why do we need windows vista?

Wesley1357

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
374
can't ms just release a new service pack, what new features vista is going to have that can't be on a windows xp sp3?
 
Many things are rewritten, for one. I'm sure there will be a winxp to vista upgrade which sounds like what you're talking about.
 
I am sure you will be able to use XP for a while after Vista comes out. But you also got to look at the bottom line, Microsofts Bottom line! Sure They could of released Quake 4 as a patch to Doom 3 but then they would lose alot of money, same goes for XP and Vista. There has been alot of work going into Vista, and MS needs to make there money back. Every software company does it, look at Power DVD, theres very little differance from version 4.0 to 5.0, heck, even 6.0 looks and runs like 4.0, but I am sure thats there is more to it than what we can actually see, at least I hope there is!
 
Diablo2K said:
I am sure you will be able to use XP for a while after Vista comes out. But you also got to look at the bottom line, Microsofts Bottom line! Sure They could of released Quake 4 as a patch to Doom 3 but then they would lose alot of money, same goes for XP and Vista. There has been alot of work going into Vista, and MS needs to make there money back.!

very true I really never saw in that sense totally agree. I would have still agreed that there are gonna be loads more features in vista.
 
MS need a new operating system becauase of how they sold it.
They issued it as "one-time-buys" to customers and OEM dealers.
That was great. Worked for 95 (and earlier) and 98.
ME hit a sticking point and XP finally built up to speed (but there are quite a few ppl with 98 still)


so the amount they were pulling in was less then they expected (since they expected everyone to upgrade). Since the product has been sold they cannot drastically change the licence.


However, sell a new OS, they can then demand a yearly subscription to allow access to updates and upgrades. That will secure MS's income.
THUS Vista will be the last Windows-OS they produce. BUT the Vista available in 5years time will probably not be the same vista that was iniitally sold.

Question is do you want to buy a yearly subscrition?


ps. this is a hunch (based on some things I have read over hte years). B.Gates had a moan at the BBC for not doing a subscritpion service to windows
 
MS is also trying to take a better approach to the coding in Vista as apposed to earlier versions where they had multiple teams all writing separate parts and then just toss salading it together for release.. They are taking a more modular, more linux like approach this time around.. That should, in theory anyway, result in a much better/more secure product than their earlier versions.. And yes , no new OS = no new revenue stream..


eeyrjmr, I really hope you are wrong about the subscription part.. I really, really, really hope..
 
ok, ok..slow down. I thought that Longhorn was the next OS. What the heck is this Vista busness i'm reading. please don't confuse this noob.

PS..when with this OS be available?
 
Vista = Longhorn

Longhorn being the codename. Window Vista being the product name.
 
What GORANKAR said. Hopefully everything they're saying about it will be true...


xeetim said:
ok, ok..slow down. I thought that Longhorn was the next OS. What the heck is this Vista busness i'm reading. please don't confuse this noob.

PS..when with this OS be available?
Longhorn was the code name. Now they've finalized it as Vista. I think I remember reading somewhere that they would use the name Longhorn for a server OS or something

I think they said it would be availabe sometime in 2006... I can't remember right now.
 
If im correct, windows vista has been almost totally built from scratch. It is a whole new operating system. Everything is alot different with how windows will now handle things.

The performance of general tasks using the operating system is supposed to be drastically sped-up (menus, folder browsing, program cycling.etc).

Windows vista is also meant to be alot more stable than xp, less crashes, better application handling and debugging. I think they have totally revuilt windows is becuase of all the problems. This will also have better virus disabling features which will be hidden from view ofcourse, vista wont let programs perform certain tasks, such as downloading, system resource hacking.etc. I think windows vista has some kind of law, as in, programs can only do this, if they first do this or prompt the user with that...

Anyway, im upgrading to vista as soon as it comes out, im just so sick of xp and its problems...
 
GORANKAR said:
eeyrjmr, I really hope you are wrong about the subscription part.. I really, really, really hope..

You and me both. BUT it the way that all industry's have headed. Take the airline industry. A jet engine cost 10mil easy. BUT abt 5years ago they started giving hte engines away for free but charging an apsolute fortune for spares.

NOT saying MS are going to give away Vista, but I have a feeling they might offer two payments

1) one-off buy gives you access to security updates + the odd new feature
2) smaller one-off buy but yearly subscrition to updates (priority security) and all new features.

It just makes more business sense for them to get everyone onto subscription. It has been abt 4years since XP? inital cost was £200? so that is only £50 a year they got, by the time Vista is released it would have been more like £40 per year - they are losing money and for a business that is bad news
 
WMP will have better HDTV

Digital Rights Managment will be a pain in the a-r-s-e though
They are really cracking down on piracy in this one and everyone will suffer from it, including legal owners

More GUI tricks


Things i wish they would do:
I'm hoping they might actually put some servers up on the NET with user account to distribute Vista OS for better price rather than going to the store and buying the product or it being late and store is closed. Linux rules for that reason when you can't find your cd's you can just go get a copy off the net.

Good DOS/Win95/Win98SE legacy support, so many of my games won't work right on XP and some with a patch to make it work aren't the same.

Threaded Programming for Dual Core and HyperThreading setups for performance, and maybe a emulation for single threaded apps to run usings multi-threads.
 
Sloth_Boy said:
If im correct, windows vista has been almost totally built from scratch. It is a whole new operating system. Everything is alot different with how windows will now handle things.

I highly doubt that they actually rewrote that much code - there's simply too much there to do a complete rewrite & get something that actually works. That's not to say that MSFT isn't going to be pushign this angle in their press releases.

Of course, they'll be saying the exact opposite to corporate customers - the last thing enterprise users want is "all new code".
 
eeyrjmr said:
1) one-off buy gives you access to security updates + the odd new feature
2) smaller one-off buy but yearly subscrition to updates (priority security) and all new features.

This is quite possibly the -least- responsible thing for MSFT to do and they'd get raped in the press for it. Not so much for the slow leeching of customer's money but by making it harder (and less likely) for a majority of computer users to get security updates.

Infected/Zombie computers are not simply a problem for the people who owns them, they are a problem for everyone. You know that most of the people who get a rig from Dell or the like would skip paying the first year - "I already paid once, why should I pay again?", and there'd be a massive population of insecure boxes out there, boxes that -can't- be secured without dropping another $50.

It's not like MSFT really needs to change their pricing model to make money and the consumer who buys a single copy doesn't need to worry about spreading the cost of the purchase out over several years and those with enough copies for it to be an issue are already deailng with volume/site licenses and support contracts. The only thing this would do would be to complicate things and irritate consumers.
 
eeyrjmr said:
You and me both. BUT it the way that all industry's have headed. Take the airline industry. A jet engine cost 10mil easy. BUT abt 5years ago they started giving hte engines away for free but charging an apsolute fortune for spares.

NOT saying MS are going to give away Vista, but I have a feeling they might offer two payments

1) one-off buy gives you access to security updates + the odd new feature
2) smaller one-off buy but yearly subscrition to updates (priority security) and all new features.

It just makes more business sense for them to get everyone onto subscription. It has been abt 4years since XP? inital cost was £200? so that is only £50 a year they got, by the time Vista is released it would have been more like £40 per year - they are losing money and for a business that is bad news

I think that in the corporate environment this is what will happen (and MS has already started transitioning to this with XP) but for the home environment, it won't happen. I don't think that Billy-Bob will understand paying dell $500 for a machine and then having to pay microsoft another $40/year as well. MS's home business makes money because oem licences are tied to the motherboard.... when the PC gets junked, so does that copy and you have to buy another one with the new PC. Retail sales are only a very small fraction of Windows sales.
 
Vista => NT 6.0? If so, then that's one reason to use it.

One thing which still perplexes me is how they manage to increase the minimum system requirements so much going from NT 3.x/4 => NT 5.0 (Win2k) => NT 5.1 (WinXP). What in the world are these 'features' (fluff) which takes up so many resources and apparently can't be disabled without resorting to a hex-editor?

My bet is that Vista will be so completely obnoxious to those who consider themselves power users that it'll generate even more resentment than WinXP did after its release.

I think I'll just stick with Win2k/XP until a project like ReactOS has progressed far enough and switch to that ^_-
 
Sloth_Boy said:
If im correct, windows vista has been almost totally built from scratch. It is a whole new operating system. Everything is alot different with how windows will now handle things.

The performance of general tasks using the operating system is supposed to be drastically sped-up (menus, folder browsing, program cycling.etc).

Windows vista is also meant to be alot more stable than xp, less crashes, better application handling and debugging. I think they have totally revuilt windows is becuase of all the problems. This will also have better virus disabling features which will be hidden from view ofcourse, vista wont let programs perform certain tasks, such as downloading, system resource hacking.etc. I think windows vista has some kind of law, as in, programs can only do this, if they first do this or prompt the user with that...

Anyway, im upgrading to vista as soon as it comes out, im just so sick of xp and its problems...

Vista is built off the Windows Server 2003 code base, so it's not from scratch. Because of that, the other things you said will be true. The nature of a server OS requires much more stable code so using that code for a desktop OS sounds great to me.

There is supposed to be more flexibility in user account priviledges. Not just Admin and Limited, but a whole set so that security can be kept higher while still maintaining usability.
 
Ok, before I say anything, here is some boring info about me:

I loved windows 3.1 (hated the general protection faults that I always got). It had a crap free, usefull, and fast GUI. There were no cute shading, 3D buttons, annoying balloon popups, and its search feature in filemanager was great. Ive slowly moved up through the years. '95, NT 4.0, '98, NT2K, ME, XP...

It was great untill I hit XP. NT2K still had that style to it. Crap free and wasnt annoying.

Im now using XP, And Im really getting frustraited by how its more like Macos. Too much crap to look at, balloon popups, searching for something takes an agonizing 5 seconds because I have to wait three for the doggy animation to play and the retarted 3D buttons to pop up.

Windows vista, judging by the screenshots, takes this to an entirely new level. Its as if it were designed to waste every spare nanosecond of the users time.

Unless it has some options to turn ALL of that 3d crap off, I wont buy it. I'll just buy a playstation/xbox to do my games, and keep on using fedora core 4 for the internet and hardforum. Come on, nobody is going to be making games for linux anytime soon. So if I dont buy windows, I wont have an OS to play most of my games on.

Yes, yes. Im well aware that people have gotten many games to work under Wine, but my point is....

I want less crap, less eye candy, I want more of my screen resolution dedicated for rendering pixels, which in turn represent boobies, posts at hardforum, or whatever I may be doing. Linux is cool. I click on something, it does what I tell it to do, and if I screw something up or do something weird it doesnt tell me about it untill I restart and get a kernel panic. Windows always tells me "are you sure" "are you sure, that you are sure??".

It may be just be, but I get so damn mad sometimes when Im using my pc. Sometimes it shows in my hardforum posts.

eye candy and 3d crap = :mad:
windows 3.1/X-windows = :cool:

For anyone who is reading this, and has decided to quote me about 50 times and argue my post to death, and wants to talk about "well thats just your optinion stoopeed, who do you think you are to tell us....". Remember, this post by me is about me and how I feel about the operating systems when I use them on my pc. Im usually the person that Is clicking and hammering away at the keyboard, and does not want any cutsey animations to slow me down. I hate em. GRRR.

Hopefully no one will misunderstand my post.
 
You don't need Vista. You didn't need XP, 2000, 98, 95, 3.11, 3, 2, 1, or even DOS.

It's a new OS with loads of new features. I find it sad that there are people complaining about "having to upgrade" to the new OS because it should be a free service pack. XP has been out for 4 years (5 by the time Vista is actually released). That is the largest gap in OS's MS has had. Be glad you're not a Mac addict on the upgrade every year plan.

If you don't want to upgrade, don't. What's the big deal?
 
bob said:
For anyone who is reading this, and has decided to quote me about 50 times and argue my post to death, and wants to talk about "well thats just your optinion stoopeed, who do you think you are to tell us....". Remember, this post by me is about me and how I feel about the operating systems when I use them on my pc. Im usually the person that Is clicking and hammering away at the keyboard, and does not want any cutsey animations to slow me down. I hate em. GRRR.

Hopefully no one will misunderstand my post.
I definitely won't since I basically made the same point in my earlier post in this thread ^_^


(I've configured WinXP's interface to look as much like Win2k's as possible...)
 
bob said:
Im now using XP, And Im really getting frustraited by how its more like Macos. Too much crap to look at, balloon popups, searching for something takes an agonizing 5 seconds because I have to wait three for the doggy animation to play and the retarted 3D buttons to pop up.

Not gonna argue with you as per your request ;) So I'll just post a fact. :p

You can make XP look and feel 99% identical to windows 2000. You just need to figure out where everything is at. I felt the same way as you "OMG this OS is full of all kinds of useless crap!". But after giving it a chance I learned that it's more stable that 2000, and actually has some really great features. You just have to be willing to play a bit.
 
bob said:
Ok, before I say anything, here is some boring info about me:

I loved windows 3.1 (hated the general protection faults that I always got). It had a crap free, usefull, and fast GUI. There were no cute shading, 3D buttons, annoying balloon popups, and its search feature in filemanager was great. Ive slowly moved up through the years. '95, NT 4.0, '98, NT2K, ME, XP...

It was great untill I hit XP. NT2K still had that style to it. Crap free and wasnt annoying.

Im now using XP, And Im really getting frustraited by how its more like Macos. Too much crap to look at, balloon popups, searching for something takes an agonizing 5 seconds because I have to wait three for the doggy animation to play and the retarted 3D buttons to pop up.

Windows vista, judging by the screenshots, takes this to an entirely new level. Its as if it were designed to waste every spare nanosecond of the users time.

Unless it has some options to turn ALL of that 3d crap off, I wont buy it. I'll just buy a playstation/xbox to do my games, and keep on using fedora core 4 for the internet and hardforum. Come on, nobody is going to be making games for linux anytime soon. So if I dont buy windows, I wont have an OS to play most of my games on.

Yes, yes. Im well aware that people have gotten many games to work under Wine, but my point is....

I want less crap, less eye candy, I want more of my screen resolution dedicated for rendering pixels, which in turn represent boobies, posts at hardforum, or whatever I may be doing. Linux is cool. I click on something, it does what I tell it to do, and if I screw something up or do something weird it doesnt tell me about it untill I restart and get a kernel panic. Windows always tells me "are you sure" "are you sure, that you are sure??".

It may be just be, but I get so damn mad sometimes when Im using my pc. Sometimes it shows in my hardforum posts.

eye candy and 3d crap = :mad:
windows 3.1/X-windows = :cool:

For anyone who is reading this, and has decided to quote me about 50 times and argue my post to death, and wants to talk about "well thats just your optinion stoopeed, who do you think you are to tell us....". Remember, this post by me is about me and how I feel about the operating systems when I use them on my pc. Im usually the person that Is clicking and hammering away at the keyboard, and does not want any cutsey animations to slow me down. I hate em. GRRR.

Hopefully no one will misunderstand my post.


I fully agree with you!!!!!
It is my PC and my RAM/CPU time and I want to use it for what I want NOT so MS can just eat it bacause it want to!!!!!

Get some more big names in games to use OpenGL (and thus allow easier ports to linux) and I believe we will start to see the exedus to Linux.

Already there are some high-end Progs for linux (Saber,Matlab,Maple,Mega) so ppl is some places of work are getting linux-exposure, just need it more for the home
 
Yeah, I just figured out the search thing the other day. I also found out about the other settings when I had to up my virtual memory, right in the performance tab, there is a button to disable all of it.

I dont really need to upgrade, either. But that is what this post is about, answering why we need it. Hmm. No reason, really. But we'd better warm up to it. Dells, gateways, HPs, ibms.... Im sure all of those will be shipped with the latest greatest operating system. Vista will be showing up at schools, at work too.

Im sure it will be a few years at least before games start requiring Vista. I wasnt untill a year ago that I actually had to get XP to play a game.
 
bob said:
Dells, gateways, HPs, ibms.... Im sure all of those will be shipped with the latest greatest operating system.
And still 256 MB of RAM :D
 
i like the idea of paying ms $40/year, in my experience when you pay, you get better stuff. ;)
 
bob said:
Ok, before I say anything, here is some boring info about me:

I loved windows 3.1 (hated the general protection faults that I always got). It had a crap free, usefull, and fast GUI. There were no cute shading, 3D buttons, annoying balloon popups, and its search feature in filemanager was great. Ive slowly moved up through the years. '95, NT 4.0, '98, NT2K, ME, XP...

It was great untill I hit XP. NT2K still had that style to it. Crap free and wasnt annoying.

Im now using XP, And Im really getting frustraited by how its more like Macos. Too much crap to look at, balloon popups, searching for something takes an agonizing 5 seconds because I have to wait three for the doggy animation to play and the retarted 3D buttons to pop up.

Windows vista, judging by the screenshots, takes this to an entirely new level. Its as if it were designed to waste every spare nanosecond of the users time.

Unless it has some options to turn ALL of that 3d crap off, I wont buy it. I'll just buy a playstation/xbox to do my games, and keep on using fedora core 4 for the internet and hardforum. Come on, nobody is going to be making games for linux anytime soon. So if I dont buy windows, I wont have an OS to play most of my games on.

Yes, yes. Im well aware that people have gotten many games to work under Wine, but my point is....

I want less crap, less eye candy, I want more of my screen resolution dedicated for rendering pixels, which in turn represent boobies, posts at hardforum, or whatever I may be doing. Linux is cool. I click on something, it does what I tell it to do, and if I screw something up or do something weird it doesnt tell me about it untill I restart and get a kernel panic. Windows always tells me "are you sure" "are you sure, that you are sure??".

It may be just be, but I get so damn mad sometimes when Im using my pc. Sometimes it shows in my hardforum posts.

eye candy and 3d crap = :mad:
windows 3.1/X-windows = :cool:

For anyone who is reading this, and has decided to quote me about 50 times and argue my post to death, and wants to talk about "well thats just your optinion stoopeed, who do you think you are to tell us....". Remember, this post by me is about me and how I feel about the operating systems when I use them on my pc. Im usually the person that Is clicking and hammering away at the keyboard, and does not want any cutsey animations to slow me down. I hate em. GRRR.

Hopefully no one will misunderstand my post.


in beta1 at least..you can still set vista back to "windows classic"... thank god


those stupid direct3d transparent window junk... wasted electrons if you ask me
 
Yeah I can't stand that 3d crap. I hate those rounded corners on every button/window. It just looks dumb imo.
 
we should upgrade so that we can get DRM, which will protect you from Virus' and other malware.

 
drizzt81 said:
we should upgrade so that we can get DRM, which will protect you from Virus' and other malware.
Kinda like the enhanced security in NT/2K/XP was supposed to help when we switched from 9x? :rolleyes:
 
bob said:
Yeah, I just figured out the search thing the other day. I also found out about the other settings when I had to up my virtual memory, right in the performance tab, there is a button to disable all of it.

I dont really need to upgrade, either. But that is what this post is about, answering why we need it. Hmm. No reason, really. But we'd better warm up to it. Dells, gateways, HPs, ibms.... Im sure all of those will be shipped with the latest greatest operating system. Vista will be showing up at schools, at work too.

Im sure it will be a few years at least before games start requiring Vista. I wasnt untill a year ago that I actually had to get XP to play a game.

That's the problem when you're not on the bleeding edge. Sometimes by the time you hop on the bandwagon the next new thing blind sides you.

I think the main point of Vista (for the home user) is to revolutionize the visual and interactive experience one gets from the OS. Of course this is gonna put your machine on its knees, but soon hardware will surpass the huge requirements for the OS and we'll all settle in to the new user interface (some of us kicking and screaming :p).

Was this the same thing geeks went through when Windows 95 or 3.11 came out? I wasn't in the scene back then. Though I do remember all the media coverage saying Windows 95 was the best thing since air. :p
 
Certain types of malware will be negated - but others will always exist. The most secure OSes are the ones that are least usable to the general public. For instance, if you look up some of the old (70s, 80s, early 90s) government trusted/secure operating system initiatives (the sort of secure OS that would hold classified data), they had insane requirements for what had to be done. As a result, the OSes were quite a pain for the users.

If the people want ease of use, they'll forgive some security lapses.
 
Back
Top