Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

[On the Bridge]

Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if you
have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have
SP1...
I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my
taste.

But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be
dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

Article
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right
again...

"Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After
trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the
organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to manage
retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and
businesses that were loath to switch."




--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if
you have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have
SP1...
I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my
taste.

But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be
dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

Article
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right
again...

"Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After
trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the
organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to
manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and
businesses that were loath to switch."




--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in
newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for themselves,
indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party manufacturers, it's
hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could become the next ME.

But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have
problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most
were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been
fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues
which were and are still FUD.

The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software
package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load slow
in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to tell.

UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any
case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers play
up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than XP
ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so what!!
Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms, Vista
takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most
new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of
such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because
the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still
selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't
care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In
this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on
'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the
operating system..

Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own
after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for
users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle
accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics over
15 years ago..

--
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

 

[On the Bridge]

As I said.. after SP1 vista has become "somewhat acceptible", and thats why
I have stopped bashing it..
And by the way this proves I was never a troll as you and many others
claimed. It was not my fault, that vista was faulty.

But still lots of people are having problems, so I decided to focus my
energy now to help everyone I can with these problems
instead of making fun of vista.
With SP1, vista passed the threshold of total CRAP, to only annoying
requiring you to have patience.

Sure a Vista joke here in there is a must, just to keep that smile on our
face.. but I have decided to
help the users.. they are who I care about.

 

[SG]

With SP1, vista passed the threshold of total CRAP, to only annoying
requiring you to have patience<<<

Well that I don't agree with, however you have your opinion and I do respect
that. One thing I do agree with and glad to see is your change of mind to
start helping people on these groups. That's why they are here and MOST come
here seeking help.

BTW, a joke or two is fine with me, it's a joke and laughter is indeed the
best medicine.

All the best,
SG

 

[Bill Martin]

Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if you
have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have
SP1...
I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my
taste.

But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be
dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

Article
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right
again...

"Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After
trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the
organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to manage
retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and
businesses that were loath to switch."

-------------------------

You're making the implicit assumption that Win 7 won't be even slower
and more sluggish than Vista is. I wouldn't necessarily bet on that.

Microsoft IMHO needs to give all their developers weak, wimpy
computers equivelent to what the bulk of their customers use rather
than high end development machines. Then they might have a better
appreciation for how sluggish it can be when a machine goes to sleep
for an extended time to index files or something else that doesn't
actually contribute to completeing the task at hand.

Even their Office 2007 has been a disappointment with lots of effort
put into making things look newer and better at the expense of
exection speed which is all I really care about in Excel. I don't
think that would have happened either if their developers were all on
1GHz single processor machines with 1GB or less of RAM.

That said, if you have a high end machine both Vista and Excel seem to
work ok once you kill a lot of the eye candy features. But they're
forcing the retailers to also put it on low end machines that just
suck with Vista, but would be ok with XP. And these low end machines
go into the hands of people who don't know enough to kill the resource
hogging features. (What percentage of Microsoft's customers don't
even know they can change their browser's home page?)

Bill

 

[On the Bridge]

Hi here is a post below I made some time ago, it reflects what you are
saying..
--

I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the state
of the art machines
with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.
There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of
Vista.

Its slow
its bloated
its ugly on CRT screens,
with bad colors and darn right bad taste!

They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
vista can run on...

a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch CRT
screens!!!!

THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!

The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER
FASTER LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!


This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of
ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !

--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Bill Martin:

Microsoft IMHO needs to give all their developers weak, wimpy
computers equivelent to what the bulk of their customers use rather
than high end development machines. Then they might have a better
appreciation for how sluggish it can be....

When I develop MS Office suite stuff, I'm still periodically
dismayed when something I develop - that runs like a champ on my
developer box - slows to a crawl on the user groups' laptops.

You'd think I'd learn.... but developing on a slow PC is just too
cruel and unusual to the developer IMHO.

But at least now I sneak a few tests in on one of the user's PCs
before saddling them with something.

 

[On the Bridge]

its about economics.. how much more work would you need to put into a
program for it to work
blazing fast?

I bet a lot...

MS is gonna make the money anyway.. why put in extra effort? Thats why they
love being a monopoly (not in theory but in practice)

--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

 

[kookieman]

XP was an excellent product sp1 onwards, not sp2 onwards.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

XP was an excellent product sp1 onwards, not sp2 onwards.

It really came of age after SP2 which was not just a patch roll up. It was a
major rewrite of more than a few lines of code..

--
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

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Mike Hall - MVP:

and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle
accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics over
15 years ago..

I'd have to agree with that.

I used tb a Mac fan. Even wrote a little inventory/customer
billing app for one-piece doorstop 7" screen brown box Mac.

That was a looooong time ago.

Couple years back, bought a new Mac for somebody in the family,
who just *had* to have a Mac.

Got to play with it for three weeks before they graduated from
school.

Can't comment on what's under the hood, but my impression of the
UI and ease of installing applications was just a teeny bit
beneath Windows XP. Not a lot worse... but definitely not as
good. Little things - like only having one place to close a
window.

 

[thetruthhurts]

With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in
newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for themselves,
indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party manufacturers, it's
hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could become the next ME.

But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have
problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most
were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been
fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues
which were and are still FUD.

The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software
package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load slow
in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to tell.

UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any
case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers play
up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than XP
ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so what!!
Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms, Vista
takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most
new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of
such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because
the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still
selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't
care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In
this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on
'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the
operating system..

Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own
after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for
users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle
accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics over
15 years ago..

The question all you Einsteins ignore is why switch to Vista? What is
the benefit? The migration will surely cost money, new faster
hardware, licenses of Vista, training, etc. So what does one get?

UAC? Driver problems? Really slow file copy? That is why people are
slow to adopt Vista.

 

[On the Bridge]

And the ones that get Vista usually feel like suckers afterwards

--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

 

[Frank]

The question all you Einsteins ignore is why switch to Vista? What is
the benefit? The migration will surely cost money, new faster
hardware, licenses of Vista, training, etc. So what does one get?

UAC? Driver problems? Really slow file copy? That is why people are
slow to adopt Vista.

Idiots like you should never (try to) use Vista.
Etch-a-sketch is your technological limit.
Frank

 

[DarkSentinel]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:22:28 -0500, "Mike Hall - MVP"
snip <


The question all you Einsteins ignore is why switch to Vista? What is
the benefit? The migration will surely cost money, new faster
hardware, licenses of Vista, training, etc. So what does one get?

And what you smacktards ignore is that we no longer run on 486's anymore.
This same argument has been used each and every time a new OS has come out.
New operating systems and applications are released as a result of
requirements for businesses and users. These requirements come at a price.
You want added functionality, better graphics, better security? This means
faster processors, graphic cards with more than 1MB of memory, more RAM to
handle the load. It's simple business. There's an old saying that is apropos
here. If you want to play, you have to pay. If you have been in the business
long enough, you should understand this.

UAC? Driver problems? Really slow file copy? That is why people are
slow to adopt Vista.

As stated above, the UAC is a result of requirements for better security. I
personally turn it off as I have been doing things longer than most users.
Again, you cannot seem to grasp that MS does NOT write the drivers. And
these same problems were had every time a new OS was released. I can
remember people bitching about drivers for NT4, 2000, XP. This is nothing
new. I've already disproven the file copy BS. If I can do it on a POS Acer,
there is no reason it cannot be done on other systems. So this is not why
people are slow to adopt Vista. It's the same old song and dance that has
been heard with every new release.

 

[Bill Martin]

As stated above, the UAC is a result of requirements for better security. I
personally turn it off as I have been doing things longer than most users.

--------------------

I agree the UAC was an idea whose time has come. I do however think
it was poorly implemented. If I've once clicked on a button to
install something, the UAC should KNOW that I did it from a manual
keystroke entry and not badger me three more times about whether I
want to do what I've already asked it to do. If some software has
automatically tried to install itself with no manual intervention from
me then fine, the UAC should question the process.

Like you, I've turned off the UAC but then that also means I've got a
permantent red warning from the secuity shield. So now if there is a
REAL problem (like my virus check or firewall is somehow shut off) I
have no way to be alerted; since the warning flag is red all the time
anyhow.

In this particular regard, security was better under XP IMHO.

Bill

 

[Lang Murphy]

And what you smacktards ignore is that we no longer run on 486's anymore.
If you have been in the business
long enough, you should understand this.

"Smacktards"?!? LOL! Great!

As stated above, the UAC is a result of requirements for better security. I
personally turn it off as I have been doing things longer than most users.
Again, you cannot seem to grasp that MS does NOT write the drivers. And
these same problems were had every time a new OS was released. I can
remember people bitching about drivers for NT4, 2000, XP. This is nothing
new. I've already disproven the file copy BS. If I can do it on a POS Acer,
there is no reason it cannot be done on other systems. So this is not why
people are slow to adopt Vista. It's the same old song and dance that has
been heard with every new release.

Amen, brother.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

And by the way this proves I was never a troll as you and many others
claimed. It was not my fault, that vista was faulty.

Newsflash: You're still a troll.

Lang

 

[thetruthhurts]

And what you smacktards ignore is that we no longer run on 486's anymore.
This same argument has been used each and every time a new OS has come out.
New operating systems and applications are released as a result of
requirements for businesses and users. These requirements come at a price.
You want added functionality, better graphics, better security? This means
faster processors, graphic cards with more than 1MB of memory, more RAM to
handle the load. It's simple business. There's an old saying that is apropos
here. If you want to play, you have to pay. If you have been in the business
long enough, you should understand this.

You missed the point entirely, which is not surpising for someone with
no business sense. People will buy new hardware for a new M$ OS if
there is benefit to it. Other than a marginally better UI what is the
benefit? That is wny people are not implementing Vista.

As stated above, the UAC is a result of requirements for better security. I
personally turn it off as I have been doing things longer than most users.
Again, you cannot seem to grasp that MS does NOT write the drivers. And
these same problems were had every time a new OS was released. I can
remember people bitching about drivers for NT4, 2000, XP. This is nothing
new. I've already disproven the file copy BS. If I can do it on a POS Acer,
there is no reason it cannot be done on other systems. So this is not why
people are slow to adopt Vista. It's the same old song and dance that has
been heard with every new release.

Regardless of whose fault, UAC is a disaster. The argument that it is
necessary for better security is simplistic and assumes that there is
not better way to implement UAC. Trust me UAC won't be in 7 or it
will be radically modified.

 

[Mark]

You say that Vista and sotware was business driven, why is it that businesses
only upgrade to the next version of operating system/ software revision years
after it initial release date.

BUGS possibly!!!!!!!