- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
I'm not really trying to start a Vista bash, but in my IT experience, I cannot foresee Microsoft bringing another version of Windows to the table that will be as widely adopted as XP, or any previous version for that matter.
Speaking strictly for my company, every aspect of sales, production, and QC revolve around our main server and about 30 computers around our facility, even our punch clock reports back to the main server. We're running a mix of Server2003, Ubuntu, Win2k, WinNT, and WinXP around the building, every piece of hardware communicates flawlessly with its counterpart and with each other.
Speaking for personal use (myself, my friends, family, coworkers), I only know 2 people running Vista, in which they bought the computer with it, one has asked me to downgrade them, but they have yet to bring the machine to me, everyone else runs XP.
I've downgraded about 7 machines so far (personal and business), any Vista machine brought to our company fails to communicate with any printers, let alone proprietary drivers required for many of our machines.
What gets me is how well in tune Win2k and WinXP are while WinXP and Vista are as different as Mac and IBM. For that matter, XP gives me no problem when I dig out 12-year old drivers from the Win95 era. I'm running proprietary software on my XP machine that was 'recommended for Windows 3.1" Try shoving that floppy into your Vista machine.
My family members are all running well maintained XP computers that are 5,6,7,8 years old with no issues, not even speed issues. My main rig is approaching 5 years old and 3 of those years are overclocked. It's a fuggin power house. Why would I go out and buy an operating system that will render all my machines virtually useless?
And let's look at Windows 7. Didn't they promise that 7 was going to be a 'from-scratch' Kernal designed to lighten the load carried by 6 previous versions of Windows? Wasn't this supposed to be their first attempt at a fully functional Micro-OS that utilizes the advances in modern hardware and promises better compatibility and easier-to-write software/drivers? When was that thrown out the window in place of a Warmed-over version of their worst software to date?
I guess Vista really did do THAT bad when Microsoft cannot afford to change paths. Does anybody think we'll see a Windows successor to XP within the next 5-10 years? How long until XP begins to lose its popularity, or better yet, when will it stop GAINING popularity?
Speaking strictly for my company, every aspect of sales, production, and QC revolve around our main server and about 30 computers around our facility, even our punch clock reports back to the main server. We're running a mix of Server2003, Ubuntu, Win2k, WinNT, and WinXP around the building, every piece of hardware communicates flawlessly with its counterpart and with each other.
Speaking for personal use (myself, my friends, family, coworkers), I only know 2 people running Vista, in which they bought the computer with it, one has asked me to downgrade them, but they have yet to bring the machine to me, everyone else runs XP.
I've downgraded about 7 machines so far (personal and business), any Vista machine brought to our company fails to communicate with any printers, let alone proprietary drivers required for many of our machines.
What gets me is how well in tune Win2k and WinXP are while WinXP and Vista are as different as Mac and IBM. For that matter, XP gives me no problem when I dig out 12-year old drivers from the Win95 era. I'm running proprietary software on my XP machine that was 'recommended for Windows 3.1" Try shoving that floppy into your Vista machine.
My family members are all running well maintained XP computers that are 5,6,7,8 years old with no issues, not even speed issues. My main rig is approaching 5 years old and 3 of those years are overclocked. It's a fuggin power house. Why would I go out and buy an operating system that will render all my machines virtually useless?
And let's look at Windows 7. Didn't they promise that 7 was going to be a 'from-scratch' Kernal designed to lighten the load carried by 6 previous versions of Windows? Wasn't this supposed to be their first attempt at a fully functional Micro-OS that utilizes the advances in modern hardware and promises better compatibility and easier-to-write software/drivers? When was that thrown out the window in place of a Warmed-over version of their worst software to date?
I guess Vista really did do THAT bad when Microsoft cannot afford to change paths. Does anybody think we'll see a Windows successor to XP within the next 5-10 years? How long until XP begins to lose its popularity, or better yet, when will it stop GAINING popularity?