Vista: I think this says it all....

Most people who have decided not to upgrade to Vista do so beacuse they have read up on it, or heard from other people how (in most cases) pointless it is to do so.

Sadly, the people who have read up onit are misinformed by people, who exactly like them have not used vista and decide to bash it.

I myself, have in fact tried Vista.... and although it's not the worst thing in the world, I just don't see what is so great about it over XP...... DX10?.... well, that's what Microsoft is using to hold gamers ransom into buying their new over bloated, over priced new OS.

Wait.. you say that it doesnt have anything over xp, meaning its not better nor worse, yet in the same sentence call it overbloated (even though xp was considered overbloated when it came out) and overpriced (even though xp costs the same as vista)How are they holding gamers "Ransom"? Most gamers want the latest and greatest graphics, nothing wrong with that and vista is the only thing that offers that.. DX10 wasnt implemented in xp because it would have been a stupuid move by microsoft, that would be like if microsoft implemented all of xp's features into windows 98, Microsoft needs a way to make people buy their new OS (common business strategy if you have ever taken economics in high school), thus they add something that would interest 60% of the people who buy their product are into, dx10.If dx10 could have been so easily implemented into xp, dont you think someone would have figured it out by now?

I guess if you buy a new PC with Vista installed, have a ton of RAM and have some time to tweak and fiddle around with it.... I guess, why not. But worth an upgrade over XP?.... Not in the slightest.

a ton? 2gb is fine for gaming and judging from what ive seen, 2gb is pretty much the gaming standard. it takes 10 minutes to turn off the UAC, and tune it... Wow, you could have used those 10 minutes playing WoW couldn't you? such a waist.

Lilgunney612

Direct X10 could easily be implemented into XP. They could have released a Service pack if necessary (could have included it in XP SP3) to get it working. Do I need to learn in high school how companies screw us over?... I all ready know that.

Yes Microsoft is a business and wants to make money, I guess you are one of the happy suckers which conforms to their business ideals.. (or is it that you are just trying to justify Vista, since you use it and then would defend it only because of that.)

Also. from what I've heard... 4GB of RAM is needed to the equivalent of having 2GB in XP

From NYTimes.com:

Intel, the giant chip maker and longtime partner of Microsoft, has decided against upgrading the computers of its own 80,000 employees to Microsoft's Vista operating system, a person with direct knowledge of the company's plans said.

The person, who has been briefed on the situation but requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of Intel's relationship with Microsoft, said the company made its decision after a lengthy analysis by its internal technology staff of the costs and potential benefits of moving to Windows Vista, which has drawn fire from many customers as a buggy, bloated program that requires costly hardware upgrades to run smoothly.

'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said.

An Intel spokesman said the company was testing and deploying Vista in certain departments, but not across the company.

attirex

Super awesome!

I love the irony that a company not wanting to spend money on upgrading for a new OS is somehow an excuse to bash that OS when it applies to Vista, and yet we do not apply this logic to Mac OS.

Most companies use old tech, of course they won't want to run Vista. That's not to say Vista isn't good, it has become my main OS.

Direct X10 could easily be implemented into XP. They could have released a Service pack if necessary (could have included it in XP SP3) to get it working. Do I need to learn in high school how companies screw us over?... I all ready know that.

Yes Microsoft is a business and wants to make money, I guess you are one of the happy suckers which conforms to their business ideals.. (or is it that you are just trying to justify Vista, since you use it and then would defend it only because of that.)

Also. from what I've heard... 4GB of RAM is needed to the equivalent of having 2GB in XP

FamiBox

It could have, and people have enabled DirectX 10 in Crysis on XP, but Microsoft has no reason to enable DX10 for XP. Why? Because they've released a new product, and want it to sell. Imagine that, A company that wants to sell product. Of all the nerve. I thought publicly traded companies were supposed to cater to my every whim, rather than make money to appease shareholders. This has nothing to do with a company screwing you over, this is simple economics. If you want DX10 that bad, just upgrade to Vista. If your PC can handle Dx10 graphics, it can handle Vista without problems. Trust me.

Now for the RAM issue... all the people I've talked to THAT HAVE USED VISTA say that 2GB is perfectly fine, and runs everything without problems. Furthermore, RAM prices have dropped so drastically over the past year or two that there really isn't any reason to complain about how much you need. Is $50 really all that much? that's how much a good 2GB RAM kit is going for these days

I think the word we need to think about here while talking as consumers is "value." What value does Vista bring to the table, as compared to XP?From what I've read in three pages of posts, not much. OK, there's that one guy who works in IT and whose company LOVES Vista because of dual-monitor terminal services or some such arcane reason that applies only to his company, and maybe two others.

So I upgrade from XP to Vista--what am I getting that's BETTER?

Still waiting.....

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

"'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said."

Then what does this say about Vista? The OS is bad, yes, but Intel not upgrading because there isn't any reason to isn't why Vista is bad.

Phazevariance

Vista is not bad though. I think you're just following public opinion. It's actually very good, HOWEVER if there is no reason to upgrade to vista, when xp functions for everything they need, then why upgrade?

No, I have a PC with Vista and it's nothing good. It has much better security but at the cost of becoming a major hassle to the user. The rest of it's features don't seem like anything that couldn't have been released as a SP for XP. XP does everything I need without providing a ton of fluff and security features that get in my way.

Now, in a year or two and another SP for Vista, yeah, I'm going to upgrade, just like I waited for SP2 before upgrading to XP. But for now, it isn't quite up to my standards.

thats cool, i guess...

I have Vista and it is great, but I see the reason not to upgrade. If you don't have a high-end PC, it probably doesn't run good. For me though, with Windows Media Center and all the little upgrades; plus the fact that this PC was a new build, Vista was the right choice for me and everything is going smooth.

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

"'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said."

Then what does this say about Vista? The OS is bad, yes, but Intel not upgrading because there isn't any reason to isn't why Vista is bad.

BladeMaster84

Vista is not bad though. I think you're just following public opinion. It's actually very good, HOWEVER if there is no reason to upgrade to vista, when xp functions for everything they need, then why upgrade?

No, I have a PC with Vista and it's nothing good. It has much better security but at the cost of becoming a major hassle to the user. The rest of it's features don't seem like anything that couldn't have been released as a SP for XP. XP does everything I need without providing a ton of fluff and security features that get in my way.

Now, in a year or two and another SP for Vista, yeah, I'm going to upgrade, just like I waited for SP2 before upgrading to XP. But for now, it isn't quite up to my standards.

If you can't figure out how to turn those security features off then you have no business "reviewing" the OS.

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"][QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

"'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said."

Then what does this say about Vista? The OS is bad, yes, but Intel not upgrading because there isn't any reason to isn't why Vista is bad.

vfibsux

Vista is not bad though. I think you're just following public opinion. It's actually very good, HOWEVER if there is no reason to upgrade to vista, when xp functions for everything they need, then why upgrade?

No, I have a PC with Vista and it's nothing good. It has much better security but at the cost of becoming a major hassle to the user. The rest of it's features don't seem like anything that couldn't have been released as a SP for XP. XP does everything I need without providing a ton of fluff and security features that get in my way.

Now, in a year or two and another SP for Vista, yeah, I'm going to upgrade, just like I waited for SP2 before upgrading to XP. But for now, it isn't quite up to my standards.

If you can't figure out how to turn those security features off then you have no business "reviewing" the OS.

Haha! Who said I didn't? I know exactly how to disable them, the fact that they are a hassle to begin with is the problem. I shouldn't have to disable a security feature to avoid being spammed with confirmation pop-ups.

Direct X10 could easily be implemented into XP. They could have released a Service pack if necessary (could have included it in XP SP3) to get it working. Do I need to learn in high school how companies screw us over?... I all ready know that.

Imagine yourself as an owner of a company.. you release a product that pretty much everyone with a computer needs, it sells great, everyone is happy with it. But as time goes by and as technology increases, the public demands a more updates version of your product, so you spend 2 years developing something new for them, When it is done, it includes alot of features your old product has and even more.. would you release a free update to the older version of your product while almost making your newest product absolutely pointless?

Yes Microsoft is a business and wants to make money, I guess you are one of the happy suckers which conforms to their business ideals.. (or is it that you are just trying to justify Vista, since you use it and then would defend it only because of that.)

Every buisness in the industry does this.. Look at Nvidia, one of the leading GPU developers, they purposly optomised their drivers (without telling anyone) to run 3d mark faster than any ATI card at the time, and recently when they secretly added a function in all Nvidia chipsets (motherboards) to overclock any 8 series card installed just so they could get better results than people with ATI gpu's... this would have been fine if they also overclocked ATI cards. But despite all of this, we still see people buying Nvidia GPU's, you know why? because they work and they work well. I dont need to justify my use of Vista, I can install a copy of xp in a matter of minutes if i wanted to, but i dont see the need because i have yet to come across a problem with using vista.

Also. from what I've heard... 4GB of RAM is needed to the equivalent of having 2GB in XP

Just proves my point that people looking into vista are misinformed.. it has been proven several times over that there is no performance increase from 2gb to 4gb in vista. Besides, 32-bit vista (the OS which most people nd up getting because, again are misinformed into thinking it will keep half of their programs from running properly) only supports up to 4gb TOTAL memory (GPU + system memory) so the most it ever reads is about 3.5 GB.

thats cool, i guess...

I have Vista and it is great, but I see the reason not to upgrade. If you don't have a high-end PC, it probably doesn't run good. For me though, with Windows Media Center and all the little upgrades; plus the fact that this PC was a new build, Vista was the right choice for me and everything is going smooth.

harrisi17

Thats part of the problem...you have to upgrade just to run the OS.

Yet XP will run on anything ( pratically anything )

I have Vista ( and uninstalled it ) and gone back to XP.

DX10 is not that big of a difference and few game actually use it. The pretty little flip window thingee ( ripped off from Apple) are no big loss.

And to actually have to turn down graphics settings or resolution just to get the performance you had on XP.....just for a few bits of eyecandy...no thanks !!!

I use my computer for gaming...period...

So I keep it lean and mean.....and Vista is just too bloated.

Maybe someday I'll re-install it...

But not today...

Rig

Q6700 EE

88 Ultra

4 gig ddr2

blah blah.....

Thats part of the problem...you have to upgrade just to run the OS.

Yet XP will run on anything ( pratically anything )

I have Vista ( and uninstalled it ) and gone back to XP.

DX10 is not that big of a difference and few game actually use it. The pretty little flip window thingee ( ripped off from Apple) are no big loss.

And to actually have to turn down graphics settings or resolution just to get the performance you had on XP.....just for a few bits of eyecandy...no thanks !!!

I use my computer for gaming...period...

So I keep it lean and mean.....and Vista is just too bloated.

Maybe someday I'll re-install it...

But not today...

OgreB

Now this is a valid reason not to upgrade to vista. Even though i disagree with alot of it.

Directed @ OP - oh wow, a business didn't bother upgrading their existing software platform to Vista - that's not remotely suprising. It took years upon years until XP was standard in businesses, there are STILL many businesses that run on windows 2000. The company I work in still has to support various legacy platforms (old browsers and flash versions) for our software because our clients haven't bothered upgrading yet.

This has nothing to do with the average joe nonsensical bashing of how 'omg vista sux!1!!'. It's a case of the OS not offering anything in terms of increasing worker productivity.

lol. My cousin just got a XPS (It's one of the M series, the one Alex uses on Diggnation, except in black) for graduation, and my uncle said, "The downside? It has Vista." Oh, and it was runing Business. And he's going into college.

Me? I use XP Pro myself, works fine except for the sleep part...ugh I hate it when the computer locks down!!

Thats part of the problem...you have to upgrade just to run the OS.

Yet XP will run on anything ( pratically anything )

I have Vista ( and uninstalled it ) and gone back to XP.

DX10 is not that big of a difference and few game actually use it. The pretty little flip window thingee ( ripped off from Apple) are no big loss.

And to actually have to turn down graphics settings or resolution just to get the performance you had on XP.....just for a few bits of eyecandy...no thanks !!!

I use my computer for gaming...period...

So I keep it lean and mean.....and Vista is just too bloated.

Maybe someday I'll re-install it...

But not today...OgreB

Wait. So why did you go back to XP, again?

Because of pooer performance in a couple DX10 titles? Last I checked, every DX10 game thus far also has the option to run in DX9, which will afford you the same performance as XP SP3 (provided you weren't lying about having 4GB of RAM.) Vista SP1 performs indentically to XP SP3 in gaming if you have a decent amount of RAM (>=2GB.)

"Vista is bloated?" I see this claim so much, with absolutely nothing to back it up. You mean because it actually uses your RAM to improve system performance and responsiveness (Superfetch), whereas XP just sits there with it being unused? Frequently-used applications under Vista will load up faster than they will with XP if you have Superfetch enabled.

"BUT IT USES OCCUPIES RAM AND CONTINUES TO WHEN I START UP GAMES/APPS." Actually no, it doesn't. Superfetch releases those cached resources when a memory-demanding application comes in to focus.

Even if you do consider that "bloat", it is easily disabled, and you can drop your RAM requirements significantly by doing so, down to XP-ish levels. I actually have Superfetch disabled for other reasons (causes HDD grinding for me. Windows Search/Indexing as well.)

Maybe things like the sidebar or Media Center features could be considered "bloat" (I know I disabled them) ..but they're so easy to disable, only a complete moron would complain about them.

Sounds more like you listened to the opinions of a few ignorant people, went in to trying Vista with a closed mind, and saw what you wanted to see ..because it seems to me like the people who give Vista a serious try a come out realizing it's nowhere near what people are saying. Vista is, in fact, an excellent OS, even if it has little advantage over XP feature-wise, and doesn't really warrant an upgrade for many.

Direct X10 could easily be implemented into XP. They could have released a Service pack if necessary (could have included it in XP SP3) to get it working. Do I need to learn in high school how companies screw us over?... I all ready know that.

Imagine yourself as an owner of a company.. you release a product that pretty much everyone with a computer needs, it sells great, everyone is happy with it. But as time goes by and as technology increases, the public demands a more updates version of your product, so you spend 2 years developing something new for them, When it is done, it includes alot of features your old product has and even more.. would you release a free update to the older version of your product while almost making your newest product absolutely pointless?

*Companies love people like you. You're the reason they make money. Doesn't mean Vista is good though.

Yes Microsoft is a business and wants to make money, I guess you are one of the happy suckers which conforms to their business ideals.. (or is it that you are just trying to justify Vista, since you use it and then would defend it only because of that.)

Every buisness in the industry does this.. Look at Nvidia, one of the leading GPU developers, they purposlyoptomised their drivers (without telling anyone) to run 3d mark faster than any ATI card at the time, and recently when they secretly added a function in all Nvidiachipsets (motherboards) to overclock any 8 series card installed just so they could get better results than people with ATIgpu's... this would have been fine if they also overclocked ATI cards. But despite all of this, we still see people buying NvidiaGPU's, you know why? because they work and they work well. I dont need to justify my use of Vista, I can install a copy of xp in a matter of minutes if i wanted to, but i dont see the need because i have yet to come across a problem with using vista.

*So other companies screw us over, so it's OK for ALL companies to screw us over?

Also. from what I've heard... 4GB of RAM is needed to the equivalent of having 2GB in XP

Just proves my point that people looking into vista are misinformed.. it has been proven several times over that there is no performance increase from 2gb to 4gb in vista. Besides, 32-bit vista (the OS which most people nd up getting because, again are misinformed into thinking it will keep half of their programs from running properly) only supports up to 4gb TOTAL memory (GPU + system memory) so the most it ever reads is about 3.5 GB.

*You misunderstood. What I meant was, In XP... having 2GB of RAM is godly.... where as having 2GB in Visa is necessary (for comftable use.)

*Companies love people like you. You're the reason they make money. Doesn't mean Vista is good though.

*You misunderstood. What I meant was, In XP... having 2GB of RAM is godly.... where as having 2GB in Visa is necessary (for comftable use.)

FamiBox

Soo... basically you want Microsoft to give you everything you want for free, out of the kindness of their hearts. yeah, good luck with that one. I really wish I could live in your fantasy world. seems like a nice place.

2GB of RAM is far from "Godly." 2GB is the standard for gaming, which means that every half-decent gaming rig has 2 Gigs of RAM in it. This is because 32 bit XP is incapable of handling anymore RAM effectively, and 64 bit XP is useless. 2GB isn't "necessary" for comfortable use in Vista, try 1 GB. furthermore, as has already been stated, it isn't hard to disable some of the things that use you RAM, so you can go back to having RAM sitting there in your system, doing absolutely nothing.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

*Companies love people like you. You're the reason they make money. Doesn't mean Vista is good though.

*You misunderstood. What I meant was, In XP... having 2GB of RAM is godly.... where as having 2GB in Visa is necessary (for comftable use.)

Mediocre_man90

Soo... basically you want Microsoft to give you everything you want for free, out of the kindness of their hearts. yeah, good luck with that one. I really wish I could live in your fantasy world. seems like a nice place.

2GB of RAM is far from "Godly." 2GB is the standard for gaming, which means that every half-decent gaming rig has 2 Gigs of RAM in it. This is because 32 bit XP is incapable of handling anymore RAM effectively, and 64 bit XP is useless. 2GB isn't "necessary" for comfortable use in Vista, try 1 GB. furthermore, as has already been stated, it isn't hard to disable some of the things that use you RAM, so you can go back to having RAM sitting there in your system, doing absolutely nothing.

So you're argument is... "I love Microsoft." ""Please Microsoft, I know you are a business and want to screw me over with your new OS that eats up all my RAM, contians a bunch of features that I do not really need and will disable anyway. And I know a little update could make all the cra`p in Vista work in XP... but heck.. you're a business, and I can except you're money making scams.... heck, all companies screw us over from time to time so feel free to join the party. I don't mind."

The problem with this is Vista is not a substantial step over XP to make it's price justifiable. It's Windows ME all over again.... but worse.

Also. to deny that Vista uses substantially more RAM than XP is living in a fantasy world.

Most new games require you have MORE RAM installed for Vista, rather than XP.

Any gaming will vouch that they get better performance in games with XP over Vista.

Having 2GB of RAM in XP (while gaming) is far better than having 2GB in Vista (while gamig,)

Likewise, having 384mb is fine (and comfortable) for non gaming in XP, where as 1GB is necessary in Vista (unless you bought Vista just to turn off all the features you paid for)

I wasnt arguing about whether vista is good or not, i was simply telling you that EVERY company in the know world uses the exact same stratagy, just because microsoft uses it too doesnt make them any better or worse than any other company out there, it is a business and they need to make money, that is the bottom line. I am sorry we cannot live in your fantasy world were every business loses millions of dollars trying to make people like you happy.

stop putting words in my mouth, i never said it was ok, i am simply saying all companies do it. why should microsoft be any different?

*You misunderstood. What I meant was, In XP... having 2GB of RAM is godly.... where as having 2GB in Visa is necessary (for comftable use.)

2gb is hardly godly in xp, 2gb is the standard for any gamer no matter which OS they are using. The difference between vista and XP memory wise is 256mb... 256MB for gods sake! im tired of hearing about how "OMG VISTA HAWGS RAM LUL!", if 265mb of ram really bothers you, buy a stick they are like 5 bucks these days.

That statement right there proves you know nothing about vista, your argument is invalid.

Vista doesnt "eat up" all of your ram.. it stores it and uses it to help programs (like games) boot up and run faster. Would you rather it be doing nothing?

The only feature you need to turn off is the UAC.. yeah one feature is a bunch...

So you're argument is... "I love Microsoft." ""Please Microsoft, I know you are a business and want to screw me over with your new OS that eats up all my RAM, contians a bunch of features that I do not really need and will disable anyway. And I know a little update could make all the cra`p in Vista work in XP... but heck.. you're a business, and I can except you're money making scams.... heck, all companies screw us over from time to time so feel free to join the party. I don't mind."

The problem with this is Vista is not a substantial step over XP to make it's price justifiable. It's Windows ME all over again.... but worse.

Also. to deny that Vista uses substantially more RAM than XP is living in a fantasy world.

Most new games require you have MORE RAM installed for Vista, rather than XP.

Any gaming will vouch that they get better performance in games with XP over Vista.

Having 2GB of RAM in XP (while gaming) is far better than having 2GB in Vista (while gamig,)

Likewise, having 384mb is fine (and comfortable) for non gaming in XP, where as 1GB is necessary in Vista (unless you bought Vista just to turn off all the features you paid for)

FamiBox

Quite the contrary, I don't particularly care for MS, but as a gamer they're my only viable option, so here I am. Microsoft isn't screwing you over, but I have to ask: How's that tinfoil hat fitting? nice and snug? wouldn't want the evil corporations to read your brainwaves so they can beam advertising in, would you? Also, Vista is nothing like ME. It's actually pretty much the opposite of ME. ME was a steaming pile of bug-ridden trash that didn't even run properly, was notoriously unstable, and would often restore viruses along with the rest of the system. one of Vista's claims to fame is it's stability and security. read up on your history before throwing accusations around.

I'm also not denying that Vista requires more RAM, it's a brand new operating system. It's designed to work with up to date hardware, not the old Pentium 266 and 256 MB of RAM you apparently have running in your computer. Vista uses more RAM, but there are very valid, positive reasons for doing so, and it fully allocates it all back to RAM-heavy apps like games, so there's no reason to complain. There's also no significant performance difference between XP sp3 and Vista sp1 when you have a reasonable amount of RAM, or were you not paying attention to that part?

384 MB of RAM is fine for XP, which makes sense since it came out SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO. do you even have an inkling of understanding of how fast computer hardware shifts? since that time we've had 8 different revisions of the Pentium 4 line, the entire Athlon 64 family, the entire Core 2 Duo family, and we're getting into Quad Core processors now. On the Graphics side of things, we've gone through the nVidia 6000, 7000, 8000, and 9000 lines, and are now on the GT200 series. ATI has gone through the entire X1000 line, the HD 2000 line, and the HD 3000 line, and are now on the HD 4800 series. If you are still running only 384 MB of RAM, you have no business using Vista, or gaming in general, for that matter. If it's that big of an imposition to drop $44 on 2GB of RAM, why are you even complaining about not being able to use DirectX 10 on your computer? you wouldn't be able to handle it anyway.

I agree with those who say the fact alone that Vista offers little to no improvement over XP is what makes it worthy of criticism. Yes, it is a fine operating system, and probably the better buy if you don't already have a computer with XP, but only by a liiiitle bit. That alone brings shame to it in my opinion. With a new operating system (once it's been out a while and it's been refined and had most of the kinks worked out, like Vista), I expect an ENORMOUS improvement with it from the previous one. Especially since Vista came out several years after XP and has been well-refined now, I expect today to be able to look at Vista, look at XP, and go "My God, XP looks like the biggest piece of **** in the world, I'd never use that horrible excuse for an operating system." But no, it's more like "Egghhh... Vista looks a little better. Sort of." And that, to me, makes Vista a disappointment to say the least as a product that is meant to advance past its predecessor.

There is "business" software for Vista, because Vista is Windows and if it works on win 95/98/2000/XP it works on Vista too :roll:

DanielDust

Actually, it was a pretty major issue that Vista was the first windows OS not fully backwards compatible.

Directed @ OP - oh wow, a business didn't bother upgrading their existing software platform to Vista - that's not remotely suprising. It took years upon years until XP was standard in businesses, there are STILL many businesses that run on windows 2000. The company I work in still has to support various legacy platforms (old browsers and flash versions) for our software because our clients haven't bothered upgrading yet.

This has nothing to do with the average joe nonsensical bashing of how 'omg vista sux!1!!'. It's a case of the OS not offering anything in terms of increasing worker productivity.

jollyriot2k1

...which is really funny when you consider the company is....Intel. Hence the article. I don't think the NY Times would have bothered to report on ACME Widgets doing the same thing. But when the "Intel" part of "Wintel" decides against upgrading, it's funny. And sad. Poor Microsoft, dying a slow death in the post-Gates era. Ballmer should be tarred and feathered.

[QUOTE="jollyriot2k1"]

Directed @ OP - oh wow, a business didn't bother upgrading their existing software platform to Vista - that's not remotely suprising. It took years upon years until XP was standard in businesses, there are STILL many businesses that run on windows 2000. The company I work in still has to support various legacy platforms (old browsers and flash versions) for our software because our clients haven't bothered upgrading yet.

This has nothing to do with the average joe nonsensical bashing of how 'omg vista sux!1!!'. It's a case of the OS not offering anything in terms of increasing worker productivity.

attirex

...which is really funny when you consider the company is....Intel. Hence the article. I don't think the NY Times would have bothered to report on ACME Widgets doing the same thing. But when the "Intel" part of "Wintel" decides against upgrading, it's funny. And sad. Poor Microsoft, dying a slow death in the post-Gates era. Ballmer should be tarred and feathered.

I don't get you people :roll: when a COMPANY (Intel, AMD, whatever) doesn't use an OS that costs more to implement (software price, hardware upgrades, maybe even network) you think that that OS is trash. Well if you "think" like that then I will say that XP is trash because a huge number of companies still use 98. If somebody doesn't use/like an OS (Vista) that suddenly means that Microsoft/Windows is dying :roll:. Yeah you are right switch to linux or even better, MAC, it is perfect for you and it doesn't need more resources with every generation and it is good that only a fraction of companies use it, so it won't die :roll:

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]

There is "business" software for Vista, because Vista is Windows and if it works on win 95/98/2000/XP it works on Vista too :roll:

fourier404

Actually, it was a pretty major issue that Vista was the first windows OS not fully backwards compatible.

I'd like to see that with my own eyes. The only problem I encountered was using 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS.

This generation has some screwy new products. PS3 debuting with blu-ray with whopping price tags, now seeing a huge loss in profit, Xbox 360 with the RROD, Nintendo Wii not support High Definition, and the Vista - Do I have to explain? What the hell happened to this generation? I dont want to sound ungrateful. These are are great systems and products but their flaws really stick out.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

So you're argument is... "I love Microsoft." ""Please Microsoft, I know you are a business and want to screw me over with your new OS that eats up all my RAM, contians a bunch of features that I do not really need and will disable anyway. And I know a little update could make all the cra`p in Vista work in XP... but heck.. you're a business, and I can except you're money making scams.... heck, all companies screw us over from time to time so feel free to join the party. I don't mind."

The problem with this is Vista is not a substantial step over XP to make it's price justifiable. It's Windows ME all over again.... but worse.

Also. to deny that Vista uses substantially more RAM than XP is living in a fantasy world.

Most new games require you have MORE RAM installed for Vista, rather than XP.

Any gaming will vouch that they get better performance in games with XP over Vista.

Having 2GB of RAM in XP (while gaming) is far better than having 2GB in Vista (while gamig,)

Likewise, having 384mb is fine (and comfortable) for non gaming in XP, where as 1GB is necessary in Vista (unless you bought Vista just to turn off all the features you paid for)

Mediocre_man90

Quite the contrary, I don't particularly care for MS, but as a gamer they're my only viable option, so here I am. Microsoft isn't screwing you over, but I have to ask: 1*How's that tinfoil hat fitting? nice and snug? wouldn't want the evil corporations to read your brainwaves so they can beam advertising in, would you? Also, Vista is nothing like ME. It's actually pretty much the opposite of ME. ME was a steaming pile of bug-ridden trash that didn't even run properly, was notoriously unstable, and would often restore viruses along with the rest of the system. one of 2*Vista's claims to fame is it's stability and security. read up on your history before throwing accusations around.

3*I'm also not denying that Vista requires more RAM, it's a brand new operating system. It's designed to work with up to date hardware, not the old Pentium 266 and 256 MB of RAM you apparently have running in your computer. Vista uses more RAM, but there are 4*very valid, positive reasons for doing so, and it fully allocates it all back to RAM-heavy apps like games, so there's no reason to complain. There's also no significant performance difference between XP sp3 and Vista sp1 5*when you have a reasonable amount of RAM,or were you not paying attention to that part?

384 MB of RAM is fine for XP, which makes sense since it came out SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO. do you even have an inkling of understanding of how fast computer hardware shifts? since that time we've had 8 different revisions of the Pentium 4 line, the entire Athlon 64 family, the entire Core 2 Duo family, and we're getting into Quad Core processors now. On the Graphics side of things, we've gone through the nVidia 6000, 7000, 8000, and 9000 lines, and are now on the GT200 series. ATI has gone through the entire X1000 line, the HD 2000 line, and the HD 3000 line, and are now on the HD 4800 series. 6*If you are still running only 384 MB of RAM, you have no business using Vista, or gaming in general, for that matter.7*If it's that big of an imposition to drop $44 on 2GB of RAM, why are you even complaining about not being able to use DirectX 10 on your computer?8*you wouldn't be able to handle it anyway.

1*

What the heck are you talking about? advertising What? yeah great, just insult me. Not my fault Vista sucks.

2*

From what I've read Windows Defender is Junk. having pop ups spread over your desktop warning you all the time is ridiculous (and if you turn it off, guess what... you just turned off one of the main vista features you paid for.)

3*

When did I mention about my computer specs? A pathetic jab. My PC could run Vista fine.... (well, fine in the sense that it's vista).. which is not fine at all.

4*

Bloatware is a valid reason?

5*

Having the same amount of RAM in XP is still better.

6*

Thank you for making my point. Yes, you would have no business running Vista with 384MB of RAM - because that's not possible.... but for XP, it is fine and very comfortable for non gaming purposes.

7*

The price of RAM is irrelevant, as having the same amount in XP will always be better value.

8*

Another pathetic, irrelevant jab.

Fact: Vista sucks.

It's hardly the only company that is never going to upgrade to vista,something like only 30% of enterprises and business are/and plan to upgrade/use vista machines.

Vista is a flop in all areas,even DX10 is a flop.

"'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said."

Then what does this say about Vista? The OS is bad, yes, but Intel not upgrading because there isn't any reason to isn't why Vista is bad.

BladeMaster84

if all their programs run on xp and it costs a lot of money to upgrade to run vista, then there is no real reason to run vista. right?

What the heck are you talking about? advertising What? yeah great, just insult me. Not my fault Vista sucks.

From what I've read Windows Defender is Junk. having pop ups spread over your desktop warning you all the time is ridiculous (and if you turn it off, guess what... you just turned off one of the main vista features you paid for.)

When did I mention about my computer specs? A pathetic jab. My PC could run Vista fine.... (well, fine in the sense that it's vista).. which is not fine at all.

Bloatware is a valid reason?

Having the same amount of RAM in XP is still better.

Thank you for making my point. Yes, you would have no business running Vista with 384MB of RAM - because that's not possible.... but for XP, it is fine and very comfortable for non gaming purposes.

The price of RAM is irrelevant, as having the same amount in XP will always be better value

Another pathetic, irrelevant jab.

Fact: Vista sucks.

FamiBox

1. I was pointing out that you seem to have an irrational paranoia, and that you apparently think that all companies are screwing you over because they want to make money (which is actually the whole point of business)

2."From what you've read," eh? I wasn't aware that Windows Defender was a problem. I always thought that Defender was Microsoft's anti-spyware software. oh well, you obviously know exactly what you're talking about, and are much better qualified to discuss the OS. I mean, I'm just using it as we speak, and have had no problems with Defender at all.

3. You didn't make any mention of your computer specs, I just figured that since you are so intent on complaining about Vista requiring a perfectly reasonable amount of RAM, you are running outdated hardware. Ohterwise, there's really no reason for you to be complaining. Unless you expect system requirements to remain the same for 7 years, in which case you have no business with computers.

4.It's not bloatware, it serves a useful purpose, and actually utilizes the RAM that XP lets sit in your case and do nothing.

5.No, having the same amount of RAM means that you have the same amount of RAM. Vista just happens to use said RAM to make your frequently run programs load up faster. obviously it needs some RAM to work with here, but it doesn't need anywhere near the amount you are under the impression that it needs.

6.I didn't make your point, unless your point is that you know nothing about how fast computer hardware improves, and why system requirements are constantly increasing. Vista won't run on 384 MB of RAM because nobody who knows anything about computers should have that little RAM in their system. Hell, even your average slack-jawed yokel who doesn't know the first thing about computers has at least 512 MB, because that's what Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. give them. None of those prebuilt system manufacturers even sell computers without 1GB anymore. A system with 384 Megs of RAM is outdated, and should either be upgraded or put out of it's misery.

7.I don't know, I don't consider it a very good value to spend money on something just to have it sit and do nothing for a significant chunk of my time using it. I'd much rather get my money's worth by having said RAM actually do something to improve my experience.

8.No, it's not an irrelevant jab, it's an educated guess on the caliber of your system based on your complaints. If someone is frustrated that Vista doesn't run well on their computer, there's about a 97% chance that the reason for their problem is outdated hardware. If you have problems running the OS, you aren't going to be able to use a brand new graphics API, because said API requires a very good setup to actually take advantage of. I suppose you would be complaining about that, too, if you could use it, but Evil Microsoft won't give it to you for free, so the gaming world is spared of your indignant fury.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

What the heck are you talking about? advertising What? yeah great, just insult me. Not my fault Vista sucks.

From what I've read Windows Defender is Junk. having pop ups spread over your desktop warning you all the time is ridiculous (and if you turn it off, guess what... you just turned off one of the main vista features you paid for.)

When did I mention about my computer specs? A pathetic jab. My PC could run Vista fine.... (well, fine in the sense that it's vista).. which is not fine at all.

Bloatware is a valid reason?

Having the same amount of RAM in XP is still better.

Thank you for making my point. Yes, you would have no business running Vista with 384MB of RAM - because that's not possible.... but for XP, it is fine and very comfortable for non gaming purposes.

The price of RAM is irrelevant, as having the same amount in XP will always be better value

Another pathetic, irrelevant jab.

Fact: Vista sucks.

Mediocre_man90

1. I was pointing out that you seem to have an irrational paranoia, and that you apparently think that all companies are screwing you over because they want to make money (which is actually the whole point of business)

2."From what you've read," eh? I wasn't aware that Windows Defender was a problem. I always thought that Defender was Microsoft's anti-spyware software. oh well, you obviously know exactly what you're talking about, and are much better qualified to discuss the OS. I mean, I'm just using it as we speak, and have had no problems with Defender at all.

3. You didn't make any mention of your computer specs, I just figured that since you are so intent on complaining about Vista requiring a perfectly reasonable amount of RAM, you are running outdated hardware. Ohterwise, there's really no reason for you to be complaining. Unless you expect system requirements to remain the same for 7 years, in which case you have no business with computers.

4.It's not bloatware, it serves a useful purpose, and actually utilizes the RAM that XP lets sit in your case and do nothing.

5.No, having the same amount of RAM means that you have the same amount of RAM. Vista just happens to use said RAM to make your frequently run programs load up faster. obviously it needs some RAM to work with here, but it doesn't need anywhere near the amount you are under the impression that it needs.

6.I didn't make your point, unless your point is that you know nothing about how fast computer hardware improves, and why system requirements are constantly increasing. Vista won't run on 384 MB of RAM because nobody who knows anything about computers should have that little RAM in their system. Hell, even your average slack-jawed yokel who doesn't know the first thing about computers has at least 512 MB, because that's what Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. give them. None of those prebuilt system manufacturers even sell computers without 1GB anymore. A system with 384 Megs of RAM is outdated, and should either be upgraded or put out of it's misery.

7.I don't know, I don't consider it a very good value to spend money on something just to have it sit and do nothing for a significant chunk of my time using it. I'd much rather get my money's worth by having said RAM actually do something to improve my experience.

8.No, it's not an irrelevant jab, it's an educated guess on the caliber of your system based on your complaints. If someone is frustrated that Vista doesn't run well on their computer, there's about a 97% chance that the reason for their problem is outdated hardware. If you have problems running the OS, you aren't going to be able to use a brand new graphics API, because said API requires a very good setup to actually take advantage of. I suppose you would be complaining about that, too, if you could use it, but Evil Microsoft won't give it to you for free, so the gaming world is spared of your indignant fury.

What ever helps you to sleep at night.

No need to be so hostile though.

From NYTimes.com:

Intel, the giant chip maker and longtime partner of Microsoft, has decided against upgrading the computers of its own 80,000 employees to Microsoft's Vista operating system, a person with direct knowledge of the company's plans said.

The person, who has been briefed on the situation but requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of Intel's relationship with Microsoft, said the company made its decision after a lengthy analysis by its internal technology staff of the costs and potential benefits of moving to Windows Vista, which has drawn fire from many customers as a buggy, bloated program that requires costly hardware upgrades to run smoothly.

'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said.

An Intel spokesman said the company was testing and deploying Vista in certain departments, but not across the company.

attirex

I bout I Laptop just this week with Vista on it. After using it for several hours (Read: fighting the OS to get the damn thing to do what I want) I formated the hard drive and installed Windows XP. I still haven't decided whether or not I want to format the hard drive again and go with Linux or dual boot with Linux and Windows XP but at least Windows XP works OK. BTW, can anyone tell me if going with Windows XP (and thus DX9 rather than DX10) will harm my performance on games really badly?

[QUOTE="attirex"]

From NYTimes.com:

Intel, the giant chip maker and longtime partner of Microsoft, has decided against upgrading the computers of its own 80,000 employees to Microsoft's Vista operating system, a person with direct knowledge of the company's plans said.

The person, who has been briefed on the situation but requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of Intel's relationship with Microsoft, said the company made its decision after a lengthy analysis by its internal technology staff of the costs and potential benefits of moving to Windows Vista, which has drawn fire from many customers as a buggy, bloated program that requires costly hardware upgrades to run smoothly.

'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said.

An Intel spokesman said the company was testing and deploying Vista in certain departments, but not across the company.

trakem

I bout I Laptop just this week with Vista on it. After using it for several hours (Read: fighting the OS to get the damn thing to do what I want) I formated the hard drive and installed Windows XP. I still haven't decided whether or not I want to format the hard drive again and go with Linux or dual boot with Linux and Windows XP but at least Windows XP works OK. BTW, can anyone tell me if going with Windows XP (and thus DX9 rather than DX10) will harm my performance on games really badly?

WoW that sounds like you got Vista figured out :roll:.

No on a laptop it will increase maybe, depends on your laptop.

[QUOTE="trakem"][QUOTE="attirex"]

From NYTimes.com:

Intel, the giant chip maker and longtime partner of Microsoft, has decided against upgrading the computers of its own 80,000 employees to Microsoft's Vista operating system, a person with direct knowledge of the company's plans said.

The person, who has been briefed on the situation but requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of Intel's relationship with Microsoft, said the company made its decision after a lengthy analysis by its internal technology staff of the costs and potential benefits of moving to Windows Vista, which has drawn fire from many customers as a buggy, bloated program that requires costly hardware upgrades to run smoothly.

'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said.

An Intel spokesman said the company was testing and deploying Vista in certain departments, but not across the company.

DanielDust

I bout I Laptop just this week with Vista on it. After using it for several hours (Read: fighting the OS to get the damn thing to do what I want) I formated the hard drive and installed Windows XP. I still haven't decided whether or not I want to format the hard drive again and go with Linux or dual boot with Linux and Windows XP but at least Windows XP works OK. BTW, can anyone tell me if going with Windows XP (and thus DX9 rather than DX10) will harm my performance on games really badly?

WoW that sounds like you got Vista figured out :roll:.

No on a laptop it will increase maybe, depends on your laptop.

Eh, it's possible to use Vista, but it just makes everything more difficult than it needs to be. Somehow they've found a way to make the OS more Miky-Mouse-ish and yet at the same time harder to work with.

My Laptop has 2GB of RAM and ATI Radeon HD 2600 graphics card.

Well IMO structure wise it's almost XP but that doesn't matter.

You didn't say CPU because Vista can use enough of an old CPU but the system is new so I guess you have at least a decent CPU. It will be faster but just a little and the main thing is that it will boot faster. Performance wise (in desktop) almost the same.