So do you think the whole Microsoft Vista thing is like a New Coke strategy? They give us Vista, take away XP, we all get infuriated and realize how good we had it with XP, then later they re-release XP as “Windows Classic.”
“Installing Windows Classic is like adding an extra Gig of memory to your computer!”
It would sell like hot cakes!
If anything, I bet you can relate the economic collapse to Vista. There probably isn’t a business out there that hasn’t taken a productivity hit from having to deal with its crap. So what does Vista do with that extra Gig of memory it sucks up anyway? Does it need that all to make the title bars translucent?
“Of course it does! Do you realize how hard it is to make title bars translucent? Ignorant PCeon. You probably bought an iPod, too. Never question PC, because PC is the best. PC is the best. PC is the best…”
Millenium Edition, anyone?
i have vista on my new pc at work. runs great.
what’s the issue again?
A gig of RAM costs less than a Big Mac — what is everybody so bitchy about?
Because I want a Big Mac more than I want Vista.
Speaking of Mac…
from a business perspective: I asked my boss a while back when we would move to vista, he said “24 months to never”. Businesses aren’t using Vista
Speaking as the only person in the world that likes Vista, I’ll echo Charon Blackpowder’s comment: Millennium Edition?
That gig of RAM is used for testing the beta version of Skynet.
They’re bitchy cause Mac’s didn’t have affordable RAM until they started running on a PC platform. They are ashamed of their hippy computers.
Years ago, I asked “How much money do we have to give these guys before they get it right?” I’m still asking that question. Jobs was right; they have such a mediocre product.
I thought that is what IMAO was secretly all about. How else could FrankJ contain all the Fred Thompson/Sarah Palin awesomeness unless it was a super computer from the future?
Jimmy’s wimpy, hippy Mac is just jealous of our awesome PCs.
Is it possible that Bill Gates has finally pulled his head out of his parallel port and realized that it is sometimes helpful to listen to customers instead of shutting them out? Buying anything from Microsoft these days is like buying a first model year Volkswagen. When something breaks down or falls off due to insufficient pre-market testing (or poor quality standards at the Mexican plant), the dealer ignores your complaints and tries to invalidate your warranty. If you want to buy a Mark V Jetta, wait a few years after the first one is released. The same goes with anything called “Windows.”
Tommy’s wimpy, hippy Mac is just jealous of our awesome PCs.
I have yet to experience a problem with Vista. Of course, I have all the “gee-whiz” graphics turned off as well (I use this computer for music recording, which sucks up a LOT of resources). Vista has been totally stable and all of my old software still works great on it.
Having written that, I realize that only me and approximately 5.2 other people can actually make this claim.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, Tim, I like mediocre products. Especially when they reach out and grab your face like the egg critter from Alien before you can hit the Escape Key. Then you see the blue screen of death and you KNOW you’re in Balmer heaven where God throws chairs at you. For many dollars less, you could’ve had
a V-8Linux.Windows… wait a sec… oh yeah, that’s what I used to have on my computer until about eight years ago, until I replaced it with Linux and never had a reason to complain about my computer ever again.
Comparing Linux to Windows is like comparing Fred Thompson to Walter Mondale. Comparing Linux to Vista is like comparing Fred Thompson to Walter Mondale, while Mondale is trying to drag Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile out of the river, while Kennedy stands on the hood and fills the passenger compartment with several gallons of recycled bourbon.
I like Vista…. it ‘uses’ a lot of memory because it keeps the memory in the RAM rather than caching most of it to the hard drive. It actually only uses about 300 more MB than XP.
And don’t get me started on how overrated Linux is, Keith.
Rubeus: I can’t speak for everyone, I can only speak out of my own experience. My experience is that Windows sucked up hard disk space, memory, and cash for the decade I ran it, and I kept getting in line to buy the next big upgrade, despite every time I encountered the dreaded Blue Screen of Death – right up to the day I decided to give Linux a chance.
I’ve never crashed Linux. I’ve never been able to crash Linux. And I’ve never found anything I need that can’t be done better on Linux than on Windows. Your experience or your needs may be different from mine – I primarily use office suite applications, Internet, mail, networking, a CAD program, and a lot of home-office applications. FOR MY PURPOSES, Linux does more, with less hardware, with less memory, for less money, than Windows; I wouldn’t call that “overrated.” I dunno, your own needs may be different. If you’ve got some needs that Windows does better, more power to you – that’s why they call it a free-market economy. I’d honestly be fascinated to know the specifics behind your statement. As for me, I’ve got eight years of continuous trouble-free Linux wonderfulness, presently running on three very happy machines.
Or, we could get together for a beer and bag on Macs together.
But I do like that Thompson-Mondale metaphor.
I’ve got 4 GB of RAM, so I don’t really care.
The extra GB Vista takes up holds commonly used programs, which lets them load and start up faster. Not that not noticeable, but I’ve never had a problem anyways.
And I like my translucent bars too… and that’s more my video card anyways.
“bdog57 says:
December 8th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I have yet to experience a problem with Vista. Of course, I have all the “gee-whiz” graphics turned off as well (I use this computer for music recording, which sucks up a LOT of resources). Vista has been totally stable and all of my old software still works great on it.
Having written that, I realize that only me and approximately 5.2 other people can actually make this claim.”
Bah! I got a new laptop and the hardware will only run on Vista for some reason. Most of my music production software works fine, but my guitar synths don’t work, well with the exception of the substandard Slayer 2.
Windows XP = Windows Classic. I like it!
But … it could lead to Diet Windows (Windows 98) or Windows Zero (ME).
Anyway, we run Windows XP on The Wife’s Dell laptop.
My MacBook runs OS X 10.5.5 (Leopard). And Windows XP, for those times I need to use Internet Explorer. (A pox on those Websites!)
Vista took one too many craps in my face – I have a brand new Mac.
the same people who bitch about Vista taking up too much RAM are the same people who bitch about other people buying SUV’s.
I’ll use as much RAM as I damn well please.
F(#)%*ing computer hippies.
I have PCs because I need them for work. If Mac would make a laptop for less than double the price of the PC equivalent, I’d be more inclined. I started work at a Mac developer nearly 19 years ago and loved it, and will eventually get one… Just like I’ve been saying for 19 years.
Microsoft does barely enough to not look completely obsolete compared to Mac. That said, Windows 7, coming out next year in theory, is basically a cleaner, faster, lighter weight version of Vista.
> Kent says:
> December 8th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
> Windows 7, coming out next year in theory, is basically a cleaner, faster, lighter weight version of Vista.
So, Vista is Windows 7 Beta?
Our viewpoint at work, and my personal view, is that Vista doesn’t give me anything outside of XP, that would motivate me to upgrade hardware, and I, and the user PC farm at work, would all have to be upgraded for CPU and memory. In return for what ?
We recently rolled out Tablet PC’s as well for certain staff, and we tried Vista. There were too many things that were broken on Vista on Tablet PC to even consider it for more than a nanosecond. and that was with Vista SP1. Vista is a Truly unbelievably worthless product.
If I get to where I need a new PC, I’ll build the mother myself if I have to in order to not move to Vista.
Kent says: That said, Windows 7, coming out next year in theory, is basically a cleaner, faster, lighter weight version of Vista.
Has anyone figured out where they’re getting “Windows 7” from? Just the main consumer versions: Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista – would make the next one at least “Windows 9”. And that’s assuming we ignore 2000, NT, 98SE, CE, and probably a few other versions I can’t think of at the moment.
I’ve got to figure out why all the Linux distros I’ve tried don’t like my monitor…
You forgot about the “major minor” releases. And that holds the secret.
For example, Windows 3.1 was the first “really useful” of Windows, marking a major improvement over the 3.0 interface, and a “major minor” release. Windows 3.11 was a “minor minor” release, working functionally like 3.1. It was essentially 3.1 SP 1.
With that in mind, Windows 95 was Windows 4.00, while Windows 98 was Windows 4.10, while Windows ME was Windows 4.90. Oh, and Windows 98 SE was essentially a Service Pack (Windows 4.10.2222A). At least, that’s according to Microsoft.
Windows XP would be Windows 5.
Windows Vista would be Windows 6.
Now, remember Windows NT? Business OS. Like Windows 2000.
Then there’s Windows 2003 Server, which is for running a server, not a desktop, laptop, or workstation. It goes on and one.
As for all those silly versions of Windows Vista (Home, Home Premium, etc), they’re not “versions” but “editions.” Think 2009 Chevrolet Impala: LS, LT, LTZ, and SS. Essentially the same version, just different editions.
See? Simple. And you didn’t need your Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring. Although the results would be about the same.
I run a MAC. I’m an IT Consultant also. MAC’s run on RISC architecture. Anyone who gets it knows this is far superior to CISC PC architecture and my experience with my MAC bears this out. I also run Tiger which Microsoft has tried very hard to copy with VISTA. It is wonderful! Corporate America has far too much invested in PC’s to ever make the change which is too bad because their productivity would increase and costs at the Help Desk would decrease if they went with MACs!
Vista looks really cool….if you don’t need to find something on it. Why does m$ have to move everything around to where you can’t find it every time they revise the stupid code??? It might be more acceptable if vista came with a “classic” install feature that made it work like xp. Good call, Frank!!
They could’ve OWNED the business desktop hands down if they made an XP lite that was just the OS, not all the bells, whistles & kitchen sinks. Then I could add only the features I wanted when needed.
And hippy macs (good name whoever came up with that)… way too expensive for the performance curve. Plus, none of my business apps run on it. Yeah, that’s useful. I have to admit tho….those macbook air’s look really cool.
And linux…what a nice little gadget. It’s cool. It looks neat. But it takes 10x longer to set up than ANY pc I’ve ever configured. And contrary to popular opinion, it isn’t near as stable as it’s purported to be. I HAD a server running linux (which was forced on me by the parent company) that my email system ran on. It locked and crashed just about as much as win98 does.
I guess none of them is perfect. The bad thing is m$ will rush win7 out the door so they can finally stop the likes of hp, lenovo, dell, etc from letting us actually get an OS that’s useful installed on our pc’s.
My 8gb of Ram on Vista 64-bit is running awesome. And WoW plays great on the 24″ widescreen FP display… It’s much better than the linux box to the left and the crappy intel mac to my right… all of which sit on my desk. Oh and my Intel Mac Book…as soon as work bought it for me and I received it, I loaded windows XP on it… so that tells you how much I love mac 😉
I love Vista. I ran Vista Ultimate for about 6 months on one 512mb RAM chip. I had no problems. I finally got a 1 gb Ram chip, just in case. I still say Vista is an improvement over XP, although it is marginal, and like others have mentioned before, does everyone here forget Windows ME?
Why? Are we supposed to keep Windows ME fresh in our minds every day or something? Remember that big ass zit you had on the tip of your nose before the big date? Remember? Never forget it. Keep thinking you still have that zit.
most people who complain about Vista have never actually USED it, they either read about it being “bad” or installed it on their old hardware.
wah wah….vista doesn’t run on my 4-year-old computer.
following your logic – DOS ran on 640k or RAM – why the hell would any OS ever need more? Heck, my Atari 800 ran on 16k and my friends thought I was just showing off and wasting the world’s resources because I had 64k in mine.
Today those people are a bunch of welfare-sucking hippies and I’m one of the head I.T. guys at a very very large company you’ve heard of.
I tried Vista when it was beta (longhorn). I couldn’t get it off my HD fast enough. My old ME machine sucked, too. I stripped it, formatted the HD, and used it for extra space on my XP pro machine. Now I have I have a laptop and two PC’s (one with XP Pro and two with home), and I have an old dell running Fedora core6 Linux (Gnome GUI) at my desk, with a KVM switch. I use Firefox as my browser and I’ve been problem free for a long time.
My wife, on the other hand, has a newer Dell with a 4 GB dual core processor running Vista Home Basic. She uses IE7 for her browser. She has to clean the spyware and malware off of it on a weekly basis. It crashes daily and some times several times a day. It goes into a bootup loop and the only way it can be recovered is by going into it’s last known config. When I see her blue screen I head for the shop to avoid her rage.
The Coke analogy was spot-on, Frank. I remember waiting for it to come out. When it did, I don’t remember whether I spit it out or drank it anyway. I do know I never drank another one until they brought back what worked for me.
“Drink more Ovaltine”?
HATE VISTA!, but it looks cool. Someone once did a study about hardware performance as a function of the software running on it and they found that the curve was flat. That is, when you use the current software on the current “really exceptionally fast uber” hardware it isn’t any faster in operation than that first 286 that you had 20 years ago. I would like to install the first Windows on my current machine to account for this!
For all you Mac hippys, if I had half a million dollars that I didn’t plan on using for anything else, I’d buy a Mac too.
Hippy? Hippy!!??!!
Don’t make come over there!
Hey, I like my MacBook. And, yes, my mid-range (at the time) MacBook cost more than a mid-range Dell notebook.
But it works. No BSOD. Sure, the OS requires updates from time-to-time, but no “Patch Tuesday” regularity as does Windows.
My first Microsoft OS computer ran MS-DOS 2.11. My last ran Windows XP SP3.
I used (but never owned) Macs over the years. They were good, but not enough to make me change over. Last year, I was convinced they got it right. Vista being Vista helped. My current computer is a Mac. My next will be a Mac.
Oh, and I also have Windows installed on it, in addition to OS X. I can continue to use Windows. That way, I can help friends and family with their regular Windows issues.
Frank, I’ve got a very classic and succinct explanation for you:
http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2003/04/personifying-microchip
ALEX: Mark, computers do not mock.
MARK: They certainly do.
ALEX: Mark, computers do not mock. They’re inanimate objects, for crying out loud…
MARK: They are sentient and malevolent, and they plot against me.
ALEX: Mark, they do not —
MARK: Alex, think. Every year, computers get faster and faster… but software keeps running at about the same speed. Where does all that extra power go?
(Silence.)
MARK: It goes to EVIL, Alex. It goes to EVIL.