Mojave to Revive Vista's Image?

Do people still use the tired old "Microshaft" and "M$" terminology crap?
 
I am so happy to see this, I am so tired of all the vista hate from the mac adds. They definitely crossed the line IMHO.
 
(Sorry no edit)

Is it just me or are some people in this discussion treating Mojave like it's a real thing... you all DO know it was a fake name given to what they presented to these people as the 'new' MS OS... at least that's what I got from the article....
 
Vista is a very good OS. Far better then XP was IMHO especially with some of the changes like the new driver model, security in general, and the changes to the GPO. Don't get me wrong, XP was a fantastic OS. Vista just built on that quality.

I've been with Vista since 2 weeks after it's release. I used Vista Ultimate 32-bit (on my old PC, one in my sig is only 2 weeks old) for 11 months then moved to Vista Ultimate x64 and haven't looked back.

I also have a Dell Inspiron 1420 laptop that runs Home Premium 32-bit. Runs like a champ thanks to the $85 4GB of RAM I installed versus the $250 2GB Dell was offering as the time. ;) Zero issues on the laptop. Although I did make sure I have Intel wireless as the Dell branded wireless is Broadcom and their drivers are less then stellar.

Every person I've convinced to move to Vista, after all their hatred based on the Apple commericals and general FUD spread through the news, haven't even thought about going back. They've all realized that it was nothing but BS and lies about Vista. It's not Microsoft's fault that companies like nVidia had craptacular drivers for Vista for many months while ATI's support was nearly flawless from the beginning. I started with Crossfired X1950 Pros and moved to Crossfired HD3870s before my current PC and never saw a single issue.

For those complaining about Vista in a business environment: some of you make it seem like in-house programs not running on an OS is something new. I was an Intern for Cisco System's when I was in college. I watched them upgrade from Windows 95B to Windows 2000 Pro in 2001!!!! I don't recall anybody bashing XP because Cisco skipped it when it came out. But Intel passes on Vista and it's the end of the world. Even the best IT businesses move slowly on infrastructure changes due to cost and compatibility.

Hell right now I work for a government agency that works with a Point-of-Sale system. This POS system currently runs on Windows NT. Yes, that's right...Windows NT. Only last year did we start migrating some of these systems to WEPOS which is nothing but XP streamlined for POS systems.

Panhead said:
Vista is a fundamental change of the personal computer. Users no longer have unrestricted access to the programs running on their computer. All other OSes allow the user to determine exactly what any process is executing on the computer. The PC has been transformed into a media appliance. Antirus software cannot determine if there is malicious code in protected processes.
Users can no longer independently verify what processes are doing on their computer. The protected process concept invites exploitation by hackers as means to hide their malware. The code bloat to support the protected process functionality slows the computer. The MPAA is the only entity that benefits from this DRM and the consumer foots the bill.
I don't think Microsoft would intentually put malicious code in a protected process, but the fact that no one other than Microsoft can determine what the process are actually doing on the PC is disconcerting.
Click to expand...

QFT! Perfect way to describe DRM and protected processes. Although I would like to see proof that the "code bloat" actually slows the PC down. :p

-V
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
It might be different if you have a state of the art desktop, but speaking as a person who uses Vista on their laptop, the drivers crash to often. The wireless networking service is problematic as well. It doesn't matter whose fault it is; crashes are bad. On the other hand Vista is much better for Tablet functionality, so I'll probably reformat it again for the third time. I've already had to format it because it kept blue screening at boot up and finally corrupted so many boot files it couldn't boot anymore. My experience has been less than flawless, but a lot of it may be shitty Gateway hardware as well.
Click to expand...

Exavior said:
Odd, i ran it on my hp laptop since the first beta till release and it never had any trouble with wireless networking on that.
Click to expand...

I've had Vista on my laptop (HP as well) for over a year now and I haven't had any problems with it. The wireless networking is one of my favorite parts of the OS :)
 
This will work like gangbusters.

I have Vista and I can say that I got so sick of the stupid Aero interface sucking up RAM that I turned it off. Why the hell would I want Mojave?
 
Modred189 said:
(Sorry no edit)

Is it just me or are some people in this discussion treating Mojave like it's a real thing... you all DO know it was a fake name given to what they presented to these people as the 'new' MS OS...
Click to expand...

emaciated said:
I have Vista and I can say that I got so sick of the stupid Aero interface sucking up RAM that I turned it off. Why the hell would I want Mojave?
Click to expand...

SEE! See what i mean! Emaciated, you dried up bulimic retard ( I had to come up with something, lol), Mojave is FAKE. No, Mojave IS VISTA!!! Did you read the article!? Did you even click on the little gold link to it? Did you think about it!?

NO. You are an irrational, and unhealthily skinny, anti-vista fanatic who has no idea what theya re talking about and are not willing to read an article to find out.

By the way, aero takes up little ram as it uses the graphics card.
 
Exavior said:
Odd, i ran it on my hp laptop since the first beta till release and it never had any trouble with wireless networking on that.
Click to expand...

Same, run it on a bunch of laptops and no issue so far.
 
emaciated said:
This will work like gangbusters.

I have Vista and I can say that I got so sick of the stupid Aero interface sucking up RAM that I turned it off. Why the hell would I want Mojave?
Click to expand...

I wonder how many Mac users look at the memory their processes use? At any rate it east about the same amount of RAM that an instance of FireFox 3 uses with 12 open tabs. Big damn deal. On a modern machine that's nothing.
 
heatlesssun said:
On a modern machine that's nothing.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a lot of Vista apologetics saying that Vista runs great but only on "modern" hardware.

Now I'm a gamer, so I upgrade about every 3 years maximum (assuming my overworked, overclocked rig lasts that long in one piece), so obviously I can see how that would apply to me. I'm sure "Aero's 4w3s0m3" and "Vista has more GHz" or whatever nonsense, but I'd rather spend my money on games and hardware than a new OS that gives me little more than a rearranging of control panels and buttons and a bunch of background processes that I don't use and can't disable.

But gamers are like 5% of home PC users, and the average PC user waits until their current system dies to replace it. Hardware is getting both cheaper and longer lasting lately (despite distributors like Dell and Gateway trying to change that). An average PC owner could use the same PC for 8 years with little hardware error.

Now why would these people want to upgrade 4 year old hardware just so they can use a new OS? What of a $250 copy of Vista is worth an $800-$1200 upgrade (or the original $250 for that matter) compared to an already purchased copy of XP?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing Vista for being worse than XP: Vista is a step or two up from XP. But, when the average home PC owner is involved, it better be an entire flight of stairs above the previous version for $1000-$1500.
 
Optimus said:
But gamers are like 5% of home PC users, and the average PC user waits until their current system dies to replace it. Hardware is getting both cheaper and longer lasting lately (despite distributors like Dell and Gateway trying to change that). An average PC owner could use the same PC for 8 years with little hardware error.

Now why would these people want to upgrade 4 year old hardware just so they can use a new OS? What of a $250 copy of Vista is worth an $800-$1200 upgrade (or the original $250 for that matter) compared to an already purchased copy of XP?
Click to expand...

I don't think you should look at it this way.
I personally bought Vista separately because I bought a new high-end Core2 Duo system a few months before Vista was available.
Had I bought my system a few months later, it'd probably be with Vista bundled because the machine could easily handle it.

But for people with older machines, why would they bother upgrading when their OS works, and Vista might not work as good?
I don't think that's the point anyway. Most PCs sold today should be able to run Vista easily, and Vista is usually bundled... The thing that surprises me is that people would even go and remove Vista and downgrade to XP.
I've not looked back at XP often since I started using Vista. People who downgrade a PC that has enough power to run Vista adequately, are missing the point.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with not upgrading a system when it already works fine.
But there's also nothing wrong with not downgrading a system when it already works fine... and that's something that's somehow accepted?
 
Optimus said:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing Vista for being worse than XP: Vista is a step or two up from XP. But, when the average home PC owner is involved, it better be an entire flight of stairs above the previous version for $1000-$1500.
Click to expand...

The amount of hardware you need to use vista is overblown. As long as you've got a basic graphics card, 1GB of RAM, and a decent processor from the last 4 years it runs fine.

Vista runs fine on my roommate's old laptop with a 1.6 GHz Pentium M, 1 GB Ram, and a Mobility Radeon X300.
 
Optimus said:
There seems to be a lot of Vista apologetics saying that Vista runs great but only on "modern" hardware.

Now I'm a gamer, so I upgrade about every 3 years maximum (assuming my overworked, overclocked rig lasts that long in one piece), so obviously I can see how that would apply to me. I'm sure "Aero's 4w3s0m3" and "Vista has more GHz" or whatever nonsense, but I'd rather spend my money on games and hardware than a new OS that gives me little more than a rearranging of control panels and buttons and a bunch of background processes that I don't use and can't disable.

But gamers are like 5% of home PC users, and the average PC user waits until their current system dies to replace it. Hardware is getting both cheaper and longer lasting lately (despite distributors like Dell and Gateway trying to change that). An average PC owner could use the same PC for 8 years with little hardware error.

Now why would these people want to upgrade 4 year old hardware just so they can use a new OS? What of a $250 copy of Vista is worth an $800-$1200 upgrade (or the original $250 for that matter) compared to an already purchased copy of XP?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing Vista for being worse than XP: Vista is a step or two up from XP. But, when the average home PC owner is involved, it better be an entire flight of stairs above the previous version for $1000-$1500.
Click to expand...

Well, you can buy a 'modern' system for about $400 that will run vista, and most anything very well:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8918914&type=product&id=1214004486919
SO I don't know where you get off with 800-1200. And that $400 machine will kill whatever they replaced (dual core 2gb ram, huge hard drive).
 
Optimus said:
There seems to be a lot of Vista apologetics saying that Vista runs great but only on "modern" hardware.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Vista runs fine on old hardware. Aero is an optional feature that needs DX9 capable hardware, but it have a pretty big footprint. But you don't need new top of the line hardware, you just need the RIGHT hardware and some of that hardware is can be four six years old, as that's when DX9 hardware first came out in the 9700's.

My point is that on a decent machine with 2GB, which isn't anything these days, Aero runs fine, the memory consumption just isn't an issue.

And like I said, where are the numbers for OS X's desktop composting engine? You'll never hear anyone complain about high RAM use for something like that on a Mac and its no doubt pretty hefty.
 
Vista is fine( sometimes a bit quirkey - but fine), but I prefer XP for compatibility - I'm tired of software not working on Vista.
 
Optimus said:
There seems to be a lot of Vista apologetics saying that Vista runs great but only on "modern" hardware.

Now I'm a gamer, so I upgrade about every 3 years maximum (assuming my overworked, overclocked rig lasts that long in one piece), so obviously I can see how that would apply to me. I'm sure "Aero's 4w3s0m3" and "Vista has more GHz" or whatever nonsense, but I'd rather spend my money on games and hardware than a new OS that gives me little more than a rearranging of control panels and buttons and a bunch of background processes that I don't use and can't disable.

But gamers are like 5% of home PC users, and the average PC user waits until their current system dies to replace it. Hardware is getting both cheaper and longer lasting lately (despite distributors like Dell and Gateway trying to change that). An average PC owner could use the same PC for 8 years with little hardware error.

Now why would these people want to upgrade 4 year old hardware just so they can use a new OS? What of a $250 copy of Vista is worth an $800-$1200 upgrade (or the original $250 for that matter) compared to an already purchased copy of XP?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing Vista for being worse than XP: Vista is a step or two up from XP. But, when the average home PC owner is involved, it better be an entire flight of stairs above the previous version for $1000-$1500.
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair point considering the average home user, but realistically, home users should never be upgrading their OS on an old machine. There's no major reason to and it will generally only lead to problems. Whether it's Vista, XP or 98, I think it's a bad idea for normal users to try it.

The problem is people crying about it to Dell and other manufacturers and preferring to put XP over Vista on their new computers. That's purely a result of bad reporting and advertising.
 
Modred189 said:
SEE! See what i mean! Emaciated, you dried up bulimic retard ( I had to come up with something, lol), Mojave is FAKE. No, Mojave IS VISTA!!! Did you read the article!? Did you even click on the little gold link to it? Did you think about it!?

NO. You are an irrational, and unhealthily skinny, anti-vista fanatic who has no idea what theya re talking about and are not willing to read an article to find out.

By the way, aero takes up little ram as it uses the graphics card.
Click to expand...

I did read the article.

I am not bulimic.

Nowhere in the article does it state that the used a non-modified Vista.

I seriously doubt the cred of the so-called XP Fanatics they used if they haven't even seen screen shots of Vista to know what it looks like. If they did somehow find such a person, why the hell would their opinion on Vista matter before/after the stupid Pepsi challenge marketing shit that is Mojave ?
 
emaciated said:
I did read the article.

I am not bulimic.

Nowhere in the article does it state that the used a non-modified Vista.

I seriously doubt the cred of the so-called XP Fanatics they used if they haven't even seen screen shots of Vista to know what it looks like. If they did somehow find such a person, why the hell would their opinion on Vista matter before/after the stupid Pepsi challenge marketing shit that is Mojave ?
Click to expand...

It was a standard install of vista... Also just as an FYI having your ram put to use is one of the things I like about vista... idle ram is bad ram ;)
 
I concede that downgrading a new system is an eyebrow raiser (at least, since SP1). Unless, of course, you really just totally hate the new interface.

Modred189 said:
SO I don't know where you get off with 800-1200. And that $400 machine will kill whatever they replaced (dual core 2gb ram, huge hard drive).
Click to expand...

My bad. It's been a while since I researched buying a new, non-gaming desktop.

But even for $400, it wouldn't be worth the upgrade for an incremental improvement for the average home user. And we're probably talking Vista Home Basic at $400, right?

And the sudden realization hits that we aren't even considering antivirus and other software incompatibilities that would cost to replace. But I wouldn't want to be labeled an XP fanboy
...
*shudder*
...
what was I - oh, yeah: so let's just leave it at $400.

All these reasons are why I'm totally game (pun intended) for Win7. Especially if I can buy just Directx and the Windows kernel. Man that would be awesome, to have nothing but a start menu and games... and OpenOffice, Firefox, and Adobe Reader/Flash without the associated quick starters. Maybe an antivirus and firewall ... maybe.
 
emaciated said:
I seriously doubt the cred of the so-called XP Fanatics they used if they haven't even seen screen shots of Vista to know what it looks like. If they did somehow find such a person, why the hell would their opinion on Vista matter before/after the stupid Pepsi challenge marketing shit that is Mojave ?
Click to expand...

AVERAGE
CUSTOMER
 
Optimus said:
All these reasons are why I'm totally game (pun intended) for Win7. Especially if I can buy just Directx and the Windows kernel. Man that would be awesome, to have nothing but a start menu and games... and OpenOffice, Firefox, and Adobe Reader/Flash without the associated quick starters. Maybe an antivirus and firewall ... maybe.
Click to expand...

Such is a dream I hope for, that so we may all game without losing our joy with an OS that works for each person's wants & needs. I'd prefer a gaming/multimedia based Windows... if even remotely possible... though I doubt MS would do such.
 
heatlesssun said:
And like I said, where are the numbers for OS X's desktop composting engine? You'll never hear anyone complain about high RAM use for something like that on a Mac and its no doubt pretty hefty.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Macintrash fanboys are used to the idea of being spoon fed their system specs and "needs," so I'm not too surprised that they aren't complaining. and the average Mac user can't tell RAM from a CPU any more than an average PC user.

Jaerb4 said:
... but realistically, home users should never be upgrading their OS on an old machine. There's no major reason to and it will generally only lead to problems. Whether it's Vista, XP or 98, I think it's a bad idea for normal users to try it.
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding, ding, diiiiing. We haaaaave a winner. Bob - tell him what he's won.

Jaerb4 said:
The problem is people crying about it to Dell and other manufacturers and preferring to put XP over Vista on their new computers. That's purely a result of bad reporting and advertising.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the only people I can relate to on downgrades are the ones that hate the new interface...
well...
and the ones whose particular software won't run on the new OS without a costly upgrade.
 
Optimus said:
All these reasons are why I'm totally game (pun intended) for Win7. Especially if I can buy just Directx and the Windows kernel. Man that would be awesome, to have nothing but a start menu and games... and OpenOffice, Firefox, and Adobe Reader/Flash without the associated quick starters. Maybe an antivirus and firewall ... maybe.
Click to expand...

You mean you want a streamlined Vista without all the fat and bloat? Say it ain't so!

....keep dreamin...
 
bonsai said:
You mean you want a streamlined Vista without all the fat and bloat? Say it ain't so!

....keep dreamin...
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, the day Linux supports "Games for Windows"-
*cough*cough*cough*
Sorry... I'm allergic to marketing
-I'll have no more reason to use WinBlows at all... Unless I get hired by a Windows only joint.
 
Who am I kidding, Vista is completely bloat free, and highly optimized!

Drink the Kool-Aid my friend! Yum!
 
so wait, WHAT is Mojave? they said it was "vista", but that wasnt very clear.

So they just gave them vista and called it something else?

or is Mojave a drastic overhaul? like a new service pack?
 
Optimus said:
Don't get me wrong, the day Linux supports "Games for Windows"-
*cough*cough*cough*
Sorry... I'm allergic to marketing
-I'll have no more reason to use WinBlows at all... Unless I get hired by a Windows only joint.
Click to expand...

If it WERE only games that were an issue, I'd use Linux more. But I love my tablet convertible laptop, Window Media Center is plug and play, cool apps like OneNote, simple support for thing like bluetooth audio, GOOD support for online music and media and I'm thinking about BluRay in the the next few months.

If someone can could build me a Linux system that did all these things with commercial and/or open source replacements (I'm not even worried about the gaming) simply, and with no more than $500 in software if necessary, I'd be happy to give them $500 for the work, but it have to be pretty nice and simple and seemless.

I've spent a lot of hours researching this type of replacement desktop/laptop environment for Linux. The problem with Linux on the desktop is that its great at the simple stuff, better than Windows in some ways. Start adding hardware or productivity apps beyond the simple email/wordprocessing/spreadsheet realm and the pickings get real slim real fst.
 
spincut said:
so wait, WHAT is Mojave? they said it was "vista", but that wasnt very clear.

So they just gave them vista and called it something else?

or is Mojave a drastic overhaul? like a new service pack?
Click to expand...

Mojave is a fake name. Microsoft tricked people into trying Vista by calling it Microsoft Windows Mojave and saying it's a different operating system. It was a Pepsi Challenge.

Too many people won't try Vista because they hear it's bad and won't try it for themselves. Microsoft had to trick them into thinking it's something else so they WOULD try it.. and when the people said they loved it, Microsoft told them there's no such thing as Mojave. It was actually Vista they tried.

Microsoft proved that people who spread FUD are indeed full of shit, just like some of the posters in this thread.
 
Azhar said:
Microsoft proved that people who spread FUD are indeed full of shit, just like some of the posters in this thread.
Click to expand...

No, they just proved that word of mouth and advertising is powerful. There are plenty of very valid reasons not to use Vista, many have been shown here. And no where in the study did people "love" Vista, at best it got "positive feedback." But please continue with the rhetoric.
 
bonsai said:
No, they just proved that word of mouth and advertising is powerful. There are plenty of very valid reasons not to use Vista, many have been shown here. And no where in the study did people "love" Vista, at best it got "positive feedback." But please continue with the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

They also prove that some people are in constant state of denial and refuses to admit they're wrong. Sure they proved that word of mouth may be powerful, but they also proved that they're not always right. But please continue with the denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top