Comments on: Windows XP may get another reprieve
Deadline looms for large computer makers to stop including the older operating system on new PCs, but a number of signs suggest Microsoft will have to extend that deadline again.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Beyond Binary
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
People are against change by nature. They would much rather stick with something they are familiar with than try something new.
I like Vista. Have it on 2 computers (clone & Dell laptop) and have ZERO problems.
If you don't like Vista, DON'T INSTALL IT. Stick XP. It's not like it's going away even if MS stops offering it to OEM's for the computers. They will still support it for another year or two .
Work had two Vista computers with many problems. Everyone tried everything they could. Clean install, BIOS update, drivers, and even new ram. My home computers run Vista great. However, no matter how well I ran Vista the work computers still ran dead slow. That's because it doesn't matter how well it runs on your computer. What matters is how it runs on average.
Anyway, I loved XP and was totally excited when it was released. My comp was compatible. I went out and bought a full version of Pro to replace 98.
The UI was better organized. It was easier to read and more productive. Easier CD burning and zip file support. I could set up somewhat secure user accounts. Encrypted file systems. Goodbye DOS. Goodbye FAT. NTFS provided better performance for folders crammed to gills. Command line improvements that most people didn't even notice. It is a stable OS that rarely crashes when setup right. Built in firewall. The improved gaming ability. The improvements went on and on.
There really were good reasons to go from 98 to XP. Since then XP will have three services packs. XP just keeps getting better.
Vista doesn't add as much. All the new features never made it, got back ported to XP, aren't understood by the average home user, or Google has page after page about how to shut them off. UAC, Aero, Indexing, and Superfetch are the most common. Hmmm.
If it wants to use 2 to 4 gig of ram that's fine, but Microsoft better convince me that I am getting something out of that. Aero and Superfetch don't cut it.
One time a friends ram went bad, XP booted up and tried it's little heart out with only 32 megs left after pulling the rest. It ran horribly, but it ran until he could get new systems.
That sort of flexibility isn't offered by 98 or Vista. I can be productive with XP on almost any system. 98 doesn't have the needed drivers, and Vista might not run on it at all. That leaves XP as the winner again.
So no. Some of the people that don't like Vista actually liked XP very much when it first came out, and with all things considered still think it is better for the time being. Hopefully Windows 7 will be better, but I've already switched to Linux anyway so I don't know if it even matters now.
I have no idea why you would try to defend Vista unless you work for MS, or are trying to justify in your mind the money you spent on an OS and a new computer so that it can run games and office at the same speed as your old computer with XP.
Buying a really nice fast new computer and putting Vista on it is like driving a sports car with the emergency brake engaged. Fortunately you can run XP on new computers and it runs very fast or you can always try other OSs.
I'm not anti MS - just anti Vista. I really enjoy moving forward with technology - unfortunately Vista was a major setback. I'd suggest people who want the truth just google for reviews from technical journalists who don't work for MS.
Not everything about Vista is bad - but it would be a shame to ruin a new PC by putting Vista on it. Maybe SP2 in a year or so will help but SP1 didn't do enough to make it even close to the OS XP is.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
The conclusion - apps not optimized to run on Vista run slower, but not that much slower. Quote from the conclusion page:
Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed SLIGHTLY slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that DIFFERENCES ARE NON-EXISTENT on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors.
Pretty hilarious for you, no? I can't say how anyone could not see this coming - new OS=new features=slower performance. How much slower? as Tom's hardware put it - slightly slower.
From the date of the review (Jan 2007) you know Tom's Hardware was using not the best drivers too, so now performance has only improved.
I have a Vista Business desktop at home that I built for around $600 in March of 2007 just to run Vista. 2GB of ram, Athlon 64 X2 5200+, Radeon X1650 (used old hard drive and DVD burner). As we speak I've filled my hard drive to 95% and it works as well as before, which for me is pretty perfect. It's slightly slower than a comparable PC at work, but even the one at work has 3GB of Ram.
Nobody's forcing you to use Vista or even any kind of Windows. If your system is so unbelievably slow then something may be wrong with it!
XP still has a larger driver base.
XP ran fine on the existing systems. Vista was blatantly forcing hardware upgrades down people's throats; and IMHO MS was outright lying to users about what system requirements were needed to run it effectively.
Excluding the die-hard gamer crowd, computers in homes have a life expectancy of double that in the workplace. So OS turnover is also going to be twice as long as business turnover. And home users use computers to run their games, do their taxes, surf the web, send e-mail and IMs, write letters, and possibly pay bills; all of which they could do on W98, W2K, and WinXP just fine. Those who watch movies on their computers can do so well with W2K and WinXP.
The biggest factor is Vista doesn't bring 95% of the user base anything they need or want that isn't already provided by XP.
These self proclaimed experts are really annoting.
Vista has MANY MANY new and updated features that XP does not offer and just like when XP took over the scene over 98/ME, Vista will take over the scene eventually too, and then everyone will love Vista and then when the next OS comes around people will cry about that too. Just shut the hell up. If you do not like it, do not buy it.
I've used Vista on client's PCs and really don't like it. Who cares about skins and screens? I'm all about functionality over form. also not thrilled with Office 2007 by the way. Same issue.
I've used (and still have) Windows 2000. Quite stable and usable, but limited in functionality.
I've used (and still have) Windows XP Home. Its major flaw was the fact that after a finite period, it required reinstall due to the registry. Other than that, it offered a lot that Windows 2000 didn't, which made it quite usable, just not very stable.
I've used (and still use) Windows XP Pro. I don't know what the logic here was, but it feels way more stable and usable than XP Home. The only problem with XP Pro that I've encountered is the price, considering it's really little different from Home.
I've used (and am using) Windows Vista Home Premium. It runs on both my media server and personal laptop. What I've found out in the months I've been using it, is interesting.
It's always unstable when pre-installed on a computer. I have an HP Verve laptop and a Dell Inspiron tower, and both crapped out after some time and forced me to reinstall from scratch and delete the "Recovery" partition. They've been stable since. Strange, since the Dell didn't include very much preinstalled software, so it may have something to do with the way they install it at the factory for first run. A fresh install on each and I've never had a problem.
Speed: Boot speed is fast, but time-to-desktop is slow. Shutdown speed is lightning fast. User interface speed is fast except for the whole copying files across a network deal - which was NOT resolved in SP1, by the way. It's still 4 times slower than XP copying the same file.
Functionality: This is where Vista both shines and flops. Some features are absolutely fantastic, like the live search folder and in-folder filtering options which I use regularly, as well as the network mapping and easier file sharing. Others are not so great, like the forced Windows Defender being embedded in the OS, assumption that you use a wireless connection by default, buried "Run" command, and driver quirks (Vista will not acknowledge my digital camera right away, even though the driver is installed properly. It takes roughly 15 minutes to kick in and let me view files on it. If I unplug the camera, it flashes with the Removable Disk for a split second, but I can't access it). I also don't like Vista's nag option for User Account Control. Sometimes it just needs to assume you're cool with it (like when I'm installing something downloaded from microsoft.com, maybe??) rather than questioning you every single time.
In short, I like XP for the stability and speed of the interaction, but I prefer some of the newer features that Vista provides that I now just can't do without. What I'd like to see them do is improve the backend speed and efficiency of Vista, even with the Aero enabled, provided you're using a Core Duo or greater processor and at least 1GB of RAM.
XP home and XP pro are VERY different.
Also you do not have to reinstall windows just because of the registry. Try cleaning your registry and making sure that you uninstall things properly and you will not have that problem.
One of my computers has been powered on and running for about 2.5 years straight and I use it to download, install, serv, show video, play games and I have never had to reload it.
It is called maintenance.
In the end "Easy" will win, not Linux.
So no, free will never "win" in the end, unles people never use their computer for ANYTHING but surfing the web and typing.
Yes, I have heard how people buying brand new machines that were built specifically for VISTA running nicely, but I have also seen the results of new machine with Vista running poorly or not running at all. I have seen older (6 month old) machines totally trashed because of VISTA upgrade.
Sorry, that is too much of a risk for me. Yes, I have a full HD back up of this computer, but that doesn't mean I want to spend hours fixing up a VISTA trashed system.
Vista is a nasty ugly hairy pig of an OS.
People who want vista are stupid? It sounds to me like the poeple who are not willing to accept change are stupid. It is the same stupidity on a different scale that leads to prejudice and racism.
Most of the people ******** about Vista are just bandwagon hoppers that have never even tried it. They just want to complain because it makes them feel like part of the group.
Usually only idiots participate in media polls which is why when all is said and done, polls are not accurate.
You are also stupid if you do not understand this process that has been going on for many many years. Something new will be released, over time after bugs and kinks are ironed out that new technology will become standard. Then when something new comes out everyone will be saying how great (Vista) is and how dumb the next OS release is. It is a stupid cycle yet you stupid hairless monkeys never seem to learn.
I fear the human race is doomed unless we exercise a little bit of population control, and I vote we start with people who like to form opinions on everything they know nothing about.
the default setting is RUBBISH.
Vista is more rubbish with more requirements and headaches.
Again it is a MicroSloth product and it is an upgrade so the
default setting this time is
RUBBISH_EAT_ALL_SYSTEM_RESOURCES
OS X is a very good system. There are some issues but it is a
very good system. Well thought out, great interface and you
don't need a freaking super computer to run it, although it will
run on a super computer if you really want it to.
Linux is a very good system as well. Just not consumer friendly
enough yet. Plus it is basically free.
I use all these systems and I can tell you if I run into a Vista
machine I immediately get rid of it and reinstall XP. I hate XP,
always have and always will. It is a perpetual band-aid piece of
____! But Vista makes XP look like an answer to a prayer.
My only problem with OS X and Linux is applications. Same old
story here. Hard to get some apps, if you can get them. And
emulation just doesn't cut it. So you have to run multiple OS's or
multiple machines. Fact of life. But if I could get my apps on
Linux or OS X windows.anything would be history permanently.
However, with that said, having used Apple computer a very
long time (back to system 6), I am getting a weird feeling
coming out of Cupertino these days and Apple is looking less
and less like its self.
At work maybe I need MS Office, but work pays for that. When I get home I can't pay half a grand to write grandma a letter. So I use Open Office. I would gladly pay $100 for it, but luckily it is free. There are other alternatives as well.
Sometimes the alternative software is more powerful. You just never used it to find out. However, it may not matter. When it comes to GIMP vs. Photoshop. I can't draw a straight line with either one, or say which one is better. Why pay for Photoshop?
OSX and Linux users get all the same work done. They must be accomplishing those tasks somehow right? It isn't magic, it's just different software.
I'm not trying to get you to switch. I was a long time Windows user. I was a long time DOS user. I just don't like Vista. I could handle the bloat if needed, but I just can't take DRM anymore. It has to go.
However, OSX is like elitist or something about hardware, and Linux does get complaints from average users. We could suggest some things, but I get the feeling they're not all that interested to hear it unless you're willing to code it, and then they still argue about it.
So if most people still use Windows I don't have a problem. It is really up to Apple or the Linux community to decide if they're happy with their respective market shares or not.
Yesterday , I Installed Kubuntu 8.04 beta ... And Wht U Mean Its Not Consumer Friendly ? I Had No Problems with it yet . The Only thing Is I Cant figure out what to do to get my HP all in one to work .,. printer works ( it recognized it when i plugged it in ) .. Not The same with scanner .
Microsoft should ship the operating system lean and mean, then allow users to download and add things they want and not have to deal with things they don't want. It sucks to have to deal with Aero just to get the functionality of Media Center. The pricing scheme sucks. Having four versions of the operating system hasn't generated the kind of profits they thought it would. MS was counting some folks upgrading older machines as well as others buying new machines but that isn't happening near as quickly as they'd like. Businesses in particular are not jumping on board, as no one in business has the money for a massive capitol hardware expenditure just to run the latest OS. There is no real benefit for businesses to move to Vista. Not until everyone optimizes their applications for Vista and performance improvements happen, will businesses jump on board.
However, in most situations you only need Windows for the apps you're currently using. What's the top five apps you need, and have you looked for alternatives to those apps? What was your experience?
When I switched to Linux I couldn't use all the same apps. However, I did find there were usually three or more alternatives I could pick from that would get the same job done.
No one wants bigger, I would disagree a lot of people want bigger.
Ed
it, it's been around long enough, so if you can take 3mins to install
a free anti-virus program you will be set for a year or so. I've used
it for a couple years now, and honesty there isn't anything wrong
with it.
- Dell's new XPS line using Windows XP only
- by hsweet April 6, 2008 7:53 AM PDT
- Dell now has announced the XPS 630, and several XPS 720 models that, at least in the US, are using only Windows XP. What is going on? If Microsoft is pulling the XP plug for all but low end machines on June 30th, why would Dell be announcing new XP only models? BTW, overseas, it appears that thee models are Vista only.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (170 Comments)