Windows Vista: Yaaaawn

Big B

Big B

HWF Godfather
OSWeekly tells it like it is: there's no good reason to upgrade to Vista over XP.

Folks, the list goes on and on. And considering the only link to the Windows community was coming from Robert Scoble's efforts, I think Microsoft could be headed down a very dangerous path. As things stand now, I am beginning to see indications that they are considering taking Windows Live even further. This would be a huge mistake! First of all, they need to gain a better handling on understanding what people actually want. Then perhaps they can begin to travel down that path...

While I don't hate Microsoft, Vista looks like the NT family version of the horrid WindowsME---which I'm sure many people still have nightmares about.
 
Big B said:
While I don't hate Microsoft, Vista looks like the NT family version of the horrid WindowsME
Click to expand...

Eek! I'll wait for a year and see if it turns out to be before I decide whether it's worth the upgrade (which I doubt). My Dad has a theory that every 3rd version of Windows is the one which is successfull. 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, Vista ...
 
Yeah after all these years of developement we probably won't see any major improvements. But with DX 10 integration I can't really get around buying it or otherwise I'll be taking the next out of next gen.
 
Meh, I'm totally done with superfluous updates which offer no real benefits. Especially since Vista requires so much more hardware to do exactly what XP is already doing. [ot]Nevermind the fact that I don't run Windows at all on my home network.[/ot]
 
lol thomas234 i think yer dads theory is sweet, but i had some actual, sort of, in a way, hope for vista, but oh well what can you expect.
 
thomas234 said:
My Dad has a theory that every 3rd version of Windows is the one which is successfull. 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, Vista ...
Click to expand...

Funny how Windows 95 was more successful then 98. And how Windows 2000 is more successful than XP in the corporate environment.

Sorry to spoil the party :D
 
megamaced said:
Funny how Windows 95 was more successful then 98. And how Windows 2000 is more successful than XP in the corporate environment.
Click to expand...

True, but for the home user, XP seems very popular, and most people I knew got computers when 98SE was out, so it kinda makes sense.
 
It down to what its changing from.
Windows 95 was a huge leap from Windows 3. That was hell, but again a huge leap from previous releases and a big big hit. Windows 98 was a big one but still 9x, I dont remember any troubles with '95 other than we didnt have a colour monitor :(
Windows 2000 was the first nt5 which was a massive leap for the home user. Ive gone back to 2000 because I think its much more stable. Vista is NT6, new version of NT altogether but it will surely be in the news for being a hog just like XP was in the news for not being incompatible with everything.

Windows 1, 3, 95, 98, 2000 were the big leaps for me. 2003 is something you never hear of, must be big somewhere but I dont even read about it. I kinda remember windows 1 but I also remember my dad using DOS which means he must have gone off windows 1, he seems to go from DOS to 95. Vista.... depends on how many people have these super desktops. Unless you play games I dont see the point in upgrading your hardeware if your happy with your PC and use 2000/XP. IMO you need a reason for using some of the stuff you can get now, maybe Vista is that reason. An OS. A microsoft OS!
 
I think if MS new launch Vista dont do well and google comes up with a OS (Probably free like other softwares) then MS will be on number2 in the world market and google will be on 1~!
 
I think google could to great things even if it took them a few trys it would be cool to have an other player, and free doesn't hurt either. I will definately admit that if it weren't for my gaming needs Vista wouldn't really interest me much at all.
 
Do you not think google would just make their own distro of Linux, but maybe make it a bit easier to understand for newbies?
 
I don't see google making their own operating system. Linux is far too developed already & stable not to use it.

It would be interesting to see them make a distro though, they're more than capable of it.
 
Yeah a Google distro would be pretty cool, I know there was talk a while back of Google having an OS and keeping backups of people's data on their servers and giving the users access to all of googles services all built into the OS - I personally can't see it happening with their own OS but with a Linux already out there a Google Distro (with in-built Google features) would be rather cool...

I've been thinkinf of re-partitioning my drive because I may try Vista beta, plus I've got Ubuntu and Kubuntu coming soon so I may try those too, could mean I have like 5 OS's on this heap...
 
I spent more time downloading it than I did using it. Literally two goes and I sacked it off. Well it sacked me off cos it crashed :)
 
thomas234 said:
...My Dad has a theory that every 3rd version of Windows is the one which is successfull. 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, Vista ...
Click to expand...
Hmm, that's an... interesting theory. But all of those versions of Windows were pretty successful, or you wouldn't have heard of them at all. My point here is that you skipped most of the Windows versions released and only listed the ones which were popular with home users in the last decade. There are actually two distinct families of Windows:

Legacy/DOS-based Windows Family

  1. Windows 1.0
  2. Windows 2.0
  3. Windows/286
  4. Windows/386
  5. Windows 3.0
  6. Windows 3.1
  7. Windows for Workgroups 3.11
  8. Windows 95
  9. Windows 95b
  10. Windows 98
  11. Windows 98SE
  12. Windows ME


Windows "Networking Technology" Family

  1. Windows NT 3.1
  2. Windows NT 3.5
  3. Windows NT 3.51
  4. Windows NT 4.0
  5. Windows NT 5.0 (aka "Windows 2000")
  6. Windows NT 5.1 (aka "Windows XP")
  7. Windows NT 5.2 (aka "Vista")

Since "Windows XP" is advertised as a home-class operating system, a first for the NT-family of OSes, most people have no idea that the code base is completely unrelated to Windows 95, 98 or ME. They think that since Windows XP is more stable than those OSes that Windows is getting more stable as time goes by. In fact, earlier versions of NT were far more stable than XP and much faster as well.
 
Microsoft have labelled Windows Vista as NT6.0

We all know of course, that's it's far from a completely new version of Windows. It's just a mere upgrade, like XP was to 2000
 
Anti-Trend said:

Windows "Networking Technology" Family

  1. Windows NT 3.1
  2. Windows NT 3.5
  3. Windows NT 3.51
  4. Windows NT 4.0
  5. Windows NT 5.0 (aka "Windows 2000")
  6. Windows NT 5.1 (aka "Windows XP")
  7. Windows NT 5.2 (aka "Vista")
Click to expand...

Theres Windows NT 5.2 Windows Server 2003
and also Windows NT 5.2 XP64 as well.
Yeah I know, both 5.2 but they are both build 3790 as well so XP64 is a straight repackage of Server2003, it seems.

I also thought Vista was NT 6.
 
zeus said:
I also thought Vista was NT 6.
Click to expand...
In my network labs, it shows up as NT 5.2 in SMB tree. Maybe they'll change the revision numbers for the final release, but I think it's pretty clear that it's a repackage of XP/2003 (which in itself is a repackage of 2000). So ultimately, it's yet another re-release of NT5.
 
Brief outline of my Vista experience: :(

I had WinServer2003 on C:\ and dual boot Vista(Beta) from D:\. Dual boot was fine.

The funny thing (or not very funny) was Vista recognises it's boot partition as C: and put my Server03 as D. The drive letter changed on Vista. I wouldn't dare to change it back coz both are boot partitions. Dual boot was fine for a week.

After a while Server03 refused to boot up, saying hal problem. Vista was fine. I checked & checked, tried to fix the hal file. Replaced the hal with the old one from uninstall folder of sp1. No avail. downloading a primitive hal from the Net. No difference. Google says it mostly occurs on dual boot system.

So, I ended up installing a fresh copy of windows and this lovely ubuntu.

This nasty Vista tried NOT to give up drive C to other OSes, even to it's cousin. Maybe because it's onlly Beta version. I wouldn't try again until end of 2007.

Having said that, Vista is neat. It's just a little slow though. As usual MS trademark, it eats up a lot of cpu cycles and mem (i.e without running any heavy apps). Gadget slidebar is weird and unecessary. GUI: no doubt better than previous windows. (becuase it copied from OS X). IE7 64 bits load quicker than 32.

Tested System: AMD 3200+ Venice, ATI 9550, Gigabyte K8NSC-939, 1GB DDR. 40 GB Maxtor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top