Microsoft Predicted to Back Away from Vista

When it comes to technology debacles, every major company has a few (remember the Newton?), but right now one of the top spots has to go to Windows Vista, Microsoft's clunky operating system that has IT shops and consumers desperately clutching at XP for as long as they can.

[GutZ31]

In response to the overwhelming amount of false news, if you have the time, please check my first opinionated blog.

http://www.n4g.com/up/0/Blo...

[BeaArthur]

I can only imagine how much money they stand to loose over this.

[bumnut]

but i doubt they will care.

[BeaArthur]

I'm going to disagree with you there. All businesses care when they loose what could potentially be billions of dollars. Just think about how they charge you for everything on the Marketplace. A company this greedy has to be pissed off that they are going to loose this much money.

[Plasmana]

The joke must be on everybody! Microsoft is making money hand-over-fist. Vista is nothing but a name. The real product is an evolutionary code-base that periodically get refactored and released.

Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 are the exact same kernel. Yes that's right, it's Vista (hailed as the worsed MS OS next to ME) and Server 2008 (hailed as Microsoft's best OS yet). The next version of Windows will be yet another evolution of the code-base (just as Vista was an evolution of Server 2003) and given a brand spanking new name.

[brothersimon]

Xp = pros
Vista = noobs

tbh

[GutZ31]

tru dat

[Pain]

Go learn to be a real pro and learn Linux.

And poor cheap Kids get a Job and buy a Mac will be the best thing u do after buying a PS3.

[PSMonster21]

OS X blows Windows out of the water in every single aspect except gaming. FACT!

[Jdoki]

I've long argued that an Operating System should be just that. - The most basic 'layer' of the PC's software, used for little more than launching the software we want to use.

If people want to bolt on multiple widgets, gadgets and other stuff then fine. Let the users bloat the OS as much as they want. But leave the basic core of the OS fast, and simple and secure.

Personally I really don't like OSX from a user point of view. But it is an extremely fast and slick OS.

Linux combines a lack of bloat, simple and effective security and an unobtrusive yet easy to use interface. MS could learn a lot.

From a users point of view I have no issues with Vista at all. I find it marginally easier to use than XP and some of the new features are nice. From a performance point of view it sucks. The OS should never take up Gigs of disc space, and any improvements (like DX10) should actually be improvements both in performance and reliability.

I think MS have learned their lesson. Windows 7 will definitely be a slicker version of Vista, but I think it'll be another couple of releases before Windows comes anywhere close to OSX or Linux in performance terms.

I'm also doubtful we'll be seeing Windows 7 before late 2009/2010. But what incentive have we to upgrade?

Those people who bought Vista and were disappointed will be wary of paying out for another OS. Those who actually like Vista or XP will want to stick with it until the death. And those people who got Vista pre-installed on a new machine will be unlikely to want to go through the hassle of installing a new OS themselves.

[flappo]

actually , os-x = pros

xp = gaming nerds and general idiots

[PR0NE]

os-x = graphical galore nerds
vista = noobs
xp = normal poeple
windows 95 = wtf?! they still exist!!
linux = server companies
linux: ubuntu = will shine someday...

update: i sort of got myself owned because i use vista, but that's because i don't want to go through the lengthy process of installing a new windows and all the programs, so i use vista because i am lazy, and got it for free...

[GutZ31]

Its funny how almost all OSX users for some reason see them self "better" then other operating system users, yet it has no reason to make some one better then another.
I could argue that knowing Windows OS has led me to an IT profession that has given me a very good job and an large amount of knowledge that I am thankful of.
This doesn't mean I don't know how to use OSX, or linux, but I use windows XP on my home computers for the simple fact that my work revolves around it.
The most critical of problems that OSX users tend to face with XP or other windows OS's is the dreaded BLOAT ware.
I'm sorry to say, but this is what you get when buying a namebrand PC, not when buying an operating system.
Windows XP Pro comes with no bloat at all, and is extremely useful out of the box.
OSX is pretty much everything you need out the box, but not always.
This leads to 1 of 2 things, a happy user, or a user confused.
Technically, OSX leopard is about as bloated as windows vista in some sense.
Linux is about as bloat free as it gets, but that can also mean more work then actually getting what you need done.
Windows has a list of issues with security as well as issues with hardware.
But you have to remember, OSX is build only for Mac products, and not for just and and all hardware.
This is the only reason linux and windows shine a little brighter then OSX.
They are not locked to having to by exclusively to apple products.
This doesn't mean theres something wrong with apple, just that who wants to spend everything on one company? its like saying you want to buy everything that sony makes? or microsoft? or nintendo?
It just makes it easier for people that are on a budget get what they need, and get it done fast.
Linux is getting close to becoming corporate user friendly.
OSX is not friendly to business at all, when it comes to hardware integration, thats why you never see a Mac running your EKG or life support.

[iiprotocolii]

Or is this VERY similar with what happened to Windows ME? Another waste of people's money. What MS needs to do is release DirectX10 on XP and keep it standard until Windows 7 comes out. Vista is nothing but a bloated, insufficient resource hog with a pretty face. Kind of like having a hot chick with herpes - the outside is tempting and looks great... but the inside is something you sure don't want to touch.

[GutZ31]

Love the analogy. Bubbles for you.

[Adamalicious]

Yep - it seems to be turning out almost exactly like ME, or Bob (brainchild of Melinda Gates that gave us the talking paperclip) if you want to go back that far. Every few revisions they seem to miss the mark quite a bit. I read somewhere that by the end of 2008 an estimated 70% of business computers will still be on XP - to me that sounds like Vista = Fail. For me, I knew they were in trouble when I heard about middle-aged people refusing to buy Dells with Vista on them - that's bad!

[kevin1122]

that analogy is pretty funny especially since ive seen it first hand.

[mat787]

:|.....

[sleepbox]

First off, Mac is overpriced, underpowered, emo kid crap and anyone that thinks otherwise is a braindead zombie.

2ndly, there's absolutely NO excuse for Vista. MS worked on Vista for years and it turned out absolute garbage...aka, Windows ME pt 2. Windows 7 BETTER be something special else I am going to linux

[Adamalicious]

Since we're talking about operating systems and not hardware I'll assume that you mean Mac OS X. Since Leopard is the latest release I'll also assume you're referring to Leopard. Now, since OS X Leopard costs less than even the least expensive version of Vista and WAY less than the most expensive version of Vista I'll assume you think that Vista is extremely overpriced. As far as the "underpowered" comment goes I can pretty much guarantee that if you compare two identical computers - one running Vista and one running Leopard - that you will get more "power" out of the one running Leopard as it requires far fewer resources.

Oh, wait, this thread has NOTHING to do with Mac OS X. Sorry for being off-topic.

[sleepbox]

Since you're trying to take advantage of ignorant people, how about why don't you acknowledge that Mac OSX has been around for years and you're merely paying for service packs...at least MS doesn't do that.

10.0
to
10.1 - yea, that'll be $60 but of course that's not a big deal cause you're rich...you own a MAC
to
10.2 - yea, that'll be $60 but of course that's not a big deal cause you're rich...you own a MAC

repeat, ad eternam

I've had Win xp for years and I've NEVER paid for a service pack. While you're at it, enjoy paying way too much for hardware upgrades as well.

[Moto13]

other than performance issues?
They can certainly fix that with future service packs. I am running vista on a quad core Q6600, 2GB ram, Raptor HDD, and I am loving it. It works great and it is super fast.
I think the vast majority of people won't notice all the "issues" with Vista because if you are going from and old P4 laptop to a Q6600 for example, you wont' notice a difference in performance, and that's what most people go through because they upgrade their computers by buying new ones. Yes if you run XP and Vista on the same hardware XP is faster.
You have to take into account though that if you want performance and only performance from your machine because you want to run a server or an intense app, then you have windows server 2008 which is an awesome OS.

[iceman2885]

I like Vista and like the way it works. However, seriously, I think explorer (not internet explorer, but windows explorer the thing that navigates your computer) crashes at least once a day and I will have to either restart my computer or go in through task manager and close explorer and reopen it. I just don't think that is something that I should have to do on a new computer and new operating system.

[misterssippi]

I gotta say I like Vista much more than XP. One problem that people are running into is that when you upgrade, you really need to upgrade RAM as well. Also, if the computer is less than a dual core the OS will not operate correctly. So folks with older computer buy it, load and then their systems crash. Same for folks who buy underpowered Compaq, eMachines and Acer computers.

[Gondee]

It may not be microsofts fault. These computer companys are just putting out the same 512 laptops and expecting people to get a great experance. I makes good buisness sence to blam other companys and cut costs at the same time

[Infernus]

I have a quad too, the Q6600. Haven't had any problems.

To run Vista properly (With the Aero interface) you need at least 2GB RAM to keep it running smoothly. Vista was built to take advantage of multicore systems so running it on a single core is asking for trouble in a way. Stick with XP if you have a single core, or a dual that isn't fast enough and use the Vista upgrade advisor before even considering upgrading.

I advise anyone to buy a new PC/Laptop with Vista included rather than upgrade. Program conflicts are numerous without patches and it's a lot more stable on a new system than upgrading with existing software installed.

[ravenguard88]

Vista is a better operating system than XP in several ways. Problem is that XP has been around for so long, and has such a huge install base that nobody is taking the chance to write Vista exclusive software. If all software was re-written, Vista would run it better. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and like any new operating system it takes time for developers to utilize it.

Direct X 10 is the same story. It's much more efficient than 9, but nobody is stupid enough to release games that won't work on XP, so they are all programmed in DX9 with DX10 features added afterwards, making the program incredibly inefficient. Once a game is coded to run in DX10 with no backwards compatibility, it will run much better and something like Crysis would be possible on lower-end hardware.