A trip down memory lane..

[Mike Hall - MVP]

... for the Vista bashers..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

 

[NoStop]

.. for the Vista bashers..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

His conclusion looks to bash Vista ...

<quote>
But judging by the progression that XP made in six years, all that the
Windows Vista architecture needs is *time* and a *hardware* *replacement*
cycle or two.
</quote> (my emphasis)

Are users expected to wait six years for Vista to get good enough to use,
like XP users had to wait? Are users expected to go through another one or
two hardware upgrades before Vista is good enough to use? That seems to be
the conclusion of that article. And you're citing that article as a way to
get back at "Vista bashers"? Surely, you can do better then that.

All this article highlights is the fact that Microsoft has a long history of
putting out shit software that treats its paying customers as beta testers
while at the same time making millions of dollars in the process. This FACT
seems to allude certain Fanboys around here.

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

 

[Sascha Jazbec]

.. for the Vista bashers..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

The case is as simple as one can think of :

Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 :
namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of any
special graphics.


No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware.

And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP "gold" CD
Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( but don't go
online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over.

You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because of
Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early as 2004 or
2005.

XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies on year
2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd partie software to
get near Vistas Look and features, but you will never be able to copy the
underlying techs.

Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech recognition,
the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and what else goodies
are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's marketing buro does never seem
to point out these new features.

And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and there
Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs I don't see
the need for such actions.

I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I always
resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on.

XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the year 2010
or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, people will say "Vista
is so much better and faster than >put Codename here<" ..

Some things never change

Sascha.

 

[Mark L. Ferguson]

Yep. "640K ought to be enough for anyone." : )

--
Was this helpful? Then click the "Yes" Ratings button. Voting helps the web
interface.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/help_en-us.htm#RateAPost

Mark L. Ferguson

..

 

[Jasper]

The case is as simple as one can think of :

Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 :
namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of any
special graphics.


No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware.

And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP "gold"
CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( but don't
go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over.

You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because of
Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early as 2004
or 2005.

XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies on
year 2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd partie
software to get near Vistas Look and features, but you will never be able
to copy the underlying techs.

Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech recognition,
the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and what else goodies
are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's marketing buro does never seem
to point out these new features.

And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and there
Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs I don't see
the need for such actions.

I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I always
resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on.

XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the year
2010 or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, people will say
"Vista is so much better and faster than >put Codename here<" ..

Some things never change

Sascha.

Here is a complete list of Windows version requirements
Windows 3.1 (enhanced mode) Released 1992

REQUIREMENTS

Computer: 100% IBM Compatible
Processor: 80386 or higher processor
Memory: 2MB + RAM
Drives: 8MB Hard disk drive space 3.5" / 5.25"Floppy
Video: VGA
Controls: keyboard / Mouse
operating system: DOS 3.1 and Higher


Windows for workgroups 3.11 Released 1994

REQUIREMENTS

Computer: 100% IBM Compatible
Processor: 386 or higher processor
Memory: 3MB + RAM
Drives: 14MB Hard disk drive space 3.5" / 5.25"Floppy
Video: VGA
Controls: keyboard / Mouse
operating system: DOS 3.3 and Higher


Windows 95 Hardware Reqirements

-Hardware Requirements For Installing And Successfully Running Windows 95

-Before even considering an upgrade of your current operating system to
Windows 95, you

should closely examine your current hardware configuration to determine if
you meet the

absolute minimum requirements that Windows 95 needs to run. Make sure and
use the preferred

requirements if at all possible. Windows can run in the minimum hardware
configuration but

performance will be awful.

-Here's the list of minimum, recommended, and preferred requirements for a
Windows 95

installation:

PROCESSOR

Minimum: 386/DX

Recommended: 486/DX

Preferred: Pentium 75Mhz or higher

MEMORY

Minimum: 4MB

Recommended: 8MB

Preferred: 16MB or higher

VIDEO ADAPTER:

Minimum: VGA

Recommended: SVGA

Preferred: SVGA with 2MB Video RAM

DISKETTE OR CD-ROM DRIVE

Minimum: 3.5 High Density Floppy Drive

Recommended: CD-ROM 2X Speed

Preferred: CD-ROM 4X Speed or higher

HARD DRIVE SPACE

Minimum Install: 24 MB free space

Recommended: 70 MB free space

Preferred: 90-120 MB free space


Windows 98 Hardware Requirements

Personal computer with a 486DX 66 MHz or faster processor (Pentium central
processing unit

recommended)

16 megabytes (MB) of memory (24 MB recommended)

One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive

CD-ROM drive

195 mb of free space

VGA or higher resolution (16-bit or 24-bit color SVGA recommended


MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR WINDOWS ME


Processor - Pentium or equivalent, 150 MHz or higher

Memory - 32 mb of RAM

Hard Drive Space - 320 mb to 420 mb depending on configuration selected

Display - VGA or higher

Peripheral - Microsoft Mouse or compatible

Modem - Minimum supported 28.8 or higher baud rate.

For Movie Maker - 300 MHz processor, Pentium II or equivalent, 64 mb of RAM,
2 GB of free

hard disk space for video.

Other hardware is required for DVD, Broadcast and Web Reception, Internet
Connection Sharing

and Windows Media Player



System Requirements for Windows 2000


Technology Support Center suggested system requirements for Windows 2000
350 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.

96 to 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally
improves

responsiveness.

4GB hard disk with a minimum of 1GB of free space.

Microsoft suggested system requirements:

133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.

64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves
responsiveness.

2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space.


Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems.


Windows XP/XP Pro

Designed for Windows XP computer hardware logoSystem requirements for
Windows XP Home and

Professional editions as follows:[21]

Minimum Recommended
Processor 233 MHz 300 MHz or higher
Memory 64 MB RAM (may limit performance and some features) 128 MB RAM or
higher
Video adapter and monitor Super VGA (800 x 600) Super VGA (800 x 600) or
higher resolution
Hard drive disk free space 1.5 GB 1.5 GB or higher
Drives CD-ROM CD-ROM or better
Devices Keyboard and mouse Keyboard and mouse
Others Sound card, speakers, and headphones Sound card, speakers, and
headphones

In addition to the Windows XP system requirements, Service Pack 2 requires
an additional 1.8

GB of free hard disk space during installation

Vista Home Basic, Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

512 MB of system memory

20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory

DVD-ROM drive

Audio Output

Internet access (fees may apply)

Additional Requirements
Actual requirements and product functionality may vary based on your system
configuration.

Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor can help you determine which features and
edition of Windows

Vista will run on your computer.

While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only
Windows Vista

Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors.

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 GB of system memory

40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

WDDM Driver

128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

32 bits per pixel

DVD-ROM drive

Audio Output

Internet access (fees may apply)

Additional Requirements
Actual requirements and product functionality may vary based on your system
configuration.

Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor can help you determine which features and
edition of Windows

Vista will run on your computer.

While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only
Windows Vista

Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors.

Home Premium / Ultimate
TV tuner card required for TV functionality (compatible remote control
optional).

Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
Windows Tablet and Touch Technology requires a Tablet PC or a touch screen.

Ultimate
Windows BitLocker Drive Encryption requires a USB Flash Drive and a system
with a TPM 1.2

chip.

 

[Alias]

The case is as simple as one can think of :

Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 :
namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of any
special graphics.


No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware.

And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP "gold"
CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( but don't
go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over.

You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because of
Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early as 2004
or 2005.

XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies on
year 2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd partie
software to get near Vistas Look and features, but you will never be
able to copy the underlying techs.

Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech
recognition, the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and
what else goodies are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's marketing
buro does never seem to point out these new features.

And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and
there Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs I
don't see the need for such actions.

I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I always
resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on.

XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the year
2010 or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, people will
say "Vista is so much better and faster than >put Codename here<" ..

Some things never change

Sascha.

Yep, MS has *always* released *all* versions of Windows before they were
ready and used the paying public to do the final beta testing. The
amazing thing is that you MS fanboys and girls think this is normal and
should be accepted.

Alias

 

[Frank]

Yep, MS has *always* released *all* versions of Windows before they were
ready and used the paying public to do the final beta testing.

Wrong! Stop lying.

The

amazing thing is that you MS fanboys and girls think this is normal and
should be accepted.

If you so hate MS and Windows then go on over to your open sores
sh*thole where you belong. You're lying and spamming is not wanted nor
needed here.
Frank

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Yep, MS has *always* released *all* versions of Windows before they were
ready and used the paying public to do the final beta testing. The amazing
thing is that you MS fanboys and girls think this is normal and should be
accepted.

Alias

And Ubuntu doesn't? So we can assume that Ubuntu 7.10 at the point of
release hasn't required any updates, fixes, minor rewrites?

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

 

[Alias]

And Ubuntu doesn't? So we can assume that Ubuntu 7.10 at the point of
release hasn't required any updates, fixes, minor rewrites?

Yes, but I haven't noticed any changes. When it was released, it worked
perfectly. XP SP2 was when XP should have been released. Updating it
since then is not a bad thing, just as updating a final release of
Ubuntu is not a bad thing.

Alias

 

[the wharf rat]

No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware.

A new OS should be much faster, since it's built to take advantage
of newer hardware features. The old OS will be faster ONLY if the new
release is incapable of utilizing the improved hardware to the same degree
that the old release is.

For example, Solaris 10 is faster than Solaris 7 on the same
hardware. Linux kernel 2.6.9 is faster than 2.2.4 on the same hardware.
This isn't true about Windows because Microsoft negelcts the priniciple
of incremental improvement for the sake of clever segmented marketing
schemes and digital rights management attractive to content producers.

XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated

What makes you say that?

Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech recognition,
the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and what else goodies

You're mistaking "bells and whistles" for "important core features".
MS and its users continually confound the UI with the operating system. The
MS UI has always been world class. The supporting operating systems are...not.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Yes, but I haven't noticed any changes. When it was released, it worked
perfectly. XP SP2 was when XP should have been released. Updating it since
then is not a bad thing, just as updating a final release of Ubuntu is not
a bad thing.

Alias

A day after it was released, some patches came down the tubes, and they have
been doing this since 7.10 was first released. If I didn't know better, I
would think that Ubuntu users are being treated like guinea pigs for an OS
that clearly wasn't ready..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

 

[Alias]

A day after it was released, some patches came down the tubes, and they
have been doing this since 7.10 was first released. If I didn't know
better, I would think that Ubuntu users are being treated like guinea
pigs for an OS that clearly wasn't ready..

But you do know better and it worked fine right out of the box.

Alias

 

[Frank]

Yes, but I haven't noticed any changes. When it was released, it worked
perfectly.

That's funny...considering the fact that after I installed it there were
over 150 updates.
What was that all about? You seem to be having a real problem with the
truth. But you've always been like that haven't you.
Frank

 

[NoStop]

And Ubuntu doesn't? So we can assume that Ubuntu 7.10 at the point of
release hasn't required any updates, fixes, minor rewrites?

Of course Ubuntu required updates and fixes after its initial release. But
it essentially WORKED when it was released from beta testing. The same can
not be said for Vista. That's why everyone is still waiting for SP1 and
then will be waiting even longer for SP2.

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

 

[Alias]

That's funny...considering the fact that after I installed it there were
over 150 updates.
What was that all about? You seem to be having a real problem with the
truth. But you've always been like that haven't you.
Frank

You never installed Ubuntu and the "150 updates" is proof. ALL OSes have
updates, Frank, but XP and Vista were released before they were ready
for prime time.

Alias

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Yep. "640K ought to be enough for anyone." : )

--
Was this helpful? Then click the "Yes" Ratings button. Voting helps the
web
interface.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/help_en-us.htm#RateAPost

Mark L. Ferguson

.

At the time, it was..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

 

[Jasper]

You never installed Ubuntu and the "150 updates" is proof. ALL OSes have
updates, Frank, but XP and Vista were released before they were ready for
prime time.

Alias

When I installed Ubuntu 7.10 there were 190 available updates. To bad it
totally screwed the install after it updated.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

But you do know better and it worked fine right out of the box.

Alias

Vista worked right out of the box for me. I was part of the beta test, and
have used Vista exclusively since November 2006..

There isn't an OS that hasn't needed continual work, nor any piece of
software, and if the 'guinea pig' law applies to Windows, it surely applies
to everything else.



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

 

[Frank]

But you do know better and it worked fine right out of the box.

Alias

You are really in denial aren't you?
Take it like a man...if you can...LOL!
Frank

 

[Frank]

You never installed Ubuntu and the "150 updates" is proof.

Yeah, proof that I installed that POS os.

ALL OSes have