Microsoft's 'new' OS Gets a Website

[Mussels]

wow..... do you know me some how??? I have used vista, for a whole semester (2 months) and around every other day in the library, so thanks for letting me know i've never done something before, i'll make sure to ask you before i say something, just to make sure i have or haven't used it before??? So with every OS release they should use more and more resources??? how is that productive? thats just ridiculous?? seriously, give me a reason why an OS SHOULD use more of anything?? OS X isn't a resource hog, more or less, and depending on the Distro, new Linux released use the same or less resources, half the reason Microsoft doesn't is so that hardware vendors will sell more because users will have to buy new hardware to run the new OS, thats common knowledge. Did i not say that Vista is in fact better than XP??? because i most definitely did, and i'm not going to re-state my reason as to why Vista should not be supported by consumers.

well you're talking crap. you state these assumptions about why vista runs so slow, yet they're made up. OMG IT USES RESOURCES THATS STUPID.

erm, every version of windows has used more resources. in fact, ever since DOS every OS upgrade has used more. thats been going on for a loooong time. go back to win 98 or 2000 if you're so obsessed.

 

[farlex85]

wow..... do you know me some how??? I have used vista, for a whole semester (2 months) and around every other day in the library, so thanks for letting me know i've never done something before, i'll make sure to ask you before i say something, just to make sure i have or haven't used it before??? So with every OS release they should use more and more resources??? how is that productive? thats just ridiculous?? seriously, give me a reason why an OS SHOULD use more of anything?? OS X isn't a resource hog, more or less, and depending on the Distro, new Linux released use the same or less resources, half the reason Microsoft doesn't is so that hardware vendors will sell more because users will have to buy new hardware to run the new OS, thats common knowledge. Did i not say that Vista is in fact better than XP??? because i most definitely did, and i'm not going to re-state my reason as to why Vista should not be supported by consumers.

Use more resources to gain more functionality, simple as that. Would you have us have a stripped down vista that we could run our p3's w/ 256mb of ram on? I know many would. Comps require upgrades, and it's a balance back and forth, more powerful software, more powerful hardware. We could stick w/ not having to upgrade, and we'd stay right where we were......

 

[Megasty]

I still cant convince anybody that Vista is any good

Don't worry about it...the seeds have already taken root. Some ppl actually have reasons why they dislike vista & that's good enough for me, no matter how petty they are

Use more resources to gain more functionality, simple as that. Would you have us have a stripped down vista that we could run our p3's w/ 256mb of ram on? I know many would. Comps require upgrades, and it's a balance back and forth, more powerful software, more powerful hardware. We could stick w/ not having to upgrade, and we'd stay right where we were......

If I can get Vista to work on my old Armada 110 (when it even died several time while installing XP) then it can install on anything at that lvl...

 

[AddSub]

Ah, good ol' corporate propaganda at work. If Microsoft spent half the money, resources, and time on actual product development that they spend on bullshit marketing campaigns like these then all these product and service quality related screw-ups they have been having ever since they decided that NT multiuser server architecture could be ported to and would be a good idea in a largely single-user client-oriented world, well these screw-ups, they would be non-existent to a large extent if all this attention was redirected in such a way.

But, nope, like any other mega-corp or aspiring mega-corp for that matter, they are pretty much only concerned about how well they can market their products. Quality be damned, it's not how good or useful a product is, but how good or useful a product appears to be (Example: every Apple product released this century so far.)

Hype it, hype it, and hype it some more, and once enough units have been moved, pushed, and sold, and once the obvious defects show up, then let the marketing department and the official bullshitters work their magic.

 

[Swansen]

well you're talking crap. you state these assumptions about why vista runs so slow, yet they're made up. OMG IT USES RESOURCES THATS STUPID.

erm, every version of windows has used more resources. in fact, ever since DOS every OS upgrade has used more. thats been going on for a loooong time. go back to win 98 or 2000 if you're so obsessed.

??? crap?? i didn't start the name calling, ether way, there is obviously going to be some jump, in the amount of memory, cpu usage, ect, in a new OS. However, the jump that Vista took was unnecessary, Linux and OS X are doing the same thing on about nothing. Yes, Vista can be set-up/bought to run on minimal hardware, but they don't advertise it?? and you also loose functionality. So, i am now curious, why do you defend Vista, Microsoft is a for profit company, they don't care about you, why do you care about them? They should make quality products, and they don't, it took XP, what? seven years to get where it is?? thats just dumb. If windows was a free program, then whatever, wouldn't matter, but its something we pay for. By paying for faulty equipment, you only encourage more of the same, that holds true for anything.

"OMG IT USES RESOURCES THATS STUPID."

When did i say that? your putting words in my mouth. On that, if your trying to prove a point, attacking or belittling some one will only hurt your reputability.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Ah, good ol' corporate propaganda at work. If Microsoft spent half the money, resources, and time on actual product development that they spend on bullshit marketing campaigns like these then all these product and service quality related screw-ups they have been having ever since they decided that NT multiuser server architecture could be ported to and would be a good idea in a largely single-user client-oriented world, well these screw-ups, they would be non-existent to a large extent if all this attention was redirected in such a way.

But, nope, like any other mega-corp or aspiring mega-corp for that matter, they are pretty much only concerned about how well they can market their products. Quality be damned, it's not how good or useful a product is, but how good or useful a product appears to be (Example: every Apple product released this century so far.)

Hype it, hype it, and hype it some more, and once enough units have been moved, pushed, and sold, and once the obvious defects show up, then let the marketing department and the official bullshitters work their magic.

Excellent post! This sums up what I've been pointing out.

 

[farlex85]

Ah, good ol' corporate propaganda at work. If Microsoft spent half the money, resources, and time on actual product development that they spend on bullshit marketing campaigns like these then all these product and service quality related screw-ups they have been having ever since they decided that NT multiuser server architecture could be ported to and would be a good idea in a largely single-user client-oriented world, well these screw-ups, they would be non-existent to a large extent if all this attention was redirected in such a way.

But, nope, like any other mega-corp or aspiring mega-corp for that matter, they are pretty much only concerned about how well they can market their products. Quality be damned, it's not how good or useful a product is, but how good or useful a product appears to be (Example: every Apple product released this century so far.)

Hype it, hype it, and hype it some more, and once enough units have been moved, pushed, and sold, and once the obvious defects show up, then let the marketing department and the official bullshitters work their magic.

Welcome to the modern age. This isn't new, marketing has been part of the capitalistic world for a while. MS has actually underhyped vista, and have instead allowed word of mouth and sheer company force (putting it on all new pc's b/c, well, they can) to spread vista. As I said, they should have done this sooner. W/ the internet the way it is, a company like MS cannot afford to simply let the public spread the word themselves. If you let the competition and disgruntled users speak for you, there's a good chance you won't get a fair chance (not that MS needs a fair chance ).

 

[Megasty]

Well MS better make sure they hype up windows 7 as much as possible. Word-of-mouth cause nothing MS bashing (not that they don't deserve to be bashed)

 

[Swansen]

Well MS better make sure they hype up windows 7 as much as possible. Word-of-mouth cause nothing MS bashing (not that they don't deserve to be bashed)

Honestly though, i really hope Microsoft returns, they have barely hyped 7 at all, and i hope they don't, all i want it a rock solid OS. If they deliver that, my opinion on Microsoft will sway a good deal. (i'm not getting my hopes up....)

 

[HAL7000]

Well, MS at its best...perfect deception. To think MS had to do a blind study to begin with trying to prove who what when and why Vista is so wonderful.
All they had to do is lower the price, throw away all the other versions of vista, make and support 32/ 64 bit Vista. Macs got it made never having to really worry about what version to load outside of obvious upgrades.
MS needs this band wagon, fix whats there and stop bullsh*tting the general public about why ignorant people can't recognize Vista disguised. Are they saying that the average users are stupid? I have always had a love hate relationship with MS. I really want to jump into vista, but can not justify the cost of the OS when I mainly game on my rig. Even though I am building a new gaming rig again, I most likely will load in XP Pro again. Esp. since I would use oem vista and then the way I change MB's, MS won't allow me to. So my Corp. ED of XP will do me just fine until they get their sh*t together.

 

[mab1376]

But I just changed my windows partition over to vista finally... :shadedshu

If you have a powerful enough machine, it's really nice since they finally worked most of the bugs out of the drivers.

 

[farlex85]

Honestly though, i really hope Microsoft returns, they have barely hyped 7 at all, and i hope they don't, all i want it a rock solid OS. If they deliver that, my opinion on Microsoft will sway a good deal. (i'm not getting my hopes up....)

What is a rock solid os? It's hard to say, many want a stripped down quick windows, I personally like the direction vista is going. It's improbable at this point that MS will release a os that all enjoy, and that doesn't get bad press imo. Some will say, at least it's not vista, others will hate it cause they have to upgrade, others will love it, ect. Effective marketing, coupled with a launch that is stable and does not suffer compatibility issues (which is going to be a huge challenge), will likely be the primary factors in the success of Windows 7.

 

[Bundy]

??? crap?? i didn't start the name calling, ether way, there is obviously going to be some jump, in the amount of memory, cpu usage, ect, in a new OS. However, the jump that Vista took was unnecessary, Linux and OS X are doing the same thing on about nothing. Yes, Vista can be set-up/bought to run on minimal hardware, but they don't advertise it?? and you also loose functionality. So, i am now curious, why do you defend Vista, Microsoft is a for profit company, they don't care about you, why do you care about them? They should make quality products, and they don't, it took XP, what? seven years to get where it is?? thats just dumb. If windows was a free program, then whatever, wouldn't matter, but its something we pay for. By paying for faulty equipment, you only encourage more of the same, that holds true for anything. When did i say that? your putting words in my mouth. On that, if your trying to prove a point, attacking or belittling some one will only hurt your reputability.

Can you explain how Linux and OS X "do the same thing"? If they did, then they would use the same amount of resources. The truth is, they don't. If those operating systems put the same effort into things like superfetch, then they also would fill your RAM up.

It's my observation that bashing Vista makes non tech people sound knowledgeable and smarter to non tech people. Those are the same people who ask Cdawall about RAM.

Micrsoft should have kept the test to itself, it has provided good information to them but it is flawed in design. Publishing the results will mean people argue over the design rather than the results. Provided us with a nice debate though

 

[Mussels]

the 'jump' vista took is 7 years worth of jump for gods sake.

in 7 years i've gone from 128MB of ram costing $150 to 4GB of ram costing $140. i've gone from a celeron 400Mhz with no L2 cache to a 3.6GHz quad core with 8MB of L2 cache.

any argument about an OS 7 years later needing a system less than twice as fast as XP, is really clutching at straws - a new OS is for new PC's, or decent spec old ones, NOT for old rigs in general.

 

[Megasty]

XP was just around for too long. Too many ppl gotten use to it. So when vista was finally born, ppl treated it as the new cute baby that could only pee & poop, while XP remained the 7 yo that could do everything a 7 yo could do (including drive you nuts with viruses). I could go on with the analogy but I'm pretty bored right now so I should stop

 

[HAL7000]

XP was just around for too long. Too many ppl gotten use to it. So when vista was finally born, ppl treated it as the new cute baby that could only pee & poop, while XP remained the 7 yo that could do everything a 7 yo could do (including drive you nuts with viruses). I could go on with the analogy but I'm pretty bored right now so I should stop

I understand the analogy, but seeing that OEM's are wanting XP around for a while longer tells me that it is more than hating vista. It is having a OS that can support all that surplus hardware over time that OEM's need to unload and need a OS to support it. OEM's would hurt plenty if XP was to disappear today. I can understand many points of view but as this whole study suggest is that people are not using vista due to ignorance. This is bullsh*t propaganda at its best. Vista is doing fine and many people have adopted it, MS has to many versions and people feel that if they can't afford the best version they hold off because they feel they are buying less of a OS. MS needs to address OEM's better and then the general public better. They need to learn some ideas from Mac's and make a singular OS that rocks all our worlds.

 

[Swansen]

What is a rock solid os? It's hard to say, many want a stripped down quick windows, I personally like the direction vista is going.

Yes, ok, more or less rock solid, i'm not being literal, there is no such thing as a perfect OS, for that matter, its debatable that there is such a thing as a good OS. Honestly, i would like a pretty windows, like Comiz-fusion on Linux (without compiz's issues) and yet, it should still be nimble, (like Linux 3d desktop is)

Can you explain how Linux and OS X "do the same thing")

Ok, on a side note, i'm sorry for not being extremely specific. (not attacking anyone) The same thing as in, more or less what Microsoft brings to the table for 3d desktops, only with minimal hardware usage.

the 'jump' vista took is 7 years worth of jump for gods sake.

Didn't give me a reason why you are defending something that only cares about your pocket, and gives you a faulty product. (yes, its fine now, but wasn't that way from the start) Vista was suppose to be MUCH more than it is. It was suppose to redefine windows, really reliable, secure, fast, nimble, new file system ect. They didn't really deliver on much of that, however 7 is suppose to rectify that problem, and it better. Also, your missing something, the consumer market is a small portion of the computer world. Corporate offices, businesses, ect, all uses computers like us, (minus some) and some of those companies still use 98, some still use 3x. Where am i going with this?? the company market is HUGE, and many of them have no reason to upgrade their operating system because they are using the same software for years, beside for better support, reliability, and security. Their opportunity cost of upgrading to a new OS and all its features is outweighed by them having to upgrade hardware on hundreds of machines. Your also not thinking about what the average user does, browse the internet, read e-mail, maybe edit some photos, maybe watch some videos. There is no reason to have a dual core machine, or anything higher than a Nvidia 6 series or equivalent card to do all that. Yes, new hardware will be much faster, and better, and people will probably benefit. However there is NO reason a new OS should use twice the resources of a previous generation OS, none at all and you have yet to give me a viable reason as to why. You can run a Linux distro which is on par with Vista on a machine thats 5 years old, thats all i have to say. Lastly, windows 7 is "suppose" to be great, and use less resources than Vista, so that kinda goes against your statement that a new OS should use more resources. Ether way, all of that is irrelevant, Vista should only have one version, two versions at most, and lower the price, one can be the power hungry thing it is, the other should be stripped down version, but not loose any functionality, (minus appearance)

 

[theJesus]

Hey, Jesus joined TPU! Cool! (Welcome Jesus!)

Heh, I've been lurking these forums quite a bit lately, and thought it was about time I started throwing around my $0.02

Amazing how worked up everyone can get over their OS....Come on, live and let live. What would Jesus do?

My sentiments exactly

 

[HAL7000]

Yes, ok, more or less rock solid, i'm not being literal, there is no such thing as a perfect OS, for that matter, its debatable that there is no such thing as a good OS. Honestly, i would like a pretty windows, like Comiz-fusion on Linux (without compiz's issues) and yet, it should still be nimble, (like Linux 3d desktop is)
Ok, on a side note, i'm sorry for not being extremely specific. (not attacking anyone) The same thing as in, more or less what Microsoft brings to the table for 3d desktops, only with minimal hardware usage.

Didn't give me a reason why you are defending something that only cares about your pocket, and gives you a faulty product. (yes, its fine now, but wasn't that way from the start) Vista was suppose to be MUCH more than it is. It was suppose to redefine windows, really reliable, secure, fast, nimble, new file system ect. They didn't really deliver on much of that, however 7 is suppose to rectify that problem, and it better. Also, your missing something, the consumer market is a small portion of the computer world. Corporate offices, businesses, ect, all uses computers like us, (minus some) and some of those companies still use 98, some still use 3x. Where am i going with this?? the company market is HUGE, and many of them have no reason to upgrade their operating system because they are using the same software for years, beside for better support, reliability, and security. Their opportunity cost of upgrading to a new OS and all its features is outweighed by them having to upgrade hardware and hundreds on machines. Your also not thinking about what the average user does, browse the internet, read e-mail, maybe edit some photos, maybe watch some videos. There is no reason to have a dual core machine, or anything higher than a Nvidia 6 series or equivalent card to do all that. Yes, new hardware will be much faster, and better, and people will probably benefit. However there is NO reason a new OS should use twice the resources of a previous generation OS, none at all and you have yet to give me a viable reason as to why. You can run a Linux distro which is on par with Vista on a machine thats 5 years old, thats all i have to say. Lastly, windows 7 is "suppose" to be great, and use less resources than Vista, so that kinda goes against your statement that a new OS should use more resources. Ether way, all of that is irrelevant, Vista should only have one version, two versions at most, and lower the price, one can be the power hungry thing it is, the other should be stripped down version, but not loose any functionality, (minus appearance)

I agree completely with this assessment.

 

[Bundy]

Didn't give me a reason why you are defending something that only cares about your pocket, and gives you a faulty product. (yes, its fine now, but wasn't that way from the start) Vista was suppose to be MUCH more than it is. It was suppose to redefine windows, really reliable, secure, fast, nimble, new file system ect. They didn't really deliver on much of that, however 7 is suppose to rectify that problem, and it better. Also, your missing something, the consumer market is a small portion of the computer world. Corporate offices, businesses, ect, all uses computers like us, (minus some) and some of those companies still use 98, some still use 3x. Where am i going with this?? the company market is HUGE, and many of them have no reason to upgrade their operating system because they are using the same software for years, beside for better support, reliability, and security. Their opportunity cost of upgrading to a new OS and all its features is outweighed by them having to upgrade hardware on hundreds of machines. Your also not thinking about what the average user does, browse the internet, read e-mail, maybe edit some photos, maybe watch some videos. There is no reason to have a dual core machine, or anything higher than a Nvidia 6 series or equivalent card to do all that. Yes, new hardware will be much faster, and better, and people will probably benefit. However there is NO reason a new OS should use twice the resources of a previous generation OS, none at all and you have yet to give me a viable reason as to why. You can run a Linux distro which is on par with Vista on a machine thats 5 years old, thats all i have to say. Lastly, windows 7 is "suppose" to be great, and use less resources than Vista, so that kinda goes against your statement that a new OS should use more resources. Ether way, all of that is irrelevant, Vista should only have one version, two versions at most, and lower the price, one can be the power hungry thing it is, the other should be stripped down version, but not loose any functionality, (minus appearance)

Why should Mussels give you a reason for something he didnt say? Mussels was being critical of the accuracy your posts, not being supportive of MS.

Some of your other quotes:
"Honestly, an perfect OS would leave NO footprint, but thats next to impossible." - that depends on what type of operating system you want. I've got an old computer that runs DOS from BIOS and nothing else. It fits your description and it's fairly useless. In my opinion, a perfect OS maximises hardware utilisation. Everyone has different ideals.

"half the reason Microsoft doesn't is so that hardware vendors will sell more because users will have to buy new hardware to run the new OS, thats common knowledge" - I'll quote Mussels for the response - "well you're talking crap". I mean, was there any basis for making such a statement?

We all have had good and bad days with MS OS but please lets try and debate from an accurate perspective.

 

[candle_86]

are we still arguing about this, i figured this thread would be dead, but guess not, and let me say one thing.

In 5 years if your XP everyone will laugh at you and say your an OS dinosaur the world moved to Vista

 

[vrdublu]

I have been trying to convince family, friends and co-workers that Vista is indeed a good OS for almost 2 years, and now this. It's not perfect that's for sure, but I think the industry helped fuel alot of the BS that's surrounded Vista, including those Mac commercials

 

[yogurt_21]

are we still arguing about this, i figured this thread would be dead, but guess not, and let me say one thing.

In 5 years if your XP everyone will laugh at you and say your an OS dinosaur the world moved to Vista

ummmm. in 5 years people will have moved on far beyond vista and most likely beyond windows7 as well. it'll be like, huh xp? wow we're all on windows 9.

imo vista will end up being more like windows ME in the history books, not because of stability but because of sales. the huge push for vista makes no sense to me when windows 7 is due out next year.

today it's "hey buy vista" tomorrow it's "hey buy windows 7" xp had an abnormal reign and many people aren't going to switch till it no longer suits their needs. which unfortunately is going to take awhile.

 

[Triprift]

are we still arguing about this, i figured this thread would be dead, but guess not, and let me say one thing.

In 5 years if your XP everyone will laugh at you and say your an OS dinosaur the world moved to Vista

Apsolutely mon but my bet is there will be ones who do because they wont like windows 7 cus of its likeness to vista

 

[Mussels]

so far the only two arguments against vista are

It seems to prefer 250-500MB more ram over XP
the backup options are hiding

the arguments for are that its a lot more stable, more virus proof, and more user friendly
(i've done ONE tweak to improve wireless performance, other than that windows update and the OS itself fixes/indentifies problems for me. its almost boring)