Is Vista for real?

[calstymes]

CW suggested:

Windows ME??? EEEEEWWWHHHHHH gawd, that was crap!!!and to think they called it an "upgrade" from Windows2000!!

It was my understanding that Windws ME was the last M$ O/S in the Windows 9x line. I don't recall it ever having been considered a replacement or upgrade from Windows NT or 2000.

Then Studio1 chimed in:

What I don't understand however is WHY anyone actually needs it?

They don't! But M$ needs for you to purchase it so that they can earn some more profit.

XP has had enough time and resources thrown at it now to be stable, and it is user-friendly (as much as Windows can be).

Agreed! M$ finally got an O/S as close to right as it can possibly be and now it wants to retire it because it cannot continue to earn profits from a product that is "too good" and lasts "forever".

It's fairly easy on system resources and memory requirements and almost everything has had drivers written for it or is already compatible - so what need is there to upgrade to something that doesn't do all of this?

There is none, unless you want to contribute to profits of M$.

 

[RealityCheckr]

In my best Nelson voice: Ha Ha

I just bought a new DeLuxe MS keyboard and MS wireless mouse for an Acer with pre-loaded Vista. The new toys work fine, but the bells and whistles don't...because the MS CD with it commands will NOT work "with this Operating System"! The Updates downloaded from Windows will still not let the company's own CD run! I laughed like hell.

 

[Tom Wells]

My company still specifies laptops with XP for the field service guys, AND we need serial ports, which we pay dearly for.

The one Micro-$ machine actually on the printing presses are still loaded with ms2000 today.

Recently, the cat-5 communication from one such box the the third-party color-bar scanner would be stupid about connecting
the scanner as a fixed IP address on a new installation.
Fiddled and fussed an hour or so....
Found that even though the thing boots up 2 user applications on startup, someone in the past had closed them, pulled up an internet explorer page, put msn.com in AS A HOME PAGE, then just left it there. Returning the home page to "blank" cured it.
The customer's network was firewalled, but that didn't stop ET from trying to phone home, no sirree!
It was so busy trying to contact the mother ship it couldn't get around silly things like tending to the applications, even
though no i.e. page was being opened on start-up. Grrrrrrr.

 

[CW]

CW suggested:

Windows ME??? EEEEEWWWHHHHHH gawd, that was crap!!!and to think they called it an "upgrade" from Windows2000!!

It was my understanding that Windws ME was the last M$ O/S in the Windows 9x line. I don't recall it ever having been considered a replacement or upgrade from Windows NT or 2000.

You never tried to "updated" ME to Win200 did ya??? Sorry but the software considered ME a higher grade of software than Win2000....I know, been there, got the T shirt...To go from ME to Win2K, you have to wipe the drive to load Win2K.....ME does NOT consider Win2K a correct upgrade and will NOT allow you to do so...(same thing as if you tried to load Win98 over Win98SE...it aborts...and in that case rightfully so...but ME over 2000?!? Hey I DIDNT do that....M$ did!) So ME has to go away for Win2K to go on the drive...I know it makes no sense but M$ evidently considered ME higher in the line than W2K....of course one day we may figure out what they were smoking and when they finally came back to reality and decided to give up on ME...

 

[SirRoxalot]

Let's Put ONE Thing to Rest

Windows ME was NEVER considered an upgrade from Windows 2000 by Microsoft. Windows ME was the last product in the Windows 9x line of hybrid 16/32-bit Operating Systems.

Windows 2000 was the successor to Windows NT, the first product in the pure 32-bit Operating Systems.

Windows Me did come out after Windows 2000, but was marketed as "home" Operating System (like Windows 98). Windows 2000 was marketed as a "Windows 2000 Professional", a "business" Operating System.

Windows Me was NEVER marketed as an upgrade for Windows 2000 Professional. That's why a Windows Me Upgrade Edition would NOT upgrade a Windows 2000 machine.

 

[ontheair247]

From an email newsletter I get, and also from speaking with IT guys, MS will let PC makers continue to supply and use XP until the next version Windows 7 comes out in 2010.

"When Windows XP was released, wireless routers were rare, few cell phones supported e-mail, and YouTube was just a gleam in some PayPal employees' eyes.

But like a fabled perpetual motion machine, XP keeps on going and going — and if you follow some simple guidelines, the OS will keep running in top condition until Vista's successor is ready in 2010.

XP is an operating system with serious legs

Microsoft may not have planned it this way, but XP could end up rivaling NT and 2000 as the version of Windows with the longest lifespan. According to recent news reports, Dell, Lenovo, and other computer manufacturers will continue to sell new PCs running Windows XP well past Microsoft's June 30 cutoff date.

PC vendors will do so by invoking a downgrade plan that lets them ship a system with Windows XP installed as long as the customer is also paying for an upgrade to Vista Business or Ultimate editions, either of which is included in each box."

 

[nmoore6676]

CW suggested:

Windows ME??? EEEEEWWWHHHHHH gawd, that was crap!!!and to think they called it an "upgrade" from Windows2000!!

It was my understanding that Windws ME was the last M$ O/S in the Windows 9x line. I don't recall it ever having been considered a replacement or upgrade from Windows NT or 2000.

You never tried to "updated" ME to Win200 did ya??? Sorry but the software considered ME a higher grade of software than Win2000....I know, been there, got the T shirt...To go from ME to Win2K, you have to wipe the drive to load Win2K.....ME does NOT consider Win2K a correct upgrade and will NOT allow you to do so...(same thing as if you tried to load Win98 over Win98SE...it aborts...and in that case rightfully so...but ME over 2000?!? Hey I DIDNT do that....M$ did!) So ME has to go away for Win2K to go on the drive...I know it makes no sense but M$ evidently considered ME higher in the line than W2K....of course one day we may figure out what they were smoking and when they finally came back to reality and decided to give up on ME...

Sorry CW, you had that experience. I inherited the care of the computers for a small organization wherein the previous person charged with the care and feeding of their desktops and laptops went out an bought Millenium Edition "upgrade" CDs from M$. Most of the computers had insufficient memory and processor speed to handle the burden and ran slower than the proverbial sweet syrup in January. You could not go back without wiping the disk and starting over. With Windows 2K you could set up a dual boot to run either 98 or 2k but I never heard of Me in that kind of setup. By the way 2K will run on any machine that can handle 98 but it is best to put in more RAM for better speed (256K is good, any higher is superb). I've never done it but I think XP will dual boot as well.

ME was something of a stopgap because Microsoft didn't have XP ready to ship in time for "The Millennium". Me was built on the line of software that began with Windows 3.x and included Windows 95 and 98. There was a separate line, Windows NT, designed for professional use and servers. Windows 2000 was the upgrade for NT, but could be also considered an upgrade for 98 as to better security. Windows Me was the end of the line for the 3.-95-98 series and it was called an upgrade in that it tried to appear like the NT series and 2000 as far as the desktop and user functionality. It failed because it was too clumsy and crashed constantly.

Windows XP and Vista are the descendants of Windows 2000 (and NT). The reason that Microsoft went that route was because they wanted to incorporate and enhance the security feature built into NT. Windows 98 and earlier editions as well as are a playground for hackers and miscreants. Vista was a misguided attempt to attract MAC users with glitz and glitter but not much meat and potatoes. Lord knows what the next version to come out will be.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

XP sure makes me wonder where Bill and his pals stole it from. I don't think his cast of clows could have come up with something so good actually. They'll have to pry XP from my hands to get it away from me. It's the only thing MS has ever put out worth buying IMHO. Long live XP.

 

[Studio1]

They'll have to pry XP from my hands to get it away from me. It's the only thing MS has ever put out worth buying IMHO. Long live XP.

I'll second that. I've installed it on hundreds of computers and not one negative feedback from any customer. No midnight phone calls to say it's blue-screened, no tales of woe about incompatibilities or lack of drivers.
It just cruises along and does everything that *most* people want or need.

For some reason, companies seem hell bent on serving up poisson au gratin avec pommes de terre lightly sautéed with a hollandaise sauce - when all the customer really wants is steak, eggs and fries.

 

[RadioMan203]

XP sure makes me wonder where Bill and his pals stole it from. I don't think his cast of clowns could have come up with something so good actually. They'll have to pry XP from my hands to get it away from me. It's the only thing MS has ever put out worth buying IMHO. Long live XP.

I remember installing XP and having BSODs (blue screens of death) but it got better and much more stable as time went on. I remember there were systems running 2000 I refused to move to XP because of the instability, but it's pretty much gone now. XP is rock solid compared to the Kenner's Close 'n' Play operating system they call Vista.

My only question is when are they gonna jettison all the buried legacy code and make a slimmer, leaner, meaner OS?

 

[w00t]

Windows ME??? EEEEEWWWHHHHHH gawd, that was crap!!!and to think they called it an "upgrade" from Windows2000!!

ME came out before Windows 2000 and ran on the same code base that 95/98/98SE was on. 2000 was built on the NT4 kernel and was a separate OS line completely.

 

[nmoore6676]

XP sure makes me wonder where Bill and his pals stole it from. I don't think his cast of clowns could have come up with something so good actually. They'll have to pry XP from my hands to get it away from me. It's the only thing MS has ever put out worth buying IMHO. Long live XP.

I remember installing XP and having BSODs (blue screens of death) but it got better and much more stable as time went on. I remember there were systems running 2000 I refused to move to XP because of the instability, but it's pretty much gone now. XP is rock solid compared to the Kenner's Close 'n' Play operating system they call Vista.

My only question is when are they gonna jettison all the buried legacy code and make a slimmer, leaner, meaner OS?

You are never going to get a perfect OS when you are designing it to run on many different makes of computers and so many different brands and types of processors. MAC has had the advantage always because they control the hardware and the software. I've used MACs and PCs but I don't get all warm and fuzzy over the MAC OS, though I must admit it runs better. The legacy code is an attempt to not "break" applications that people already are using and want to put on their new computers. A computer is a complicated environment and your application programs need standard routines that are coded in the operating system, take them out and "CRASH". Vista tried to eliminate some "legacy code" and that is what is causing most of the grief people are experiencing.

Vista had some of the same issues at first, it was built on the NT kernel and there were always some Win-98 apps that wouldn't run on NT. Over time Microsoft corrected the issues and pretty much licked them with SP2.
That is why I think it is stupid to jettison XP. The people who want the latest and greatest can buy the newest OS and let me putter along on XP. I'm an old man and I deserve to be left alone in the slow lane now.

 

[CW]

Windows ME??? EEEEEWWWHHHHHH gawd, that was crap!!!and to think they called it an "upgrade" from Windows2000!!

ME came out before Windows 2000 and ran on the same code base that 95/98/98SE was on. 2000 was built on the NT4 kernel and was a separate OS line completely.

I KNOW all that...geesh read my posts again...again I ask; ever try to load Win2000 on a ME machine?? WONT LET YOU DO IT! It says you already are running a later version of Windows (hey thats MS's thinking not mine!).....
Try it (and prove me wrong; I'll hand ya a crisp $1.00...thats about what ME is worth ....otherwise, BEEN there, done that....and if you have ever attempted loading Win2000k on a ME machine, you would KNOW what I am talking about and understand....again, thats M$....

and ditto on the XP pro thread....I still have Win2000 on my server at home but all my other PCs (desktops/laptops) run XP and I just upgraded all the desktops at work to SP3......went ok......NOW if they will just shoot Vista and kill it before it grows..("I shot the sheriff but I didnt kill no deputy"

 

[nmoore6676]

Hey CW, I still have that pile of Me install disks, a buck each and I pay the postage, deal? ;D

They will be great for target practice. Everyone save those Vista disks, they'll be worth the same and I'll make the same offer. I think the guys in Redmond have discovered the nirvana of marketing strategy, planned obsolescence.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Evolutionary vs. Revolutionary

My take on Vista is that it's evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's an expansion of the multimedia and graphical interface capabilities of the NT-2000-XP line of OSs from Microsoft. It's increased processor, graphics, and hard drive requirements are in line with current hardware capabilities. It's graphical enhancements are an attempt to keep up with the look and feel of Mac OSX.

There are some obvious breaks with the past. Enhancement of multi-media capabilities meant significant changes in the underlying programming, which caused incompatibilites with applications that made calls to programs and .dlls that no longer exist. These are problems that software manufacturers will have to work out.

The next MS OS, Windows 7, is likely to be revolutionary instead of evolutionary. Word is that Microsoft is working on a complete revamp of the kernel, which is the part of the OS that controls and interfaces with hardware. There's also a reworking of the networking core. The user interface is also being reworked to include touch-screen features as demonstrated by Microsoft Surface, which is seen on the CSI shows from this past season. It's reportedly more modular, and users will be able to pick and choose features depending on their needs. If I know Microsoft, this could lead to an almost incomprehensible pricing structure that's likely to leave everyone confused and frustrated.

XP will be around for a long time, and hardware manufacturers will be producing software and drivers for it just as they still support Windows 98. There are plenty of XP licenses already out there, and Microsoft has not said that they would stop activating XP installations. They save activation information for 180 days, so anybody with a copy of XP that's more than 6 months old can install it on a completely different system without a problem.

Windows is also allowing OEMs to sell XP "downgrades" along with Vista for those who have older applications that don't have an upgraded Vista version.

I've heard all of these complaints about almost every version of Windows that's been released so far. The only real dog so far was Me. Vista is still in the "undetermined" category in my opinion. The determining factor will likely be how well software manufacturers support the OS.

I'm still partial to Windows 2000, which wasn't besieged by "wizards" like XP, but I realize that I'll be upgraded my beloved 2000 box sometime this summer because I'm running into software that won't run. I'm also running systems with XP and Vista. The Vista box is running Office 2007 (speaking of annoying), and a variety of odd applications that include several old DOS programs. All the audio applications are running on XP, and that's likely to continue.

 

[nmoore6676]

SirRoxalot has eloquently illustrated the points i was alluding to. However Microsoft does not take into consideration the commercial users of Windows. Like it or not we are now trapped in a Windows world. I have drifted away from the broadcast world but the problems I now see have to exist there too. If you have a CNC punch press or Laser Cutting machine which has been working fine with a Windows-98 box talking to it and the software runs fine in 98 but you upgrade to Vista and everything breaks because of missing DLL's then there is a quarter or half million dollar machine not working. My point is that Microsoft owes those users the right to stay put with what works and to support it just like the latest snazzy version of Windows.

I have turned off all of the visual enhancements on my Vista Laptop to improve the performance of the processor/memory thirsty apps I run on it. I would have preferred an XP machine but the price and features I got made me go with this one.

On a personal note to you I would go out and get an XP computer now while you can and not upgrade your 2000 Machine, unless it ha at least 500MB RAM and a gig or faster processor. Anything less and you'll not be happy. I have kept My 2000 box and got an XP to do my newer applications. Take it from one who has walked that path for a while now. You would even be safe getting a Vista computer for new programs, but there may be some peripherals that may have issues. There is nothing major wrong with Vista (that can't be fixed anyway) but it looks like the boys in Redmond are preparing to jettison it rather than fix it.

 

[gtomas]

My favourite M$ OS is by far Win2k Pro... It was(is) rock-solid stable, fast and just works. I have Win2k computers running for years, with no or very rare reboots (only because of power failures, not because system needs it). Unfortunately more and more software simply refused to even install on Win2k and so I was forced to XP, which I use predominately today. It's not bad and is fairly stable, but it's not as fast and as problem-free as Win2k.

A few months ago I gave both Vista 32-bit and 64-bit a go on my new PC. The first day I disabled UAC and other annoyances and after a few days of optimizing it was fairly useable, which it wasn't out-of-the-box. I feel sorry for the average user who has to combat with stupid questions from UAC. I worked with it for two months and then I switched back to XP. There were hardware incompatibility issues and hardware requirements are significantly more than for XP, making a fairly expensive hardware feel slugish, instead of fast and snappy. The user interface is fairly significantly changed - from Windows Explorer which I hated and feel as a step back in terms of usability (M$ obviously believes it needs to remove the user as far from the actual hard disk drive and the directory structure and make it all "floating", as you-don't-need-to-know-where-your-files-actually-are) to control panel which has stuff hidden in various menus, requiring too many clicks to change something as simple as background window colour or get access to network connections. And, again, despite all the fetching, readyboost, etc the system is much slower than XP on the same hardware. The problem was a lot of software didn't work well, from most of Adobe stuff to audio applications (at that time, they might got Vista compatible upgrades by now).

The steep learning curve of Vista UI (vs XP, Win2003 and Win2k) made me for the first time consider switching to Linux - if for Vista I need to learn how to connect PC to wireless network and how to get to the actual folders, why shouldn't I instead learn these things but for a free and reliable OS such as Linux? In fact, I have several Linux Live CDs burned that I intend to give a go. For an office machine, surfing and e-mail, all the Linux distros seem fully equipped, functional and a very reasonable alternative to Vista...


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[speakerman]

Re: Evolutionary vs. Revolutionary

The next MS OS, Windows 7, is likely to be revolutionary instead of evolutionary. Word is that Microsoft is working on a complete revamp of the kernel, which is the part of the OS that controls and interfaces with hardware. There's also a reworking of the networking core. The user interface is also being reworked to include touch-screen features as demonstrated by Microsoft Surface, which is seen on the CSI shows from this past season. It's reportedly more modular, and users will be able to pick and choose features depending on their needs. If I know Microsoft, this could lead to an almost incomprehensible pricing structure that's likely to leave everyone confused and frustrated.

Why wait? You can have it now on the Apple iPhone in portable form. The iPhone runs OSX. They have filed many patents and have plenty of booty to defend them. You will likely see it first in large form from Apple (as usual) if Steve deems it to be worthy of marketing to the masses at a premium markup. GO AAPL.

 

[SirRoxalot]

iNotinterested

Why wait? You can have it now on the Apple iPhone in portable form. The iPhone runs OSX. They have filed many patents and have plenty of booty to defend them. You will likely see it first in large form from Apple (as usual) if Steve deems it to be worthy of marketing to the masses at a premium markup. GO AAPL.

I personally find the overpriced, restrictive hardware from Apple and lack of business software for the Mac platform unpalatable. If all I had to run was Office, it might be OK. I need to run some old DOS software, as well as a REAL accounting application. Mac can't support that.

Microsoft Surface already takes the iPhone touch-screen interface to an entirely new level. I'm not the least bit worried about Apple's "many patents".

 

[RadioMan203]

While you do pay a premium for Apple hardware you do get something in return - outstanding stability! I've installed almost 100 this year in a multi-building environment and the machines are rock steady (not to mention I only had to make one software image and only worry about one set of device drivers). You're also basically getting TWO machines in one these days, as the Intel-based Macs will run Windows as well as the MacOS - either by booting directly into the desired OS or via virtualzation.

I've been running apps like automation, etc on a Mac without problems. I've also ran Windows XP and Vista without incident. I love it when people come into the office and see me in MacOS working on something and they see me pop open a window to adjust some audio processing and they see the XP screen saver bouncing around - they're even more shocked when they see XP running in a separate window on the Mac box.

I will also conceed, while there may be limited apps for the Mac in a few areas there's also something else out there that's limited on the Mac - just compare the virus count between the two platforms.