XP, Vista now Windows 7......Ugh(rant)

B

Bamboo

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
901
BEWARE!!! huge wall of text rant with foul language:(


What's the problem with Vista that they are making Windows 7? Why not just fix the "problem" or add the features into Vista? It's still fairly new I thought.

I'm begining to feel like I am being milked every few years for a new O.S. The money is NOT the issue. I hate all the problems that always seem to come with it.

Somebody suggested in another thread that Microsoft just charge a yearly fee for there software and they in turn keep it updated and fully featured(i.e. Direct X). I think that's a fair to everybody business model.

Doesn't this upset developers out there who have to update and/or rewrite software because of this? So next year software companies are going to be writing software for XP, Vista, Windows 7 in 32 and 64bit versions. Doesn't this cost a lot of money? I am a gamer. I have gamer friends that won't even try Vista yet. IMO it is just recently comming around to a great operating system(after finally chucking my X-Fi soundcard).

Who are these people that wait in line the night before to get the new windows? What is so exciting about getting a new O.S.? The drivers are all fucked up forever on the damn things. Some old great software and hardware is not going to work and The O.S. itself is going to have problems. The people who wait in line obviously understand it, why can't I understand it?

Why do my friends still love XP when were already moving on to windows 7? Why is every component in my system rated at 5.9 in my windows experience index no mater what I put in or replace? Wtf am I missing in all this bullshit? ....besides the QQ :D

I will probably get windows 7 as soon as it comes out because knowing M.S., vista wont support DirectX 12. I might as well get used to 7 as fast as possible. I just feel like shit. Everything is FINALLY running so bitchen on my Vista 64 system =/


Thanks for reading my rant,
Mike
 
After reading this... I feel that you're ranting about a bit of personal FUD in regards to Windows 7. Wisdom has shown that waiting to hold one's judgment before fully utilizing anything new is usually the best course of action.

By the way, DirectX 11 will be provided to both Vista & 7. They both have the Longhorn Device Driver Model (LDDM) built in, which means that Vista drivers will work more likely than not. Popular consensus amongst gamers about XP doesn't mean that they are correct, have the best components or hold the knowledge/skills to adequately harness a system's potential with whatever OS they use. Your own system can handle Vista x64, which means that you'll most likely have very few issues with 7. People don't realize that 7 isn't a major jump from Vista...
 
Think of Windows 7 as Windows 6.1

Every few years? XP has been out since 2001.
 
They start developing the upcoming OS quite before the current one is even released..so they've been developing 7 for a long time already, it's been this way in the past too.

Windows Experience Index...bah, it's as useless as 3DMark. The truth is in your actual realtime user experience, and the seat of your pants.
 
You a probably right on my personal Fud Crimson. I am just basing it off my past experiences. I am aware of DirectX 11 compatability :). It's DirectX 12 and all the other possible issues that concern me.

It's feel like I just got through struggling with all the vista issues. Everything seems to be working great now.

I worked my ass off all day. I get home. I get in my pajamas, get comfy in my easy chair, start my movie and the farking doorbell rings. It's my neighbor windows 7.

Maybe a little premature, 7 could possibly support all my hardware. The developers of my hardware may actually know how to write drivers for it within the first 2 years. Most of my games will get patches to support it and it will never BSOD ruining files causing me to have to reinstall it more than I normally would.

For the most part I was just blowing off steam. I hope windows seven kicks ass and everybody that gets it is very happy. I also hope that it stays the new kid on the block a little longer than Vista did;).

To Monkey God. It is a lot easier to swallow if you look at it that way.

Thanks,
Cpt. Fud
 
Bamboo said:
B
What's the problem with Vista that they are making Windows 7? Why not just fix the "problem" or add the features into Vista? It's still fairly new I thought.
Click to expand...


WHAT


DO


YOU


THINK


THEY


ARE


DOING


?
 
Crap getting tired it's showing in the last post lol.


Big ROFL at Verge. Very funnay:D
 
What problems are you talking about with Windows Vista? Creating and releasing a new OS isn't always about "problems" its' about innovation and providing a reason for your customers to upgrade or spend more money for your products. Upgrade if you feel its' worth it or you need to for some feature you like or don't upgrade as you see fit. Microsoft doesn't force you to buy anything anymore than Intel or AMD do. Either many of the people on the forums are really young or they have short memories. Microsoft used to put out a new OS roughly every two years and sometimes more often. Microsoft had an unusually large gap between Windows XP and Windows Vista. They are simply getting back on track with Windows 7.

Even with that said the gap between Vista and Windows 7 is a long one. Windows Vista is nearly two years old. Windows 7 will probably be later on in 2009 if I am not mistaken. That leaves close to a 3 year gap. The gap was much shorter between Windows 95 and Windows 95B. Then there was Windows 98 which had an even shorter gap between Windows 98 and Windows 98SE (though the changes were minor) and finally Windows ME came out fairly shortly after Windows 98SE. Windows 2000 beat Windows ME to release by some time and Windows XP replaced them both in short order.
 
1. We aren't moving to Windows 7 anytime soon. Most likely, it will be well into 2010 before it's considered "done and available"
2. I'm not making any assumptions about age, but this has been going on for well over a decade. This pattern is nothing new.
3. Apple releases new OSes the same or more frequently.
4. Vista has been available in some form or another for three years now. If a developer isn't ready, to blame Microsoft or progress.
5. If you don't understand the "excitement" for a new OS, you aren't in I.T. or an enthusiast. Same reason why people clamor for pics of a new car.
6. Overall, things have been running smooth on Vista for quite a while now, so you seem to be late to the party. It's been a great OS for a while now too.
7. Just because you have friends who are afraid of change or progress, doesn't mean you need to follow them.
8. Developers shouldn't have much trouble getting their apps to run on Windows 7 compared to Vista, as they aren't going to be vastly different OSes.
 
vista is 2 years old now, it was being developed back in 2004, it is technically an old OS it just didn't catch on well so people think it is new, MS sticks to a ... 3-4 year cycle on OS's and windows 7 is just in Alpha now, so in 2009 /2010 it will be out, thus keeping to MS cycle of OS's, XP was just around for 7 years so it seems like a short time.
 
DeaconFrost said:
1. We aren't moving to Windows 7 anytime soon. Most likely, it will be well into 2010 before it's considered "done and available"
2. I'm not making any assumptions about age, but this has been going on for well over a decade. This pattern is nothing new.
3. Apple releases new OSes the same or more frequently.
4. Vista has been available in some form or another for three years now. If a developer isn't ready, to blame Microsoft or progress.
5. If you don't understand the "excitement" for a new OS, you aren't in I.T. or an enthusiast. Same reason why people clamor for pics of a new car.
6. Overall, things have been running smooth on Vista for quite a while now, so you seem to be late to the party. It's been a great OS for a while now too.
7. Just because you have friends who are afraid of change or progress, doesn't mean you need to follow them.
8. Developers shouldn't have much trouble getting their apps to run on Windows 7 compared to Vista, as they aren't going to be vastly different OSes.
Click to expand...


Dead on, dont jump on the bandwagon, try vista, tons of people like it fine, Vista is no diff then when XP came out and people said they would NEVER leave windows 2000.....:rolleyes: This happens, exact SAME thing every time MS release or mentions a new OS.
 
DeaconFrost said:
1. We aren't moving to Windows 7 anytime soon. Most likely, it will be well into 2010 before it's considered "done and available"
2. I'm not making any assumptions about age, but this has been going on for well over a decade. This pattern is nothing new.
3. Apple releases new OSes the same or more frequently.
4. Vista has been available in some form or another for three years now. If a developer isn't ready, to blame Microsoft or progress.
5. If you don't understand the "excitement" for a new OS, you aren't in I.T. or an enthusiast. Same reason why people clamor for pics of a new car.
6. Overall, things have been running smooth on Vista for quite a while now, so you seem to be late to the party. It's been a great OS for a while now too.
7. Just because you have friends who are afraid of change or progress, doesn't mean you need to follow them.
8. Developers shouldn't have much trouble getting their apps to run on Windows 7 compared to Vista, as they aren't going to be vastly different OSes.
Click to expand...


@DeaconFrost

1. Sounds good.
2. I'm 35. I got my first computer in 1999 it had windows 98.
3. No offense. I'm a gamer. Apple doesn't concern me.
4. Great point
5. Good point.
6. I was wrong to blame vista. It's the developers of a lot of game titles I have bought and or hardware drivers.
7. I'm not. I have Vista.
8. That is excellent news. I am not an O.S. enthusiast or an I.T. guy so my knowedge is very limited in that area(see comment 5 :D). This is deffinately good news IMO.

Thanks for your input DeaconFrost.
You still have that pad on top of the skyscraper?;)


@Dan_D

I never reaslised the actual time between Microsofts O.S. releases. Maybe I'm getting old. I started with 98 and skipped 2000 and Me. That is possibly why I feel 7 is comming on so fast.

@Joe Average

lol I don't blame you:rolleyes:


Thanks for your thoughts guys.
 
Most OS's come out in fairly short intervals. How many years was it between windows 95, 98, and Me?

Hell, Windows 2000 came out in like Feb of 2000 while XP came out in October of 2001, that's just a year and a half...

XP was out for a while but that is more the exception than the rule.
 
Based on what I've been seeing of Windows 7 (screenshots) I'm liking what they're putting out. In the Wikipeidia article it shows a slider for the "attentiveness" of User Account Control. Apparently control panel elements have been streamlined too.
 
You might as well skip Vista in your IT department. 7 is going to be better in every way and have the exact same support/application compatibility. There is zero reason to run Vista instead of 7.
 
Dan_D said:
Either many of the people on the forums are really young or they have short memories. Microsoft used to put out a new OS roughly every two years and sometimes more often. Microsoft had an unusually large gap between Windows XP and Windows Vista. They are simply getting back on track with Windows 7.

Even with that said the gap between Vista and Windows 7 is a long one. Windows Vista is nearly two years old. Windows 7 will probably be later on in 2009 if I am not mistaken. That leaves close to a 3 year gap. The gap was much shorter between Windows 95 and Windows 95B. Then there was Windows 98 which had an even shorter gap between Windows 98 and Windows 98SE (though the changes were minor) and finally Windows ME came out fairly shortly after Windows 98SE. Windows 2000 beat Windows ME to release by some time and Windows XP replaced them both in short order.
Click to expand...

The formal 'release cycle' for Microsoft has been 3 years since about the mid-1990s, and the scheduled release date for Windows 7 represents a return to that after the anomoly of XP. You're mixing up what was formerly two distinct product lines, and has now been integrated into one unified product line.

Those two distinct product lines are the Windows 3.x/Windows 9x 16/32-bit hybrid family, and the Windows NT (32-bit, now 32/64-bit) family. The first of those was a 'consumer-oriented' product, whilst the latter was a 'high-level business' oriented product. Although earlier versions of those existed (and release cycles were shorter between them) , those two product families really 'came into their own' as matured products with Windows 3.1 (April, 1992) and Windows NT 4 (July, 1996) respectively. And along with the maturation of product, along came the stated 3-year product replacement cycle, which has been reasonably closely adhered to.

In the 'consumer market' Windows 95 followed (in 1995) and Windows 98 followed that (on 1998) The 'b' and 'c' versions of Windows 95 were really freebie service packs, as was the 'SE' edition of Windows 98. In the 'business market' Windows 2000 was released in February, 2000. Windows 95 (which was very successful) had been touted as a 'major release', but was really just some added features and a new 'look and feel' interface. Windows 3.1 had been the genuine 'major release', with its discarding of 'real mode' operation.


Then a couple of anomolies.

First, Windows Me/Windows XP debacle. Microsoft had for a long time been planning a 'grand scheme' for the future of Windows. A unified product, jettisoning the 16/32-bit operation and including some radically different functionalitues. But, by the end of the 90s it had become apparent that they were neither ready to present it nor confronted with a marketplace which was ready to accomodate it. But that revelation took a bit to sink in. Windows Me was intended to be the last of the Windows 9x product line, It 'removed' access to the DOS sub-system and 'added' some bolted-on functionality lifted from the alternate development project. The intention was to 'wean' consumer market end-users and software developers away from the established mindset, and it proved a disaster because it was shoddy and unstable. Too big a building built upon too shaky foundations, basically. So XP was rushed out, pretty much only a year later, and the XP which was presented to us was basically just Windows 2000 with a new user inbterface and some 'added extra' bundled apps built in. XP wasn't an immediate success, with the business market having already consolidated on Windows 2000 and with the consumer market displaying slowish uptake.

Then the second 'debacle', which was basically a debacle from the Microsoft point of view rather than the end-user point of view. Windows XP SP2 was the 'genuine' next version. It was the real 'return to product cycle'. But the legacy of that earlier debacle resulted in us being presented with it as a service pack rather than as a new product version, despite the fact that it was truly a major rewrite of the underlying code. The Microsoft development teams had run into problems with their development of XP's intended 'successor' anyway, and had to pretty much start over from scratch again, so the good work already done on the underlying structural 'engineering' was deployed as a Service Pack. Microsoft 'missed out' on the profits to be gained from a version release at that point in time.

Fast forward 3 years to Vista. Fast forward anothger 3 years to Windows 7. We now have a unified product, adhering to a 3 year product cycle as planned.

Vista was (and is) a 'major' version release. Perhaps the most 'major' version release of any Windows product since Windows 3.1, actually. It adds a whole new 'layer' to the underlying architecture, to ensure system-level protections, adds a new (and potentially better/more stable) device driver model, and also mandates some programming practices which were formerly optional ones despite being 'best practice' procedures.

Windows 7 will be, in comparison, a 'minor' release, as should be evident from what's been published on the official developers blog. It'll add some new functionality, look a bit different, tweak and improve some stuff. But it won't 'break' hardware and software compatibility in comparison to Vista because, underneath, it's basically still gonna be Vista. No major changes planned for the architecture and engineering, because we've already GOT those! If people care to read the Offical Blog they'll soon see that the 'challenge' being confronted by the development team is the improvement of the 'user experience' of operating Windows rather than the transformation of it into something new and different.

bigdogchris said:
You might as well skip Vista in your IT department. 7 is going to be better in every way and have the exact same support/application compatibility. There is zero reason to run Vista instead of 7.
Click to expand...
That's fundamentally unsound reasoning!

The corporate world doesn't 'flock' to new Windows versions just because they are new Windows versions. The OS replacement cycle is pretty closely aligned to the hardware replacement cycle, and the hardware replacement cycle in the corporate world is a considerably longer period of time than Microsoft's 3-year version cycle. The corporate world hasn't yet 'moved' to Vista in any significant extent, predominately because Vista is a 'breaking technology' and the corporate world isn't yet ready to accomodate it. Far too much 'legacy' hardware and software in usage still, in that environment, so the introduction of an OS 'breaking technology' is potentially a helluvan expense to confront.

BUT...

For corporations which ARE ready to move forward - those corporations where the hardware and software replacement cycles are happening or have already happened and where the impact of 'breakage' isn't gonna be what it is to other corporations which haven't yet arrived at that point - there's little if any reason to 'skip' Vista in favour of Windows 7. Windows 7 is gonna be the exact same 'breaking' technology.

With Windows having a 3 year product cycle it is 'normal' for two or more windows versions to be concurrently in common, widespread usage. That's the 'point' missed by those who make statement like the one bigdogchris just made. People don't 'change' to a new windows version just because a new windows version has been released. Not unless they are part of that small market sdegment comprising the enthusiasts and early-adoptors, anyway. Instead, people 'change' because change is opportune. Comsumers, for the most part, move to a new Windows version because a new machine has been purchased and it has that new windows version pre-installed. Business users move to a new Windows version because the time is opportune to do so, and because replacements/upgrades to hardware and software inventory create the conditions in which change can occur.

For the 'IT department' the question isn't really "Should we change TO Windows Vista or Windows 7?" Instead, it's "Are we yet ready to change FROM Windows XP?"

At any one point in time, if a Windows version has attained about a one third OS market share then it's doing as well as could reasonably be expected. If it ever exceeds about a 40% market share then it's doing extraordinarily well. Windows XP only ever attained its peak ~80% market share because:

  • It was basically two consecutive versions, rolled into one and..
  • The Windows platform itself continues to do extraordinarily well!

An IT department contemplating the deployment of Windows 7 is going to be confronted with pretty much the exact same 'problems' confronted by the IT department contemplating deploying Windows Vista. And if the corporate environment is currently at a point where it is 'ready' to confront the deployment of Vista, then there's pretty much no point in waiting for Windows 7, because Windows 7 isn't going to fundamentally change anything at all.
 
Bamboo said:
IMO it is just recently comming around to a great operating system(after finally chucking my X-Fi soundcard).
Click to expand...

You chucked your X-Fi card? LOL, nice timing. The latest drivers for the X-Fi work awesome.
 
Catweazle, as you said, you're ready to move forward. And since 7 has identical support as Vista, as Microsoft claims, there is no reason to jump on Vista since you'll not lose anything compatibility wise with 7. There may be some security issues, so just wait for 6 months after release.
 
You missed the point of what was said there, bigdogchris.

I was personally ready to 'move forward' with the intial release of Vista. I'd already done all the preparations during the beta-testing and Release Candidate days, and had little of anything in the way of 'problems' confronting me which weren't worked out during about the first month of retail release.

But mine is 'personal use', not 'IT department use'. If a corporation is ready now to move on FROM Windows XP, and enjoy the enhanced/improved deployment and management advantages of Vista and beyond, why would they need to 'wait'?
 
Basically, Windows 7 is Vista, with fixes and a changed name. They can't very well call it Vista, since Joe Blow ( who has never used Vista ) -- thinks Vista sucks and won't but "Fixed Vista" -- Instead, they call ti something shiny and new, and much better than Vista, and hopefully people will buy it.
 
SilverSliver said:
Basically, Windows 7 is Vista, with fixes and a changed name. They can't very well call it Vista, since Joe Blow ( who has never used Vista ) -- thinks Vista sucks and won't but "Fixed Vista" -- Instead, they call ti something shiny and new, and much better than Vista, and hopefully people will buy it.
Click to expand...

LOL, nice way to put it. Who's the big dummy now...:D

I do have to say, other than my RAM issue with certain programs and installers, I haven't been happier with a OS than I have with Vista 64. My gosh, it just flies.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Dead on, dont jump on the bandwagon, try vista, tons of people like it fine, Vista is no diff then when XP came out and people said they would NEVER leave windows 2000.....:rolleyes: This happens, exact SAME thing every time MS release or mentions a new OS.
Click to expand...

My friend just left 2000 last year, when I showed him how easy it was to break into his PC over the internet.
He had some pirated copy of Win2k from 8 years ago that didn't even have Sp4 on it, so I bought him a copy of XP SP2 and made him install it (His computer is a dual core T9400, 4 gigs of ram and a 8800GT M mind you). It came with Vista Home Premium x64, and he formatted it and installed Win2k on it. No joke.
He didn't want to make the switch to x64 even after I told him about it, but hey, at least he's able to use 3.5gb of his 4gb memory, and he's pretty happy playing CS:S on it.
 
News flash! No one is forcing anyone to buy Windows7. It's totally up to you if you want the new and improved (sometimes) OS or not.
 
Almost every week I read the same shit in this forum. Like clockwork somebody posts a thread(rant) about Vista, like clockwork the same people post the same responses. I start to read these threads to just to confirm who I think is going to post the same thing. I have a piece of paper with check boxes and I check them off as I go down the list of names. :p
 
number69 said:
Almost every week I read the same shit in this forum. Like clockwork somebody posts a thread(rant) about Vista, like clockwork the same people post the same responses. I start to read these threads to just to confirm who I think is going to post the same thing. I have a piece of paper with check boxes and I check them off as I go down the list of names. :p
Click to expand...


Yep, and it gets in the way of legit support threads about Vista.

For example... mention the terms Vista and RAM in your question and you get shit like

"It's prefetch
/thread"

or

"thats why Vista sucks and blah blah blah."

It's almost like they have some type if script scanning the forums for a set of terms and when it sees them, it auto replies on their behalf.
 
/OT


number69 said:
Almost every week I read the same shit in this forum. Like clockwork somebody posts a thread(rant) about Vista, like clockwork the same people post the same responses. I start to read these threads to just to confirm who I think is going to post the same thing. I have a piece of paper with check boxes and I check them off as I go down the list of names. :p
Click to expand...

You get that, on forum boards where ad banners appear atop the page. Might be about Vista, on a 'pooter tech board. Might be about some pet peeve regarding cycling, on a cycling board. Might be about anything at all, really, depending upon the content the board addresses.

But when advertising revenue is being generated you simply don't get 'moderating' which includes 'same shit, different day' thread closures and pointers to existing content. Continued postings and page views are too important :p
 
Cat, you've made some excellent points, however Windows 7 will be considered a major release. Basically its built up from Server 2008 (which is about good step up from vista stability / performance wise).

IMO, Vista was to buy time till 7 is/was finished. MS needed some extra funds, so they packaged up what they had and shipped it out the door. Since much of MS funds come from OEM installs, it didn't take a whole lot of effort to make it happen the way it did. However until MS releases a OS that has CONSISTENT 64 bit drivers, I'll stay with my XP 32. If I wanted to hack windows like linux or OSX I'd get OSX or linux.
 
djgizmo said:
Basically its built up from Server 2008 (which is about good step up from vista stability / performance wise).
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Server 2008 is more stable and peforms better then Vista? Do you have some linkage to support that, as everything I have seen shows that the two are very close in both regards.
 
djgizmo said:
b

IMO, Vista was to buy time till 7 is/was finished. MS needed some extra funds, so they packaged up what they had and shipped it out the door.
Click to expand...

lol?


i was actually not a big fan of vista when it came out, but then my girlfriend wanted it (ooo shiny!) so I installed it on her computer (sempron manilla @ 1.8ghz / 2GB ram) and it ended up working exceptionally well for her, being very low maintenance and snappy without any tech support from me.....

that installation worked wonderfully well for her right up until about a month ago when she upgraded to a brisbane and 4gb of ram and needed a format (new motherboard).

seeing it in action made me switch my windows based installs (primarily a BSD user) all over to vista x64, it definitely is the best windows since 2000 came out.
 
Met-AL said:
Are you saying that Server 2008 is more stable and peforms better then Vista? Do you have some linkage to support that, as everything I have seen shows that the two are very close in both regards.
Click to expand...

no he does not....

none of the morons wasting 2008 license keys have anything to support their claims.... perhaps the identical operating system internals is why?

placebo is a powerful thing though.....
 
Its like you're saying Server 2003 is the same as Windows XP, which its not. Its drivers are, but its a Server 2003 is a beast (stability / performance wise) compared XP.

I personally have tested Server 2008/Vista side by side (dual boot) for about 2 months before reverting back to XP (due to 64 bit drivers not out for all my devices) and bottom line, I had less stability issues with Server 2008 than vista. With the apps I was able to install without a hitch for Server 2008 (dam compatibility issues), they ran 'noticeably' faster than vista. Literally I'd go 4 hours with vista, then 4 hours with Server 2008.

The reason I did this 2 month test is because like you, a friend said 'oh wow, server 2008 is so much better', I called him a bs'er and wanted to call him out. After 2 months of TRYING to prove that he was wrong, I flat out couldn't. But I don't about anyone else, but did you notice a boost in stability / performance since SP1 for Vista? Reason, that service pack was based on Server 2008 code. hence the reason for the same release time frame, Q1 2008.
 
djgizmo said:
Its like you're saying Server 2003 is the same as Windows XP, which its not. Its drivers are, but its a Server 2003 is a beast (stability / performance wise) compared XP.
Click to expand...


server 2003 and XP were based on different versions of the NT kernel.... 2008 and Vista are based on the very same kernel.... thats why when server 2008 came out, it was already "SP1" ... because it came out *after* Vista, and just incorporated it's patches and fixes....

and yea... nobody is going to find a link from a real source with *actual* tests that show that server 2008 is somehow faster or leaner than Vista...... nobody......

any tweaks one might make to server 2008 can also be made to vista, and like server 2003, there will probably be some incompatibilities with certain software and drivers...... a complete waste of time and money...


once again... to all the server 2008 lovers out there.... is there any source of information (benchmarks, average uptime before a crash, etc) backing up the server 2008 is better claim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top