason to upgrade to prettier eye candy (Aero) requiring increased system requirements. Yes H/W is cheaper but keeping the OS at the same level can actually translate the speed of that h/w back into actual time saved.
I am Penguin
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7,712
- Reaction score
- 38
Everything must be black and white for you guys
1. OSX is just plainly superior to anything Microsoft under Ballmer or any other executron will ever be able to come up with. MS is not a company which innovates but a company which sells vapourware and assimilates other companies. Just look at all the security holes in Windows, Office, ActiveX
and all their other products.
2. For office tasks and casual stuff Windows XP I believe is GOOD ENOUGH. I don't see a reason to upgrade to prettier eye candy (Aero) requiring increased system requirements. Yes H/W is cheaper but keeping the OS at the same level can actually translate the speed of that h/w back into actual time saved.
Funny, What is OSX marketshare. No viruswriter will waste precious time on that! Maybe you are employed by MAC, Apple or associates to do whatever you are trying to do. But one thing is for sure You are in the minority with that view. Windows7 rocks and you can do nothing to change that but blow your nose in a strong headwind.
Wait. What am I saying? talking about holes?
Dark Agent
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 276
I wonder if the chinese people will sell it at 1 dollar like they did with vista...
Piratebay, torrentreactor and somotorrent works perfect but wonder who will win this race. definitely not bitfarm.
Piratebay, torrentreactor and somotorrent works perfect but wonder who will win this race. definitely not bitfarm.
Of course no-one is forcing me to upgrade - well not really MS is forcing us to upgrade. By reducing support and refusing to sell XP they are forcing an upgrade or a change to a Linux based OS.
That is great and they should stick at it if they're used to it. However, unless you're rendering in Maya or Avid and require improved memory and multiprocessing capabilities of the newest 8 core twin processor workstations
you do not need Windows Vista or 7 to do the same things most people have been doing since the 90s. Most people use Office apps to send email, edit Word documents, work on presentations and excel spreadsheets, use Skype or another IM, browse the web, view videos - even HD videos and play simple 2D games. Windows XP is more than capable of doing all those things at great speeds. Adding additional bloat and eyecandy to do the same thing but do it slower and in a less compatible way - requiring new versions of software products which don't do anything new other than work under the newest operating system - well all that just makes no sense to me. I realise people buy newer cars constanly with additional features but that's because older cars wear out - software however does not - and I believe that for most people we've reached a plateau. Win 3.1 was not capable of proper multitasking and if one app hung you lost everything. Win9x improved things but still suffered the issues of having one app crashing and making the whole system unstable. NT, 2k and finally XP (XP was the first NT based OS available for the common man) allowed you to have a stable system with decent multitasking and even multiprocessing. Vista just isn't the fundamental change - it's not for example an OS you can control with your mind for example - it's just a heavier, slower, XP which requires new software and new hardware, while old hardware WAS good enough and new
hardware meant incredible increases in speed vs sub-XP performance on better hardware.
You could do a fair amount of things back then but when we hit the Pentium II days we could view full screen video, edit high resolution photos, play and encode music, view multiple websites in multiple windows and utilise a WYSIWYG GUI to edit documents or visualise professional drawings - eg CT scans or CAD design drawings. We reached a plateau as said. Most of us still do those same things - the newer PIII, then P4 and finally C2D hardware
with faster RAM speed, more cache and better Gfx cards allowed us to do those same things much faster - so that now you don't need a R20K
graphics video capturing/encoding card to edit your home movies - but
you basically still do the same things. XP and 64bit XP is capable of
running Photoshop with 16GB of RAM - except most home users won't
be doing that as the price of PS alone is more than what they paid for their computer and digital still camera.
They have and maybe in the cutting edge world newer OSes which utilise improved architecture of the new CPUs, GPUs and motherboards are needed but as is most people these days still do the same thing. Just look at the Netbook market and how that has taken off. People want a small PC to view and edit documents - not 2K or IMAX grade CGI renders - but ordinary Word or OpenOffice documents, read email and do the usual things most home users and office users use their PCs for.
That's all great but it's only great if it allows me to do more. For standard stuff I do not need a 1TB let alone a 100TB HD. Back in 1998 when I bought
a PII-350 PC with 6GB of HD space I had basically the same amount of diskspace devoted to Word documents as I have now - except Word 97 grew by a magnitude of 10 - didn't it? I certainly remember Word for Windows 6 and how small that was.
Do most people actually need more than 1GB of RAM on their machine?
What for?
Maybe for speed - ie cache - but otherwise I don't see a reason why someone who uses an Office Suite, internet, listens to music or uses a PC
to load music on his iPod, why that person needs more than 1GB let alone 3.5GB of RAM.
The majority is. The people who are not are either people who work on high end workstations to render stuff or do similar things on computers
running dual processor or more Xeon CPUs and software packages which cost more than the average car, or people who play games and need DirectX 11.
Going new is great - but then provide something which actually works in a faster, more stable way on the same hardware. Don't produce a bloated pig which needs additional hardware - and here is the punch line - the crux of why I'm unhappy with Windows Vista/7 - TO DO THE SAME THING.
I recognise certain professionals need the most advanced operating system out there - it is debatable if Vista is that - I remember a time not long ago when whole cars where designed on Unix based CAD packages. If Vista is a bloated pig for the consumer why should it be so good for the professional. Again I don't think the bureaucracy that is M$ is capable of producing anything better than XP unless they sit down and rewrite everything and perhaps copy OSX, Linux or Solaris based OSes.
Not a problem, clearly there are many companies that are in no rush to abandon heXPee yet.
Which applications have been discontinued on heXPee so far - other than Microsoft applications that is?
It stands to reason that if the majority of users are not abandoning heXPee for Vista, then it would be foolish for non-Microsoft application providers to drop support for their heXPee applications as this would potentially force their heXPee customers to look at alternatives, such as Open Source Software.
IMO Microsoft has its head up its arse as usual and is trying to use scaremongering to flog Vista on an unimpressed audience.
supersunbird
Honorary Master
supersunbird
Honorary Master
One thing I noted was that all your PC improvements named seem to be about hardware. Now that sparked something in my mind.
XP can now be REALLY snappy and responsive with the newest fancy hardware, so people might like that XP is not straining their PCs with Vista aritificial graphic nicety slowness (I turn those fade effects off on all PCs i come across *evil laught*). People feel the need for speed and Vista didn't give that. Just because hardware is better doesn't mean you should program poorly and make your software slow and bloated.
Arthur
Honorary Master
It's easy to be critical, but you need to understand history to see how the world got to be as it is.
Warnings:
1) Long post (bad, yeah) - if you hate history, skip this post!
2) Defence of Microsoft follows (evil, eh!) - are there really two sides to a story?
3) Random thoughts, so excuse incoherence/lack of brevity (I'm entirely to blame).
The majority of the effort in the NT-based releases of Windows (Win NT, 2K, XP, Vista, W7) revolves around trying to maximise support for legacy apps and hardware, ie trying to preserve compatibility with older apps and devices. Last I looked Microsoft includes over 300 thunks and fiddles in Windows as workarounds for legacy and badly coded non-MS apps written in often flagrant disregard of Window Programming Guidelines.
One of the major reasons why Windows emerged as the OS leader is precisely because MS understood the importance of taking the installed base with you. If you know anything about the evolution of PCs, you will appreciate how impossibly difficult it was to bring the past into the future through major platform/architecture shifts (such as from real mode to protect mode, from segmented memory to large direct addressing, for example). Indeed, every major platform shift has seen the death of the previous giants, and the emergence of new ones -with one exception so far: Microsoft. Why?
Back in the mid-80s, MS realised along with everyone else that desktop operating systems needed a radical redesign, from the ground up, because the architectures were changing and the old Extended and Expanded Memory Specification fiddles for getting past Real Mode and 8-bit addressing just couldn't cut it.
By 1985 MS had entered into a JDA (joint development agreement) with IBM to develop an entirely new OS from the ground up - the first truly new operating system since the mid-60s (almost all commercially viable non-IBM OSs were derivatives or spin-offs from UNIX - and remember that IBM's proprietary OS/360 / MVS / VM and S/36 & S/38 systems ran 90% of the installed MIPS in the Free World). MS hired the best OS brains in the industry (remember Gordin Letwin? Later, Dave Cutler from DEC, and many other leading lights from outside the company) and by 1988 came up with the so called Platform For the Future, also called Operating System/2 or OS/2 (first released without a GUI in late 1987 as OS/2 1.0 for the 80286).
It was a truly groundbreaking development. But OS/2 had one snag - it required entirely new apps, with a massive increase in development complexity, and there few tools, especially in the then newly-emerging OO design paradigm. And while MS had MS-DOS (licensed as PC-DOS to IBM ... and DOS itself was UNIX-inspired, a "quick 'n dirty OS") and the fledgling Windows, others ruled the roost with apps (notably Lotus Development, Wordperfect Corp, Corel, Ashton-Tate, and others).
With the unexpected success -- and I might add a success undesired by MS because of its massive corporate-wide commitment to OS/2 as the future OS -- Microsoft had to rethink everything. Could it afford to bet the entire ship on the as-yet unreleased and unproven OS/2, with exactly zero applications? However elegant and future-capable, OS/2 introduced all sorts of complexities unknown in the PCs, such as multiple threads, and hope the world would move to 32-bit (at that time 99% of PCs were 8086 or 80286-based, with the first Intel 32-bit CPU only released in 1986, and hugely expensive), and above all zero apps? When Windows 3.0 (the last scheduled release of Windows, which had been in the works since before the JDA with IBM) took off unexpectedly - largely because it offered an unprecedently easy way of running multiple Real Mode apps with either Extended or Expanded Memory support -- Microsoft took a huge gamble (get this): it listened to what its customers and users said.
(As an aside, Apple was so rattled by OS/2 and IBM's companion PS/2 that it sued both IBM and Microsoft to try to get it stopped. Apple falsely claimed it invented the WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointing-device) GUI, and tried to patent a whole slew of technologies it didn't invent. Apple, through its closed always-proprietary systems and endless lawsuits against anyone and everyone, quickly alienated millions of users, and its marketshare quickly dwindled to irrelevance.)
Now you might not like Windows, but what Microsoft has pulled off with Windows is nothing short of astonishing. There were many inside and even more outside the company who believed it just couldn't be done, given the almost irreconcilable demands of legacy app compatibility, system integrity and performance. The choice in the end was between surviving as a systems vendor (which absolutely demanded compatibility with the then dominant non-MS apps, whose vendors had said switching to OS/2 was too much work), and sticking doggedly to something MS knew was better from a systems architecture viewpoint. In other words: choose betwen commercial survival or technological purity. Fact: the industry is littered with the carcasses of technological purists. Truism: Almost every successful technology (much like great human relationships) is the result of seemingly impossible compromises.
The internal debates in MS were ultra-intense, and both sides were argued by the brightest heads in the industry. In the end MS chose to live another day, and work super-hard to evolve Windows into something that was viable. It knew the pace of this evolution would depend on a whole host of industry factors, including hardware developments.
The Big News for years was the "great divorce" between IBM and Microsoft. The OS/2 JDA was terminated. IBM stuck with OS/2, mainly because it wanted to leverage OS/2 to protect its PS/2 hardware, and over the next few years its marketshare in PCs and OS/2 dwindled from 80% to single digits ... eventually the once dominant IBM exited the PC business and sold what was left to Lenovo. OS/2 evolved into Warp, but that wasn't enough to stop the death-spiral as lack of apps meant lack of sales, which meant even less developers and less apps, which meant diminishing marketshare, all the way down to oblivion.
By listening to its customers - users like you and me - Microsoft reversed course and (do you know how hard it is to give up on your own great inventions?)
And so a five-step multi-year strategy was developed:
Step One: Develop DOS+Windows as far as the architecture allows, merging DOS into Windows, and establish Windows (and not DOS) as the OS platform. Mission accomplished with Win95 (revved in Win98 and Win/ME).
Step Two: In parallel, and leveraging the OS/2 work done to date, switch the Apps API from SAA (systems Application Architecture) Presentation Manager to Windows (and call it Windows NT for "New Technology"), which requires defining and extending the new Win32 API (from Step One). Mission accomplished with Windows NT (Win 3.1 GUI) and Windows 2000 (Win95 GUI).
Step 3: Merge Steps One and Two into a unified Windows operating system built on the NT kernel. Mission Accomplished in Windows XP.
Step Four: As hardware capabilities permit, abstract the Windows API set, device drive rmodel, and other critical elements, and evolve and optimise (Unified) Windows towards an Entirely New Operating System (Step 5)
Step 5: When technical, hardware and market conditions allow, seamlessly introduce a fully componentised OS with completely managed tools and libraries (this has never been done before, by anyone). Ensure the development tools are fully in place, and that provision is made for legacy compatibility in a manner that doesn't jeopardise system integrity or security. If you're interested in this part, do a search on Singularity and Midori.
I've taken up a lot of your time trying to give you some background on why Windows looks like it does today. I'm not defending mistakes or less-than-optimal code, of which there are many examples, as any Microsoftie will readily admit (everyione ash to work in a time and financial budget). The ignorant will rant on about MS designing a poor OS, and MS developers being a useless lot. These people don't know what they're talking about.
Arguably, you will be hard put to find anywhere on earth a smarter or more knowedgable or more capable group of systems experts and supersmart developers than at Microsoft. MS looks anywhere and everywhere for the smartest systems people - even deep inside Open Source, which it supports more than most people know (every Apache server runs with some code developed and supplied by MS, for example). MS understands exactly what Windows' weakensses are (heck, it knew that back in 1985, as billg said ad nauseam back in those times). But unlike many who shout religious-tech slogans from the sidelines, MS also understands that all the best plans in the world amount to nothing if you don't have the resources to implement, and to obtain and utilise those resources you must build and sustain a viable long-term business. Apart from requiring brains (which MS has in abundance, as proved by the almost-impossible evolution of Windows to where it is today), you need lots of money ... getting to Step Five non-disruptively would require about $10-billion (it was estimated in 1997, when I retired from Microsoft) , mainly to pay hire and retain the smartest people in the industry. That figure has probably doubled. Though I haven't been involved in this for many years, I remain intensely interested and stay in touch with those who are. And despite all sorts of curved balls, like people putting out malware with the aim of destroying PCs and data, and losers getting an ear with governments when (hand-on-heart I can say) Microsoft acts aggressively but always ethically, the strategy is being steadly and inexorably implemented.
Just my $0.03 worth.
Warnings:
1) Long post (bad, yeah) - if you hate history, skip this post!
2) Defence of Microsoft follows (evil, eh!) - are there really two sides to a story?
3) Random thoughts, so excuse incoherence/lack of brevity (I'm entirely to blame).
The majority of the effort in the NT-based releases of Windows (Win NT, 2K, XP, Vista, W7) revolves around trying to maximise support for legacy apps and hardware, ie trying to preserve compatibility with older apps and devices. Last I looked Microsoft includes over 300 thunks and fiddles in Windows as workarounds for legacy and badly coded non-MS apps written in often flagrant disregard of Window Programming Guidelines.
One of the major reasons why Windows emerged as the OS leader is precisely because MS understood the importance of taking the installed base with you. If you know anything about the evolution of PCs, you will appreciate how impossibly difficult it was to bring the past into the future through major platform/architecture shifts (such as from real mode to protect mode, from segmented memory to large direct addressing, for example). Indeed, every major platform shift has seen the death of the previous giants, and the emergence of new ones -with one exception so far: Microsoft. Why?
Back in the mid-80s, MS realised along with everyone else that desktop operating systems needed a radical redesign, from the ground up, because the architectures were changing and the old Extended and Expanded Memory Specification fiddles for getting past Real Mode and 8-bit addressing just couldn't cut it.
By 1985 MS had entered into a JDA (joint development agreement) with IBM to develop an entirely new OS from the ground up - the first truly new operating system since the mid-60s (almost all commercially viable non-IBM OSs were derivatives or spin-offs from UNIX - and remember that IBM's proprietary OS/360 / MVS / VM and S/36 & S/38 systems ran 90% of the installed MIPS in the Free World). MS hired the best OS brains in the industry (remember Gordin Letwin? Later, Dave Cutler from DEC, and many other leading lights from outside the company) and by 1988 came up with the so called Platform For the Future, also called Operating System/2 or OS/2 (first released without a GUI in late 1987 as OS/2 1.0 for the 80286).
It was a truly groundbreaking development. But OS/2 had one snag - it required entirely new apps, with a massive increase in development complexity, and there few tools, especially in the then newly-emerging OO design paradigm. And while MS had MS-DOS (licensed as PC-DOS to IBM ... and DOS itself was UNIX-inspired, a "quick 'n dirty OS") and the fledgling Windows, others ruled the roost with apps (notably Lotus Development, Wordperfect Corp, Corel, Ashton-Tate, and others).
With the unexpected success -- and I might add a success undesired by MS because of its massive corporate-wide commitment to OS/2 as the future OS -- Microsoft had to rethink everything. Could it afford to bet the entire ship on the as-yet unreleased and unproven OS/2, with exactly zero applications? However elegant and future-capable, OS/2 introduced all sorts of complexities unknown in the PCs, such as multiple threads, and hope the world would move to 32-bit (at that time 99% of PCs were 8086 or 80286-based, with the first Intel 32-bit CPU only released in 1986, and hugely expensive), and above all zero apps? When Windows 3.0 (the last scheduled release of Windows, which had been in the works since before the JDA with IBM) took off unexpectedly - largely because it offered an unprecedently easy way of running multiple Real Mode apps with either Extended or Expanded Memory support -- Microsoft took a huge gamble (get this): it listened to what its customers and users said.
(As an aside, Apple was so rattled by OS/2 and IBM's companion PS/2 that it sued both IBM and Microsoft to try to get it stopped. Apple falsely claimed it invented the WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointing-device) GUI, and tried to patent a whole slew of technologies it didn't invent. Apple, through its closed always-proprietary systems and endless lawsuits against anyone and everyone, quickly alienated millions of users, and its marketshare quickly dwindled to irrelevance.)
Now you might not like Windows, but what Microsoft has pulled off with Windows is nothing short of astonishing. There were many inside and even more outside the company who believed it just couldn't be done, given the almost irreconcilable demands of legacy app compatibility, system integrity and performance. The choice in the end was between surviving as a systems vendor (which absolutely demanded compatibility with the then dominant non-MS apps, whose vendors had said switching to OS/2 was too much work), and sticking doggedly to something MS knew was better from a systems architecture viewpoint. In other words: choose betwen commercial survival or technological purity. Fact: the industry is littered with the carcasses of technological purists. Truism: Almost every successful technology (much like great human relationships) is the result of seemingly impossible compromises.
The internal debates in MS were ultra-intense, and both sides were argued by the brightest heads in the industry. In the end MS chose to live another day, and work super-hard to evolve Windows into something that was viable. It knew the pace of this evolution would depend on a whole host of industry factors, including hardware developments.
The Big News for years was the "great divorce" between IBM and Microsoft. The OS/2 JDA was terminated. IBM stuck with OS/2, mainly because it wanted to leverage OS/2 to protect its PS/2 hardware, and over the next few years its marketshare in PCs and OS/2 dwindled from 80% to single digits ... eventually the once dominant IBM exited the PC business and sold what was left to Lenovo. OS/2 evolved into Warp, but that wasn't enough to stop the death-spiral as lack of apps meant lack of sales, which meant even less developers and less apps, which meant diminishing marketshare, all the way down to oblivion.
By listening to its customers - users like you and me - Microsoft reversed course and (do you know how hard it is to give up on your own great inventions?)
And so a five-step multi-year strategy was developed:
Step One: Develop DOS+Windows as far as the architecture allows, merging DOS into Windows, and establish Windows (and not DOS) as the OS platform. Mission accomplished with Win95 (revved in Win98 and Win/ME).
Step Two: In parallel, and leveraging the OS/2 work done to date, switch the Apps API from SAA (systems Application Architecture) Presentation Manager to Windows (and call it Windows NT for "New Technology"), which requires defining and extending the new Win32 API (from Step One). Mission accomplished with Windows NT (Win 3.1 GUI) and Windows 2000 (Win95 GUI).
Step 3: Merge Steps One and Two into a unified Windows operating system built on the NT kernel. Mission Accomplished in Windows XP.
Step Four: As hardware capabilities permit, abstract the Windows API set, device drive rmodel, and other critical elements, and evolve and optimise (Unified) Windows towards an Entirely New Operating System (Step 5)
Step 5: When technical, hardware and market conditions allow, seamlessly introduce a fully componentised OS with completely managed tools and libraries (this has never been done before, by anyone). Ensure the development tools are fully in place, and that provision is made for legacy compatibility in a manner that doesn't jeopardise system integrity or security. If you're interested in this part, do a search on Singularity and Midori.
I've taken up a lot of your time trying to give you some background on why Windows looks like it does today. I'm not defending mistakes or less-than-optimal code, of which there are many examples, as any Microsoftie will readily admit (everyione ash to work in a time and financial budget). The ignorant will rant on about MS designing a poor OS, and MS developers being a useless lot. These people don't know what they're talking about.
Arguably, you will be hard put to find anywhere on earth a smarter or more knowedgable or more capable group of systems experts and supersmart developers than at Microsoft. MS looks anywhere and everywhere for the smartest systems people - even deep inside Open Source, which it supports more than most people know (every Apache server runs with some code developed and supplied by MS, for example). MS understands exactly what Windows' weakensses are (heck, it knew that back in 1985, as billg said ad nauseam back in those times). But unlike many who shout religious-tech slogans from the sidelines, MS also understands that all the best plans in the world amount to nothing if you don't have the resources to implement, and to obtain and utilise those resources you must build and sustain a viable long-term business. Apart from requiring brains (which MS has in abundance, as proved by the almost-impossible evolution of Windows to where it is today), you need lots of money ... getting to Step Five non-disruptively would require about $10-billion (it was estimated in 1997, when I retired from Microsoft) , mainly to pay hire and retain the smartest people in the industry. That figure has probably doubled. Though I haven't been involved in this for many years, I remain intensely interested and stay in touch with those who are. And despite all sorts of curved balls, like people putting out malware with the aim of destroying PCs and data, and losers getting an ear with governments when (hand-on-heart I can say) Microsoft acts aggressively but always ethically, the strategy is being steadly and inexorably implemented.
Just my $0.03 worth.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
Well written post. Like you, I lived through these times and can concur with most of what you said although I was one of those that called for a clean break with legacy apps and to strike out with a new, pure 32-bit OS. And my money was on Unix.
Problem, of course, is that many people don't bother to understand the dynamics but shoot from the hip with the (unfortunately limited) understanding they have of the space.
We are in such a good position today with a couple of strong players to choose from. I believe the fanaticism we so often see on this forum really is uncalled for. Whatever your OS of choice, be it *nix, Windows, OSX, or whatever, enjoy where we are today.
I've still got my very first computer (6502, 4K of RAM, running at 1MHz) and I'm awed every day with the capabilities we have at our disposal today.
Last edited:
RoosTa
Expert Member
+1
Thanks for the great history of Windows. My dad started a computer company (Spartan Computers) and I was pretty much involved with all the MS-Dos/OS2/Windows milestones. I still remember the OOBE days very well
EDIT: Oh and as proven by this thread, people love jumping on the MS bashing bandwagon.
They would not have been able to force down 64bit .
Reason for this is that not all pc reach the minimum req for vista allready.
64bit being a OS made to run on heavier hardware.Most low end pc's wont be able to keep up as 64bit is even more resource hungry 32bit.
I believe people should not be scared of change eventhough its in our nature as people to fear the unknown. This is the main reason why a lot op people did not switch over to vista. They were used to one thing(Xp)and the new option just isnt the same(Vista).
Hence you get comments like:"Why skip to anything if XP works just fine"
The future is here and with it comes changes, so either we can adapt to these changes or we can become obsolete.
My 2c
SirFooK'nG
Executive Member
XP to Vista to Win7 - My Theory
I think I know why they want you to try Vista first before going to Win7.
Vista got a bad rep from day one, the little annoying thing called "UAC", no decent driver support, and the dropping of DirectX Audio. That made everyone hate it. On top of that, you had to spend a couple of minutes learning the the interface - Slight differences to XP. But once you are running its great. Unfortunately it took a couple of months to see the "silver lining"!
So now MS wants you to try Vista first, (A) because you will have to go through the "learning curve", (B) to make sure everything works!
So now you will be irritated, probably highly frustrated with the changeover (XP to Vista). But Vista to Win7, is going to seem like a breeze in comparrison!!! Trust me, Win7 in beta found and installed every driver I had, aswell as updated nVidia drivers (which forms part of MS update) - nice little association!
The result will be positve for Win7 this way round, thus giving it a nice "feel good" attitude, all the while you will still probably be cursing Vista - But that isn't a problem now, Vista already has a bad name so what, Win7 - the new flagship will not inherit that bad name!
So in all its quite a clever way (in my opinion) to get you to change to Win7 which i think is just a jacked up Vista!
My warning for you all is . . . the 64bit versions suck! It's an elitist peice of irritating garbage. If you hate UAC, you will throw your PC into a brick wall with the forced Driver Signing!!! AAAAhhhhhh - only took me 20 minutes to test and drop both Vista and Win7 64 versions! Stick to 32bit aka X86 for now!!! Save on the headaches!
and thats my 2cents!
I think I know why they want you to try Vista first before going to Win7.
Vista got a bad rep from day one, the little annoying thing called "UAC", no decent driver support, and the dropping of DirectX Audio. That made everyone hate it. On top of that, you had to spend a couple of minutes learning the the interface - Slight differences to XP. But once you are running its great. Unfortunately it took a couple of months to see the "silver lining"!
So now MS wants you to try Vista first, (A) because you will have to go through the "learning curve", (B) to make sure everything works!
So now you will be irritated, probably highly frustrated with the changeover (XP to Vista). But Vista to Win7, is going to seem like a breeze in comparrison!!! Trust me, Win7 in beta found and installed every driver I had, aswell as updated nVidia drivers (which forms part of MS update) - nice little association!
The result will be positve for Win7 this way round, thus giving it a nice "feel good" attitude, all the while you will still probably be cursing Vista - But that isn't a problem now, Vista already has a bad name so what, Win7 - the new flagship will not inherit that bad name!
So in all its quite a clever way (in my opinion) to get you to change to Win7 which i think is just a jacked up Vista!
My warning for you all is . . . the 64bit versions suck! It's an elitist peice of irritating garbage. If you hate UAC, you will throw your PC into a brick wall with the forced Driver Signing!!! AAAAhhhhhh - only took me 20 minutes to test and drop both Vista and Win7 64 versions! Stick to 32bit aka X86 for now!!! Save on the headaches!
and thats my 2cents!