Well XP is a nice OS too. I may go back to that because I do audio work and my programs were designed specifically for that.
The problems I had with Vista have been rectified, but Windows 7 leaves it in the dust. So that's why I'm looking forward to the RC.
I'll repeat the problem I had with Vista, when it first came out, my hardware would not work with it. Vista was totally unusable for me. So I had no choice but to revert back to XP.
Havoxx, I wish to offer an opposing view to "who's to blame". I don't know how old you are or how much "computer experience" (in years) you have, but I remember the criteria years ago of "backward compatibility". Microsoft threw that away with XP and now has adopted a policy of "planned obsolence". One instance of this is a graphics program that I learned to use when I was using DOS 5/Windows 3.11. I used this same program (application) through Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 pro and even in XP, with some reduced functionality. When Vista came along, this program will not even attempt to install. Now part of this is the "planned obsolence" policy that Microsoft has adopted and part is due to the fact that the whole computer world is inside out. There should be a worldwide organization that sets recommended protocol for software and the OS be written to run ANY software that conforms to that protocol. When someone writes an application, their work should be done on that application. They shouldn't have to keep re-writing it over and over because the rules have changed in midstream (Because Microsoft has made the application obsolete.) This just costs the public more money and reduces productivity.
When I use an application for 10 years and suddenly it doesn't work on the current OS, what has changed? There is the problem.
The vista aero took up too much memory for the hardware that was out there on its release. Now with bigger hard drives and motherboards able to handle huge amounts of memory vista aero runs smooth. Vista runs great on the upper memory machines just gets bad P.R.,.
That will be solved with Windows 7.
ery good post
Vista was a fairly expensive option for some people not all but few people then had the memory or the best hardware to run Vista well .
Last edited by whoosh; 04-27-2009 at 02:55 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
I've only been into computers for about 9 years now, in that time I've spent a little over 7k on PC's, and I had a top of the line last year, it's outdated now, but it runs everything fine, for now, will I need to upgrade? No doubt in my mind. I know some older programs are great, I for one miss my SP firewall, that doesn't exist anymore, at least not for vista, or 7, but I moved on, and that's how it should be.
I've been mostly a gamer, and as you know, if you don't upgrade for gaming, you can't run squat with nice graphics, but there are people that refuse to upgrade, and in games like Anarchy online, and World of warcraft, that are perfect examples of how things evolve, people still refuse to upgrade, and they lag, complain about bugs, and it's not because of the OS, it's because of them refusing to adapt.
I understand your point of view, I really do, but in the case of technology, that view can't be applied, if I tried to do schoolwork with office 2k, I wouldn't be able to read anyone's items, nor would they mine, and I think that's fine, because if we don't move forward, then we are just standing still.
I read what I write, and I swear, I'm a MS fanboy, but I really do give them credit, even as Windows 7 isn't even finished, they are working on Windows 8, evolving, and moving forward. I believe this is how it has to be, with Windows 7, there are bigger guidelines, and companies will have to MAKE SURE they're programs work on 64-bit, in 2-3 years, 32-bit will be obsolete, and that's how it should be. If you choose to stay behind, then I think it's only because you chose to, no-one is forcing you, PC's are so cheap now-a-days, that honestly, there isn't a reason to not upgrade.
Last edited by Havoxx; 04-27-2009 at 05:09 PM.
So Whoosh, are you saying that my graphics program thst ran perfectly well on a 66 Mhz 486 DX-2 processor with 16 MB memory (if memory serves me correctly) and a 540 MB hard drive (not GB) will not run on my Vista machine because a Pentium D 2.8 Ghz dual core processor and 2 GB memory is not enough horsepower? Could I expect this program to run on Vista if I had an i-core processor, and 4 GB ram maybe?
Software incompatability is not because of lack of horsepower, it is due to planned obsolence on the part of Microsoft.
I don't think that's exactly what he meant, but in reply to your post, why would you need a program that ran on a calculator to run now?
Also, this is the same for everything, not just computers, you can't put a part from a 1990 car into a 2000+ car, it won't be the same, because it's since been obsolete, that goes for mostly everything else, I will say though, computers are the one thing that when a technology dies out, you can't find it, I know a year ago or so, DDR1 ram was almost twice the cost of DDR2.
Edit: What's rep power?
Last edited by Havoxx; 04-27-2009 at 05:07 PM.
the rest looks kinda confused .
My first computer was a 486DX . Then they bought in the new Pentium and my puter was now in the old catergory
My puter with 4 meg of ram had trouble running windows 95 ! Try running Vista =no way
Last edited by whoosh; 04-27-2009 at 05:33 PM.