Getting tired of Anti Vista articles

[Impar]

Greetings!

So why isn it called 5.2? Or 5.5?

Anyway, we are getting off-topic.

 

[BigDan3131]

I really doubt that anything we say about Vista will ever really matter to MS. They live in their vacuum sealed world and could care less about what the individual thinks about it or the new OS. They "might" care if one of the major players finds fault but thats someone who buys in large quantities and might hurt MS if they decide to go elsewhere.
What I find funny is MS spending 18 months alone on just creating the opening theme music. That alone gives clues about over bloating this OS. What happened to the claim that the next Halo was going to be released when Vista was put out? I think its still in its testing stages.

My feeling is this, Vista is fine for the average user who wont be using it in any specialized way like the majority of OCF users do. The average user is whom MS targets anyway for the most sales retail.

Its about the $$$ not about our likes/dislikes.

 

[mbigna]

So why isn it called 5.2? Or 5.5?

Because M$ wouldn't make as much money.

 

[Enablingwolf]

A different version of the same kernel, just like 5.0 -> 5.1. Do some more research, friend, Vista is another progression of the NT kernel and the actual changes are more or less just what is allowed to run in kernel-mode vs user-mode.

It would of actually used WINFS. It would be on my machine right now.Even would of did the midnight rush for it. I am waiting it out now. So XP it is, for a time for my machine. It would of been a whole new OS.

I honestly believe that will happen later on at some point. For now, Vista is a juiced up Server 2003. With a little pizzaz added. Which Server 2003 is a juiced up eXPerience. Which is a juiced up Win2000. it goes on for the recycle. Honestly for most end users this is a great thing. You can use legacy applications.

Got to admit, the NT kernel scheme is realy robust. It has lasted how long now? In terms of computer I would say oh... Windows 95 era.

(sort of out of contect)Linux is a hobby, not really a serious OS.(/sort of out of contect)

Now you know you didn't mean this.. Linux is not a serious OS? How many high end servers run Linux? I know I would not to use a web host who did not offer it. AFAIK this site on RACKSPACE is a linux host. Windows servers are pretty good, but find something that is as good as a trusty well developed Linux server running Apache.

Unix rocks and powers much of the internet. It is very serious and happens to have some varients on desktop machines and other devices.

 

[-_{MoW}_-Assasi]

I used the BETA 2

Ditched it pretty fast
I hate the nag nag nag nag nag

 

[David]

This same discussion happened in the early days of XP. The only difference being that Vista is having more numerous problems before reaching maturity and the hype surrounding it is more extreme.
There's too much glitter and not enough substance in the new version to warrant a wider adoption. And it won't be adopted for quite some time until after Microsoft and all of the companies that have taken too long to make new drivers for Vista can fix all that is "wrong" with it.
Windows XP wasn't installed most places until after SP2 rolled around.

Don't forget that
1. Down-time is expensive.
2. Older task-specific software often times will not work in newer operating systems so upgrading is impossible.
3. For generic tasks what operating system is used is not all that important and is determined by cost and ease of operation
4. Any given operating system is only as good as the community and companies that support it with drivers, firmware, and software.

Windows 98SE, Windows 2000, and even Windows XP (with all of the eye candy and unwanted services disabled) all can run just fine with as little as 256mb of RAM.

My workstation at work is a Win2k system with a 2.8G P4 and 512MB RAM. It works quite nicely. Office 2000 isn't bad and the electronic library and chromatography suite etc are all run off an application server anyway....

For someone like my employer there is no reason to upgrade, although some newer equipment (e.g. our labs LC-MS) needs XP for the software.

I don't see us moving to XP before SP3 appears...

 

[Oroka Sempai]

Now you know you didn't mean this.. Linux is not a serious OS? How many high end servers run Linux? I know I would not to use a web host who did not offer it. AFAIK this site on RACKSPACE is a linux host. Windows servers are pretty good, but find something that is as good as a trusty well developed Linux server running Apache.

Unix rocks and powers much of the internet. It is very serious and happens to have some varients on desktop machines and other devices.

Well... I was thinking more about the common user flavours (Ubuntu, Mandriva... etc). Ubuntu is a charity, and Mandriva is... hired help (ie free software, but you gotta poney up some cash if you want the extras or help).

I used the BETA 2

Ditched it pretty fast
I hate the nag nag nag nag nag

Beta 2 sucked. Badly. They toned the security warnings down a good bit after Beta 2. They are still there, but not as in your face/look at me RIGHT NOW.

That is the problem I think, alot of people are baseing thier opinions on the Betas and Release candidates.

 

[shadin]

Greetings!

So why isn it called 5.2? Or 5.5?

Anyway, we are getting off-topic.

Because they jacked it to NT 6.0 due to the change in the kernel of which apps are allowed to run in kernel mode versus user mode.

Just because they chose 6.0 over 5.2 doesn't mean it's a completely new kernel. If you can give specific details of how this isn't a slightly modified 2000/XP kernel, I'd love to hear it. Everything from every tech spec and Microsoft document so far identifies it as more of the same.

 

[Impar]

Greetings!

After some browsing, I agree to be wrong regarding the kernel.

 

[Enablingwolf]

Because they jacked it to NT 6.0 due to the change in the kernel of which apps are allowed to run in kernel mode versus user mode.

Just because they chose 6.0 over 5.2 doesn't mean it's a completely new kernel. If you can give specific details of how this isn't a slightly modified 2000/XP kernel, I'd love to hear it. Everything from every tech spec and Microsoft document so far identifies it as more of the same.

The version 5.2 is bieng used already. I think that is Server 2003.

Just like when they revamp the original NT kernel to Win2000. That started on the 5.x kernel. Vista is now the 6.x kernel.

The NT kernel has been around a long time now. Windows NT is an older OS that came out about the same time as Win95 IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

Windwos NT came out in 1993.

If they would of went with WINFS. Then we would of had a new kernel. If it uses the NT based kernel. Then it is based on the NT 1.0. Just evolved and made to meet current demands. The only way we get a new kernel is if they go with WINFS.

 

[brakezone]

Things don't always go in such a linear fashion as well. For example, MS probably had some programmers working on server 2003's kernel and another team working on vista's kernel concurrently. They didn't just take server 2003's kernel at the end of its development and add things to it to make vista, but both kernels have a common origin, and some communication and coordination takes place between the concurrent projects, is more than likely.

 

[Pyrotechnic]

These articles seem very "kill microsoft, buy a mac or download linux !!!"

I think theres 2 sides to every coin though. Even though theres some less than desireable things about vista, i'm sure it's not at all an entirely bad OS. I wont be one of the first to jump on the vista wagon, infact I will probably run XP for another year or 2, but I will upgrade to vista eventually.

 

[brakezone]

I definitely don't think that its a bad OS as far as the added features.

As far as security, stability, and performance, this is something that will take the test of time. I definitely don't doubt that in 2 years it will be just fine; however, I still think that the consumer would be better off with a competitive software market than a monopoly.

 

[hUMANbEATbOX]

my mothers office (she works for the canadian federal government, telecommunications) is just now adopting XP, and that is only because they had to get some new laptops, and they couldn't get anything they needed that would run windows 2000. they have a testing phase that any major piece of software has to go through, and it is usually about 5 years.

 

[Max0r]

My friend put Vista on his laptop. Seems pretty nice, doesn't use as much RAM as I heard. Very nice system resource monitor.

I share the sentiments of many the hardcore: Wait for Service Pack 1 + unauthorized "packages"

 

[X0d1@k]

Hmm good articles about Vista? Ok, anyone can post them here, knowing that it has some highly anti-Vista forum members here. Its your right to do it though. Not expercising that right in this community is foolish. I am glad you did it.

Now, that you disagree with many of the articles, post some of your findings. Just a Nope this and Nope that, doesnt really do it for me. Facts, facts and benchmarks are where we can all make our choices. True, not all benchmarks are perfect, but we do enough of them, and filter them all, and make our choices. Kind of like watching the news, you watch and read and surf enough of the articles of the day, and then you make your choices. Thats how this community works.

The OS is new, and its liable to fall on its face in many areas (like all M$ products do.) Will it always remain that way? Probably not. Will people completely refuse to buy Vista? Probably not ,again. People have always felt the pains of a New OS and that is understandable. Serve the devil you know.

I think what angers most though, is that M$ can continually bully the market and force people to get their OS or they do NOT get to frag with the newest games. Thats the part that bothers me most. I dont care one flipping hell about DX10, or the new features it offers, not TODAY anyway. A year from now, 2 years from now, i will be buying VIsta.

And unfortunately, most forum members will be forced to as well. Thats the negative part, that no one can explain to me tastes like ice cream.

 

[CryptokiD]

another anti -vista article.

i should write a pro vista article and submit it, though i doubt they would ever show it on the front page. say somthing positive about microsoft? i have to be dreaming.

 

[hafa]

Aside from Barmy Ballmer, there are a few things to like about Vista. What may be more productive would be to list "what's to like about Vista:"

1. No more "my" anything; just computer, network, etc...
2. Shut down does not ask "are you sure?", it just shuts down
3. The "rolodex" Windows scrolling
4. Previews of open windows while mousing over taskbar icons
5. Installs without answering so many questions
6. Not needing to install drivers in many instances

 

[DerekT]

Vista FEELS faster. Yet, it IS slower.

Have another

 

[Impar]

Greetings!

Have another...

... driver to speed up the performance? Nah!
When a DX10 game gets released I might switch to Vista, meanwhile I stay with XP. Hopefully by that time Vista will be worthwhile.