Why Vista??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lou
  • Start date Start date
Yrrah said:
1 and 2, but it's off topic her.

I am more interested in possible consequences for freeware (authors).

Yrrah
Click to expand...

Bill Turner is gonna get you:-)).
As far as off-topic. I agree, but I was getting tired of seeing other Vista
relayed posts.

Lou
 
5. it has better Asian fonts
6. AppLocale
Click to expand...

So far, nothing the *average user* needs. But MS will make the
average user think that he can't live without it, probably by touting
how virus and Trojan resistant Vista is (not pointing out to them that
they said the same thing about XP, and are now saying that XP isn't
all that good).
 
(e-mail address removed) a écrit :
Why Vista?
1. To help MS make money
2. Help sell hardware because after the initial announcement almost all
O/S sales are to hardware vendors
3. Some features are needed.

Anyone who does not understand the above does not understand the
capitalism.
Click to expand...


I Agree. We don't need Vista (because XP or linux can do every thing),
and foremost an OS which take 2,7GB just after installation.
I guess it is to force people buy new hardware. Too late.


laurent h
 
Bill Turner a écrit :
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Anyone who would write a sentence like the above does not understand
the English.

Bill Turner
Click to expand...

Mais on s'en fout éperdument. Tout ceux qui ne lisent pas
ceci ne comprennent pas le français. La honte quoi.


laurent h
 
As I understand it, anyone who installs the free trial form of Vista
must either purchase and install the final version or do a complete
reinstall of their previous version of Windows at the end of the trial
period (which I believe ends in June of 2007).
Click to expand...

Since you can't "restore" to the previous version, and since the beta
eventually stops, those would seem to be the only alternatives.
 
Colonel Mustard Green said:
Why Windows XP? Why Windows 2000? Why Windows 98?


"It Came With My Pee Cee!"
Click to expand...

Also "Better the devil you know"

That said, I tried the beta and I could have built a PC from Scratch AND
installed XP twice whilst Vista was just installing on my other PC!!

PC's are getting faster so M$ only update their O.S to slow them right back
down again in order you'll wait for faster processors, larger memory etc :-(
Stick Win98 back on and you'll thing you've just bought a beefy new PC :-))

T.W.
 
Dave said:
RAM is very cheap these days, 2gb currently going for around AU$275. Might
as well make the most of it - no point having a high-end system if you don't
have a high-end operating system.
Click to expand...
I guess that would depend on what you actually do with the system, or I
didn't spot the sarcasm :)

When using office or browser it's the same what's the platform, but when
running intensive apps like games, or perhaps physics modelling, it's
just plain waste to have a "hi-end" OS with memory consumption up to a
gig when nothings running. One could reasonably assume that vista kernel
isn't any less bloat than installation disk use or resource
requirements. So if I'm not mistaken, every operation takes
infinitesimal slice of extra time, which bundles up in the end. Ergo
hi-end OS is nothing but a nuissance when youre trying to accomplish
something :)

Cheers
-K
 
Dave said:
RAM is very cheap these days, 2gb currently going for around AU$275. Might
as well make the most of it - no point having a high-end system if you don't
have a high-end operating system.
Click to expand...

How does gross bloat equal a high end OS? The only thing it equals is
wasted money on hardware, reduced performance, and reduced ability.
MS's insistence on trying to bring computers to a crawl is rather weird
frmo the end users point of view.

NT
 
lisztfr said:
I Agree. We don't need Vista (because XP or linux can do every thing),
Click to expand...

98 can do more than XP


the said:
PC's are getting faster so M$ only update their O.S to slow them right back
down again in order you'll wait for faster processors, larger memory etc :-(
Stick Win98 back on and you'll thing you've just bought a beefy new PC :-))
Click to expand...

odd how so few seem so notice.


NT
 
98 can do more than XP




odd how so few seem so notice.
Click to expand...

My next fast PC is going to Run DOS and Windows 3.11, It'll be an older
Athlon 1.2Ghz or less and it'll be blisteringly quick at the side of a 4Ghz
Dual processor jobby straining away with Vista running on it :-))

I agree though, I think most people buy to get the "I've got something more
up-to-date than you" factor?

I usually say "Really?, Poor man, I'm usually finished just as you've booted
to your desktop"

I think the insall of Vista was the slowest ever (Whether that was because
of the slower read speed of a DVD compared to a CD though..Possibly?)
The problem lay when it was compressing and uncompresing some files whilst
the DVD was'nt even being read..Hell any longer and God would have made the
heaven and earth quicker than Vista installed.

I'm dreading the released version as I'm sure the Beta will have quite a lot
of *bits* missing, so even longer install then?

T.W.
 
Back
Top