The Risk of Waiting for Windows 7

Willing to wait? The question isn't so much am I "willing to wait", it's what fucking point is there to switching to Vista? As it is now the only thing that really hits my mind that might be something useful is DX10, so unless game makers make a slew of DX10 only titles that won't run on DX9, waiting for the next version of windows won't be a problem... and if I have to wait longer I will.
 
Um... You do realize you can still do that on Vista right? Do you have any clue what DRM is?

And FWIW, The Inquirer isn't exactly regarded as a good source of any sort of information around here.


I'm beginning to wonder if anyone knows how this works.
You do realize that folks imposing Blueray, for example, would be your Universal Studios, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc?
What you mean by "manufacturers" I have no clue. You need to talk to the whole movie industry to get rid of the DRM stuff that THEY impose.
Once more: either Microsoft plays well with them or they don't support it at all.

I don't know if you've checked lately, but Microsoft doesn't have a ton of muscle in the movie industry.

DRM is a technology that had the potential to prevent people from copying a media format as well as preventing the media from being converted to other formats such as MP3s which will play on just about any media player device.

You sound like some kind of corporate shill by totally standing up for a corp that has done nothing but steal innovation from others and then turn around and sue others for doing the same to itself. You're talking about a corp that singlehandedly took a crap on the developers when they released VB.NET which the dev community totally hated and yet they forced them to use it. It's nothing like VB 6.

God forbid that M$ actually SELL a product that would benefit the consumers and not violate the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. It's ironic that Linux is free for everyone and yet it's not burdened with anti-consumer crap- even more ironic is the fact that on the desktop side it has yet to really take off (although it's making small in-roads)
 
DRM is a technology that had the potential to prevent people from copying a media format as well as preventing the media from being converted to other formats such as MP3s which will play on just about any media player device.

Exactly.

But you're suggesting that burning your CDs to MP3s on Vista automatically adds DRM or something, which simply is not true.
 
You're right.. I'm sure that most media will burn just fine however M$ gave the RIAA the ability to put an audio flag on their CDs that will prevent the audio from being burned on a system with Vista. It makes me mad to know that M$ did this when they didn't have to- RIAA can't tell M$ they won't make audio CDs anymore and they can't tell them that they can make the CDs no longer function on M$ platforms. M$ has the power to counteract any protection that they might throw up but instead they decided to kowtow to them.
 
I tried Vista when it first came out and really did not like it. I had it dual booted with XP. I just took off Vista and made corrections to the boot.ini file. I was really disappointed because of all the hype that surrounded Vista.

Now I have Vista X64 installed on one PC and Home Premium X86 on my laptop with no real problems. I changed the look of Vista and a few other things like turning off that sidebar just because it was useless to me. SP1 helped a lot.
 
I prefer XP for most things but Vista has a couple of things that I like (although it's mostly headaches to me). Currently running Vista on three out of four systems though; my server uses MCE2k5 but thankfully I have never paid for a copy of Vista yet (Ultimate was free from MS, one came with my laptop and another was an upgrade disc).

I need an OS for a fifth system though, I'm probably going to go with either Linux or XP for it though...
 
some points why companies who drive innovation are not upgrading:
1. pain in the ass
2. why pay for it when your current computers are running fine on xp
3. why update basic machines that are running fine and couldn't support it anyway?
4. why buy a new pc to do job functions that are fine already on current hardware/software setups?
5. kiosks, thin clients... not vista based.
6. not a lot of vista driver support for real world hardware/software programs like medical software etc
7. alot of citrix compatiblity issues and other vnc programs
8. it takes 2-3 extra clicks to perform many job functions x 1000 of uses a day is 2-3k extra steps per employee a day
9. xp is cheaper and people know how to use it, has many patches/updates
10. when vista crashes its often difficult to repair/restore without a format once its corrupt.
11. compatbility issues between mac/vista networks


most importantly:
current programs used for specific high skilled jobs are not compatible or are a bitch with vista. it also requires all new training.

vista aka winME will disapear quickly with the new os when people realize they are stuck with this format. vista 2.0 coming out in 2009 or 2010 contains many of the promised vista features that were not implemented (super fast boot times, a dos replacement, a new disk format/partition newer than ntfs... greater hardware support etc... usb 3? who knows)...

vista is for users who buy new machines.
 
A lot of the complaints about Vista over XP are are the same ones made many years ago between Win3.11FWG and Win 95a, as well as 98SE and XP Pro, and now with XP Pro and Vista. The release of Windows 7 will really be not that much different to previous windows releases. I remember forums full of users howling about 'bloat', 'inefficiency', 'slowness', 'stiff hardware requirements', and such during initial releases of a new OS. My question is what makes people think that Windows 7 is going to be any less 'bloated', 'inefficient', or whatnot over XP. Sure, the kernel will be more mature, now that some time has passed to work out the issues. Sure, IHVs will actually have better drivers based on the new driver model which was implemented with Vista. But, it will more than likely not be the holy grail that everyone seeks for a while as bugs are stamped out and issues addressed. DRM will still be there, and I would imagine 'realistic' hardware needs very similar to Vista.

I also agree some others that Vista is a great stepping stone for XP users simply because it gives them the opportunity to become familiar with the new UI, differences in required hardware, and changed functionality. Many of the issues that plagued it during launch have been resolved with SP1, and notably better drivers from the various IHVs have been released. If people want to wait, that's their choice, but those folks will still have to adapt to the new UI and consider upgrading the hardware if they do migrate to Windows 7, and even then there is still no guarantee that it's going to be a rough ride until the first SP is released. Waiting till Windows 7 SP1 hits the market could be a -long- way off for XP users, and not worth the wait, as apps and games start requiring greater and greater amounts of RAM and other hardware resources. Unless they want to run XP-64, which has it's own driver support issues, Vista is a good alternative for the time being.
 
The author of the blog seems to be a bit slow in the head.

- That makes XP awfully old (9 years old).

- It’s likely that hardware/software support will be getting patchy.

- The abandonment of support for XP by your vendor would likely push you into having to come up with a migration plan, rather than come up with one at your own speed.

Those are his reasons? Really? That's pretty sad.
1) Who cares how old it is? It's currently the best OS in the world. Why the hell would it matter how old it is? Even if Vista does surpass it, it will still be close to or tied for that position at least until W7 comes out.

2) XP will be supported by every vendor until W7 has either gobbled up XP's market share, or W7 flops and Vista does it. Either way, no vendor in their right mind would ever drop XP. Despite what people may think, XP is still the dominant OS, with 75% share, the same it had in 2005. Vista is only at 15%, XP will never lose significance before W7 is out.

3) The abandonment of support for XP by any vendor is corporate suicide. That's like trying to switch to Apple and getting your clients to follow. Noone wants their employees to play on a Fisher-Price PC at work, that goes for both OSX and Vista for different reasons.

The fact of the matter is, XP will possibly still hold a majority in terms of OS usage, and will most likely still hold the #1 position when W7 is released.
 
Having used and supported both Vista and Server 2008, I can tell you that most people end up going back to XP. I work at a web hosting company, and a lot of the customers who opted to get 2008 ended up going back to 2003. I have a Vista laptop at work, and my girlfriends computer came with Vista. I also installed Vista on a media center I had. In my opinion, Vista isn't all that great. Certainly not worth the money. Some folks might argue for better security and whatnot, but honestly, if you're a computer enthusiast you're probably running a healthy hardware based firewall (how many of us run Tomato, DD-WRT, or some other variant?) or an actual dedicated firewall. We'll all most likely have AV software that we keep a close eye on. To the enthusiast, I think most of the added security features aren't really helpful at all. I also take issue with Vista using so much of the RAM. I understand the concept behind it (the OS actually USES the RAM, to assist in load times, and making it a true buffer), but having a bit of Linux experience, I don't see that OS doing the same, or at least I don't see it using 600M of 1GB. I just don't see the "improvements" in Vista. When you compare it to Linux, which I think most would agree is equally if not more secure, and definitely more efficient, what has MS improved??

My basic point is that an "improved OS" should be much more efficient, run much faster, and not be a small incremental improvement in these areas.

I will say from what our server admins tell me, Server 2008 does add a lot of features for hosting. However, don't get me started about Hyper-V. Can't even compare it to VMWare in my opinion.
 
Oh, as for the topic at hand, I'm still running XP Pro, as it works fine for me. I'll see how W7 turns out, and if it seems good I'll go for that. But if not, I'd say Ubuntu or some Linux variant might become my choice for a day-to-day desktop OS. Unfortunately I'll still have to dual boot for gaming.
 
I stay with XP and burn my CDs to MP3s with no issue.
I'm sure that most media will burn just fine

Quite a turnaround, no? Funny how fast FUD is backpedaled when called on it.


M$ gave the RIAA the ability to put an audio flag on their CDs that will prevent the audio from being burned on a system with Vista.
This is true on any system, unless you strip the DRM off (which is technically illegal to do). Microsoft had nothing to do with it, unless you can provide some linkage to prove me otherwise.
 
i just have no use for vista at the moment so yeah i'm willing to wait. as much as i'd like a DX10 video card i just can't afford it, and my 7900 gto's in sli do the job well enough for now. not perfect, but when your money is tied up in debt from a wedding, honeymoon and getting a new car what are u gunna do.

until games require DX10 i'm sure there are plenty like me who will happily wait for windows 7
 
I fail to see what these people who insist on waiting are going to achieve. There's nothing wrong with Vista, and 7 will be more of what you see in Vista. It's not some panacea to the "Vista bugs" that everyone seems intent on spewing FUD about.
 
I was happy with 98se. The only reason I switched to XP in March 2005 was that a new HP AIO I got after my old HP printer died did not offer drivers for 98se. I am perfectly satisfied with XP too and see no reason to change unless, like with what happened with 98se, it is forced upon me by hardware that no longer works with XP.
 
I was happy with 98se. The only reason I switched to XP in March 2005 was that a new HP AIO I got after my old HP printer died did not offer drivers for 98se. I am perfectly satisfied with XP too and see no reason to change unless, like with what happened with 98se, it is forced upon me by hardware that no longer works with XP.

How DARE you like something old that still happens to work! :p
 
I fail to see what these people who insist on waiting are going to achieve. There's nothing wrong with Vista, and 7 will be more of what you see in Vista. It's not some panacea to the "Vista bugs" that everyone seems intent on spewing FUD about.

Some people dont listen it seems.
I dont want you to spend my cash on things I dont need :)
 
I know I'm gonna wait for Win7, but I did buy and ran Vista 64 Ultimate for the DX-10 features and 4gb+ capabilities. But after awhile I start getting some werird quirks and instability after using somewhat older hardware, plus the driver issue bugged the hell outta me.

So I downgraded my desktop and laptop to WinXP, just cant shake the feel of XP.

But I feel that Win7 will help Vista as much as MS, cause hopefully this light a fire under the asses of software developers to write software and drivers better optimized and stable for the vista architecture.
 
I'm still using XP, and don't have any issues, and I'll probably wait until Windows7 comes out. The number one reason being I don't have the cash to buy a new OS, when I don't absolutely need it, and when a new one will be coming out in the somewhat near future. I've got nothing against it though. I've used it some, and I don't mind it at all.
 
I hadn't thought about it too much until seeing this post. I've installed Vista on 3 separate occasions. Think one time Shattered Union(game) isnt compatible. Next I had problems with MTP and media sharing. Lastly started having issues burning cd/dvds on any computer I installed it on. I can Burn CD/DVDs in vista but other electronics/PC's wouldnt read them, specifically my car. Anybody run into that? Anyway I just always ran into something everyday and just gave up on Vista. looking forward to Windows 7 if I install Vista again it will be on another drive as far as possible away from my XP install
 
this message happily brought to you from my W's 98SE box

I've got a copy of 98SE running the 'puter in my garage. Runs like a top!

Man, Vista fanatics are so easy to bait...like anybody gives a crap about OS's anymore.
 
I stayed with XP because at the time Vista was still new and nobody was writing drivers for it. My printer and wireless card didn't work with it yet and there were numerous programs I needed that didn't work. Things are different now but people are still on the blind Vista hate campaign. Now it's a matter of not wanting to go through the hassle of whipping my computer clean. I had Vista on my dirt slow laptop and it worked great but I uninstaller it and went XP because it's a testbed for my carpc which needs to run XP. That being said I don't see any reason for people not top upgrade to Vista.....they just need to get off the hate bandwagon.
 
Some people dont listen it seems.
I dont want you to spend my cash on things I dont need :)

Oh I totally agree. Cost is a factor. But I know a lot of people turning down Vista either for free (through various legal means, such as MSDNAA) or when it comes bundled with new PCs. But yet these same people want to wait for Windows 7 like it's some panacea? Give me a break.
 
Oh I totally agree. Cost is a factor. But I know a lot of people turning down Vista either for free (through various legal means, such as MSDNAA) or when it comes bundled with new PCs. But yet these same people want to wait for Windows 7 like it's some panacea? Give me a break.

I dont recall anyone stating that at all.
 
I'm still using Windows XP, and I'm perfectly happy with it. I don't see any need for me to use a new OS

And I'm not an enthusiastic user, this PC I have will last me for at least a couple more years.

Once I get a new PC, then logically I would go with newer OS, whatever is the best at that time, but till then, I don't need to replace my Windows XP, I don't see any need to.
 
I dont recall anyone stating that at all.

Funny. I see lots of people posting about how they're perfectly happy with XP which I would assume to me, based on logic or course, that they feel they don't need to update to Vista.
 
I fail to see what these people who insist on waiting are going to achieve. There's nothing wrong with Vista, and 7 will be more of what you see in Vista. It's not some panacea to the "Vista bugs" that everyone seems intent on spewing FUD about.

Sometimes it's not just the OS itself. I myself have issues with Server 2008 and Acronis True Image Echo. Echo is supposed to support 2008, but it doesn't seem to work well with our equipment and software at all. 2003 works like a champ, and 95% of our customers run on it. So it'd be nice to not have to deal with 2008 at all.

My point is there is a lot that still needs to be hammered out with Vista. And if they are going to release an updated version, most are going to wait instead of going through all the trouble with Vista/2008.
 
But to be fair, if application developers are working fine with Vista: they'll more than likely work fine with Windows 7. It's not a huge step forward as far as XP to Vista.

Windows 7 will end up being, IMO, more of a feature release. Alot like Leopard was for the Mac.
 
I've been running Vista for over a year now. At first it was a pain, but now I like it. Applications load faster and I reboot less often than XP.
 
I think a lot of people may be in my situation. PC Hardware slightly too old to comfortably run Vista, but other than that no reason to swap away from XP.

When I buy my Nehalem early next year I see no problem running Vista at the same time :)

nb: by slightly too old I mean Athlon 64 X2 4200+ w/ 2gb DDR333
 
I'm from the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' school of though. Thats why I've still got XP as my OS :)
 
I have Vista 64, but its not installed.

Honestly the only reason, is I don't understand the damn interface. I used it on my sibblings laptop, and its to clunky, and honestly I don't want to get used to it. To many of the features are hidden, and the so called easer interface, makes no sense to me. Seems it tries to do alot of things on autopilot and I honestly hate that.

Windows XP is far from the days, I had to use Command line, and DOS, but I can still relatively get to the meat of the services etc. Vista, hasn't proven itself good enough for me to want to relearn how to do things. Theres just not enough benefits from my point of view.

If XP works, and does what you need, why change?

I would love to change and especially go 64 bit, 2 gigs of ram in my PC, would like to be liberated, they are just chilling at the moment.

If they give me my XP hierarchy, and Vista that has good compability, then I'd switch, until them I just look at the pretty Vista Ultimate 64 disc I have.
 
I have Vista 64 installed with 8GB of ram in my two workstations, so far I have experienced no issues, very smooth and incredibly fast, I did the speed test and I got 5.7, so it's not too bad at all.

Vista32 however is garbage in my books, nothing but crashes!

If anyone wants to install Vista, I say go 64bit as it is a completely different beast all together, just make sure you have the ram!
 
The Risk of Waiting. Risk.

For consumers, it's easy. You can hold off if you want and always install Vista if you need to for your spiffy new app to work or device that has no XP driver.

For business, well, I can't see going through two conversions if 7 is delivered in a reasonable amount of time. But, if 7 is delayed a lot then two conversions just might be the price. A lot depends on resources and desktop numbers.

If I'm going to risk anything though, I'd rather risk it in Vegas.
 
lol, i love all the people that are going back to XP.

You DO realize this is a computer enthusiast forum right?

If people have a problem with something they post a thread for help, but if it's vista they just give up and go back to XP.
Ah well the Vista bashing will never end so why bother...
 
Or option 3- I stay with XP and burn my CDs to MP3s with no issue. Is it any wonder that ASUS had to make a sound card with a built in loop to bypass the crap DRM in Windows? Don't believe me? Check here: http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/06/07/asus-xonar-seen-on-our-sonar

It contains technology designed specifically to bypass OS DRM to enable recording directly to your computer. I think I'll stick with XP thank you. As soon as M$ stops cooperating with interests against the consumer, maybe I'll upgrade to a new OS. Who knows, in time I may be running Linux instead (I said "maybe").

*looks at the above post,

*looks at folder of CD-R's burned from mp3 by Vista's Windows Media Player to play in truck's CD player

*looks at above post again.

:confused:
 
Back
Top