Windows vista will leave too many people behind.

[fuentez]

You are right unfortunatly computers are different than cars, I can
go to any autozone and get parts for my 91 honda and as a result I can
go racing every saturday and blow the doors off many newer cars with
all their bells and whistles.
I cannot go to a compusa and buy a coppy of win98 for my neighbors
pentiumII when his disk gets scratched.
A new computer costs about as much as a used car and not all can afford
that, and for those who can but have old software that served them well
should be able to continue its use.
All i'm saying is one should not throw the baby out with the plecinta.
Keep the good and improve the bad. and stick behind your products now
and in the future thats the least M$ can do for the money they charge.

 

[Bob I]

The automobile is well over 100 year old. Windows is only about 15 years
old. Let me see you get tires for 1949 Hudson at Autozone.

 

[Eric]

Cars have been around more than 100 years. They now have a longer lifespan
than a PC. The common PC we know was invented less than 25 years ago.
There is a chance you can go to your local parts store and get parts for
your '91 vehicle, though depending on the vehicle and the part it may take
awhile.
Go in once and ask them for a transmission and see how fast they get it.
Then ask them for a new seat for your 1923 Ford and see what kind of answer
you get.
Then try racing your 1923 Ford against a 1943 Ford and see how well you keep
up.

If you want a new computer, you can pay as much as a used car, or less.
Can you get a used car for $500 that runs more than a month?
You can get a new functional PC for under $500.
You can get a new top of the line PC for $2000+, and a decent used car for
the same price.
You can get a new top of the line car for $50K+, and a small house for the
same price.
As with anything, you pick the level you can afford.

 

[fuentez]

I paid roughly $800 for my first ibm clone(commador colt)in 1987 I
spend roughly $300 building a 386 in 1993 and I upgraded it all the way
to a 5X amd, then I built an AMD K-6 in 1999 that one lasted me until i
little under a few months ago I recently built an AMD athlon with
700mhrz and it will be usless in a month or so on the windows side, it
runs linux great but it runs win2000 just ok and XP like a 3 legged
dog.

 

[Rock]

Well since I was not one of those bloggers that got a free computer
with vista loaded it would be hard to do a good review.

Again, - how many times do you need to be told - you don't have to be a
blogger or get a computer from MS with Vista on it to run it. Thousands
participated in the TechBeta and thousands of others previewed the OS
through the CPP program.

but be it as it may I did go to THEIR website for all the info I could
find and found the system requierments to be in the resource hog
catagory.

It is a new OS, it requires more resources. This has been the case with
every new OS release. What don't you get?

But I now have access to a copy of vista and I will run it head to head
with other high end OS's that also run on older machines.

And what exactly are these high end OSs?

and see who come out ahead.
the test includes running on the net for up to 2 weeks without firewall
to test for stability.

Why in the world would you run a computer on the internet without a
firewall? That's silly. Vista comes with a firewal that is activated by
default.

and when I do find security leaks I will post them.

Don't bother. We don't care what you find. Besides your posts belong in a
Vista newsgroup. This newsgroup deals with questions about the XP OS.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"Actually micro$oft forces all to upgrade..."
Absolutely FALSE.
No one is forced to upgrade.
I never have been.

If that were the case, I would not still see people successfully using
Windows 3.1, Windows 95 etc.
As long as what you are using does the job safely and effectively, there is
no need to switch.

Please explain in detail how you have been forced to upgrade by Microsoft.

What software manufacturer can you name that supports everything they have
ever made and is also committed to indefinite support of all their products?
Such a commitment is probably impossible but it would be prohibitively
expensive if possible.

 

[GO]

MS may not necessarily force people to upgrade but they sure make things
difficult for those that don't, especially if you're a PC gamer. MS has
released several games that they claim you require XP to run. This was
something intentionally coded into the game to explicitly block earlier
versions of Windows. The savy user could bypass this and have it run
flawlessly on Win2k. MS is only making IE7 available to WinXP/Vista users.
I can possibly see them not supporting it on Win9x but there is absolutely
no reason that they cannot release it for Win2k. And DirectX 10 is only
going to be available on Vista. I'm sure many of you will say that the new
directX is bound/tied to the OS, which is quite possibly true, but I find it
awfully convenient of MS to do this.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

You do realize there are other games outside Microsoft?

"there is absolutely no reason that they cannot release it for Win2k"
Yes there is, mainstream support for windows 2000 has ended.

 

[fuentez]

No there arent, since most game developers are lazy and use directX to
make their games, and its only a matter of time that M$ stops support
for older versions of directX.

 

[GO]

You do realize there are other games outside Microsoft?

Yes, I do but I'm not really sure what you're referring to. Regardless, I
think you missed my point. Microsoft has intentionally made games that will
not run on earlier versions of Windows. Not that they won't run but the
installer will not install the game if it's not XP. If you can trick the
installer to actually get the game to run they will work flawlessly.

"there is absolutely no reason that they cannot release it for Win2k"
Yes there is, mainstream support for windows 2000 has ended.

And your point is? Win2k and XP are so close in their code base there is no
reason that IE7 couldn't work on Win2k. And so what if mainstream support
has ended. The product can still be released and they just don't have to
offer support. I've seen countless products that are released and will work
on Win9x - XP but the company will state that they no longer will provide
support if you are running Win9x. Intentionally making things not work is
MS's way of forcing people to upgrade.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

What's the point of this whole thread?

Someone is always left behind in some way whenever anyone does anything new.

- There is not *always* backwards compatibility.
- It is up to not only the decision of the maker of said product - but also
of the products that are no longer supported to stay unsupported/unusable.
- It is also up to the makers of any product to decide what their product
will/won't do.
- It is up to the makers of any product to decide how long they will support
anything they make.
- And it is up to the end-consumer to decide what they will buy/utilize and
what they will not buy/utilize.

You don't want to go to Windows Vista? Don't.

You cannot seriously expect (although it has been stated in this thread)
anyone to support a product made 12+ years ago.
(The example was Windows 95 and its inability to run on a new laptop - that
isn't even likely purely a Microsoft 'fault', as it was likely driver issues
and the makers of said hardware just don't make drivers for 12 year old
computer OSes...)

Also - people keep saying that in the examples I gave - the changes were
slow and over time...
Hate to say it - but in many of them - they were the same length of time
that it took to go from Windows 95 to Windows Vista...
Not to mention that things do not exactly move as slowly (yet) in the
computer industry as it does in many other industries.

You make a product and support it until you die - unless you can get your
offspring to support it too...
That'd be your choice... But I'd bet that product is not software for ANY
operating system or ANY platform. ;-)

No one 'forces' your hand here.
You just cannot have your stale old cake and a little bit of new icing every
so often for the next 5-17 years...
Seems fair to me.

Don't want a cell phone - don't buy one.
Want a cell phone but don't want one that gets email - don't buy one.
Want a cell phone but don't want one that can surf the Internet - don't buy
one.
Still have your old bag celluar phone? Does it work? Yay!

 

[fuentez]

yes and that is do to the short sitedness of many software
developers, improvments in software should make the computing
expirience easier, as should hardware upgrades, I remember playing
games that made a point of being backward compatible, when I went from
a 486 clone to a pentium clone all my old games which play just fine
before looked much better, when i increased my graphics card from 2meg
to 8megs the same games that worked fine before blazed in digetal
brilliance, .
having an old computer did not stop me from playing old games but
upgrading made the games like new.
and thats what I mean by upgrades should inhance the computing
expirience not constantly force you to have to go out and get a new
machine.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"that is do to the short sitedness"
And sometimes it is simply progress.
Vista is backwards compatible but not with everything.
The older a program, the more likely there will be issues.
In this respect Vista is no different than any other operating system.
So far, everything I use works on both my Vista computers.

Some people are using the same age games you refer and other programs very
well on Windows XP.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

yes and that is do to the short sitedness of many software
developers, improvments in software should make the computing
expirience easier, as should hardware upgrades, I remember playing
games that made a point of being backward compatible, when I went from
a 486 clone to a pentium clone all my old games which play just fine
before looked much better, when i increased my graphics card from 2meg
to 8megs the same games that worked fine before blazed in digetal
brilliance, .
having an old computer did not stop me from playing old games but
upgrading made the games like new.
and thats what I mean by upgrades should inhance the computing
expirience not constantly force you to have to go out and get a new
machine.

 

[GO]

What is the point of this thread? Have you not been reading it? It's about
MS forcing people to upgrade. While I may not agree with all the points
made here, the points I have made are valid and no one has been able to
convince me otherwise yet. I realize they can't be fully backwards
compatible, things change and that's a fact of life. What I don't like is
when compatibility is broken intentionally.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

What is the point of this thread? Have you not been reading it?
It's about MS forcing people to upgrade. While I may not agree
with all the points made here, the points I have made are valid and
no one has been able to convince me otherwise yet. I realize they
can't be fully backwards compatible, things change and that's a
fact of life. What I don't like is when compatibility is broken
intentionally.

"forcing"?
You are being forced to upgrade by Microsoft?
They came to your home and inflicted bodily harm?
They threatened legal action if you did not upgrade to Vista?

If you are being 'forced' by anything - it is your choice of lifestyle and
interaction with others - I cannot see any other 'force' making you get
Windows Vista. Hell - you don't even have to use a Microsoft OS - no one is
*forcing* you to do that.

Forced...
Please. If you are that easy to 'force' - just turn your wages over to me?
Why?? - because I said to.

 

[GO]

"forcing"?
You are being forced to upgrade by Microsoft?
They came to your home and inflicted bodily harm?
They threatened legal action if you did not upgrade to Vista?

If you are being 'forced' by anything - it is your choice of
lifestyle and interaction with others - I cannot see any other
'force' making you get Windows Vista. Hell - you don't even have to
use a Microsoft OS - no one is *forcing* you to do that.

Forced...
Please. If you are that easy to 'force' - just turn your wages over
to me? Why?? - because I said to.

Why don't you go read a dictionary? Forcing something does not always mean
being coerced into it. Forced can also mean to persuade or to have the
power to influence or control. But rather than nitpicking over one simple
word why don't you address the real point of my message?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

But you are NOT being forced to upgrade anything by Microsoft.
If you CHOOSE to upgrade to Vista, you also CHOOSE the consequences.

If your current operating system does what it needs to do, there is no
reason to upgrade.
This applies to any operating system from any manufacturer.
If it no longer does what you need, why?
What changed?
That is what is forcing the upgrade.
Can you give an example where Microsoft has forced an upgrade?

Windows XP will probably be supported for several more years.
To upgrade or not, is your choice.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

What is the point of this thread? Have you not been reading it? It's
about
MS forcing people to upgrade. While I may not agree with all the points
made here, the points I have made are valid and no one has been able to
convince me otherwise yet. I realize they can't be fully backwards
compatible, things change and that's a fact of life. What I don't like is
when compatibility is broken intentionally.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

What is the point of this thread? Have you not been reading it?
It's about MS forcing people to upgrade. While I may not agree
with all the points made here, the points I have made are valid
and no one has been able to convince me otherwise yet. I realize
they can't be fully backwards compatible, things change and
that's a fact of life. What I don't like is when compatibility
is broken intentionally.

"forcing"?
You are being forced to upgrade by Microsoft?
They came to your home and inflicted bodily harm?
They threatened legal action if you did not upgrade to Vista?

If you are being 'forced' by anything - it is your choice of
lifestyle and interaction with others - I cannot see any other
'force' making you get Windows Vista. Hell - you don't even have
to use a Microsoft OS - no one is *forcing* you to do that.

Forced...
Please. If you are that easy to 'force' - just turn your wages
over to me? Why?? - because I said to.

Why don't you go read a dictionary? Forcing something does not
always mean being coerced into it. Forced can also mean to
persuade or to have the power to influence or control. But rather
than nitpicking over one simple word why don't you address the real
point of my message?

Point? You stated what your point and that of 'this thread' was quite
clearly - concisely - for the record... You chose your words carefully - or
I assume you did because you chose to put them in type on a public newsgroup
for all to see for many years to come. You said..

What is the point of this thread? Have you not been reading it?
It's about MS forcing people to upgrade.

I will bring the dictionary to you...
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/force

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *fortia,
from Latin fortis strong

1 a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or
change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her
life> (2) capitalized -- used with a number to indicate the strength of the
wind according to the Beaufort scale <a Force 10 hurricane> b : moral or
mental strength c : capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the
argument>

2 a : military strength b (1) : a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a
military purpose (2) plural : the whole military strength (as of a nation) c
: a body of persons or things available for a particular end <a labor force>
<the missile force> d : an individual or group having the power of effective
action <join forces to prevent violence> <a force in politics> e often
capitalized : POLICE FORCE -- usually used with the

3 : violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or
thing

4 a : an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly
in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and
other effects b : any of the natural influences (as electromagnetism,
gravity, the strong force, and the weak force) that exist especially between
particles and determine the structure of the universe

5 : the quality of conveying impressions intensely in writing or speech
<stated the objectives with force>

So, I doubt you mean #5...

I doubt you mean #4...

Yep, I used #3 in my explanation for emphasis - but I knew you did not mean
that which is why my statement continued...

Now you *might* have meant 2d...
You did specify just Microsoft - and unfortunately for you, despite what you
may believe, Microsoft does not 'force' anyone (hardware/software
manufacturers) to do anything.

Sure - Microsoft has the largest market share, so they are indirectly
influencing the decision of all of these businesses to sell products that
work on the Windows OSes - but nothing says those same manufacturers could
not choose to either *not* sell for Windows OSes or sell a product that
functions perfectly fine on all Windows OSes.

It happens - I bet there are many software and hardware packages that still
do their job as originally intended from WAY back before Windows for
Workgroups 3.11... All the way through now. I bet there are many more that
don't because these external to Microsoft vendors chose to create a product
that was specific to the way a particular component/function of a particular
version of Windows worked... And then - when the new version of Windows
came out they decided not to upgrade using the similar component in the next
version of Windows or provide further compatibility for their product...

*The businesses other than Microsoft decided* to not support their products
further or give their users the necessary functionality to continue using
the next version of an OS. They also abandoned (or chose to never support)
versions of the Mac OS, *nix, BeOS, and who knows what else... But they
*chose* - they were not forced to stop providing further compatibility -
they *chose* to allow the old product to die so they could sell (and make
money) off of a new product. Were they 'forced' by any definition of the
word - or did they instead - take advantage of an opportunity presented to
them?

Yes - 2d fits quite nicely - except you see Microsoft as some large 'force'
controlling all this - when, in fact - all they did was come out with a new
version of an Operating system and those who created the millions of
products that ran on other Windows OSes before decide (on their own) not to
continue support and the majority of them make NEW products for the NEW OS
so they can make NEW money and probably improve their product in most cases.
They likely (in the better cross-platform software) decided that same thing
with previous versions of Mac OS and *nix and other operating systems many
times before as well - and they will continue to do so as they want to...

Now - maybe you meant something from 1... 1 a (1)? It goes along the same
idea as my explanation above. Those creating the hardware/software create
it so they can either make a product for the world to use because 'they want
to' or they make the product so they can earn a living.

Microsoft creating a new OS does not mean everyone else has to follow suite.
At some point - everyone could just say, "Bah - I need to do this and this
and OS X does all that - so I am switching..." Doesn't mean that OS X won't
someday become OS 11 (OS XI?) and leave those people/manufacturers/hardware
components - just means that said hardware/software vendor or individual or
business chose to use a different set of items thinking stubbornly that
things they have created/bought now will always work - on all future
renditions (5 years? 10 Years? 15 years? 20 years? Their lifetime?) of
said product line. They are inevitably wrong - but - that is *their
choice*.

Definition 1c maybe? "capacity to persuade or convince"... If one can be
convinced or persuaded not to support their product beyond a certain point,
then it is likely they just didn't want to in the first place. If one can
be convinced or persuaded to upgrade their hardware - then they likely
wanted to in the first place.

Why? Because if the status quo doesn't change - why should anything else
have to. If you are working just fine on your Pentium II 233MHz computer
with 64MB memory and you don't want to run/utilize any 'new' products, etc -
you don't *have to*. If something dies - you can find someone with the
know-how to fix it for you with all the money you saved over the years not
upgrading and hopefully put away (knowing that all hardware wears out
eventually) or all the spare parts you bough just for that eventuality or
with all the training you went through so you would never need to change...

What is this thread about to me?
People unwilling to accept change or too weak-willed to do anything about
it/continue on their own path and looking for some mythical
individual/entity to shift the blame off themselves onto...

My paragraph stands...

If you are being 'forced' by anything - it is your choice of
lifestyle and interaction with others - I cannot see any other
'force' making you get Windows Vista. Hell - you don't even have
to use a Microsoft OS - no one is *forcing* you to do that.

Make your own choices in life - don't let others make them for you.

You choose what games to play, or are you being convinced or persuaded by
your friends?
You choose what software to utilize, or are you being convinced or persuaded
by your work environment?
You choose what hardware to utilize, or are you being convinced or persuaded
by your neighbors and friend (keeping up with the 'Jones' syndrome...)?

You remind me of the bad side of one of those 'above the influence'
commercials...
http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/

 

[GO]

Wow, you're still rambling on about the use of the word "force". If you
look back to my first post in this thread I clearly stated my use of the
word. Even in my last post I explained how I was using the word. But
again, this was not the main point of *my* post(s). Feel free to review my
earlier posts and and if you have any questions or need any clarifications

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Wow, you're still rambling on about the use of the word "force".
If you look back to my first post in this thread I clearly stated
my use of the word. Even in my last post I explained how I was
using the word. But again, this was not the main point of *my*
post(s). Feel free to review my earlier posts and and if you have
any questions or need any clarifications on what I meant then I
will gladly continue this discussion. But you and "the others"
continuing to focus on a single word is just wasting time.

Single-word BS...

I read your rant...

"MS may not necessarily force people to upgrade but they sure make things
difficult for those that don't, especially if you're a PC gamer."

You choose to play games and use software that work on a certain OS...
Microsoft did not make you...

You purchased hardware because it worked on a certain OS.
Because a manufacturer of a product chose not to make it work in Vista - how
can you blame Microsoft?

Microsoft is not making you upgrade to Vista - you and... well - let me
repeat it once more as you don't seem to ever respond/comprehend it...

If you are being 'forced' by anything - it is your choice of
lifestyle and interaction with others - I cannot see any other
'force' making you get Windows Vista. Hell - you don't even have
to use a Microsoft OS - no one is *forcing* you to do that.

You made the choice to play the games that only work on whatever OS with
whatever extras installed on it. It may have been because you wanted to do
what all your friends were or because you just thought it looked cool or
whatever - but in the end - it was *your choice* to play the game and the
game maker's choice to use whatever technology limits it to whatever
OS/extras... *Might* it work on another OS? Sure - but if you say it will,
you lay claim and responsibility and you must support it on said OS - and if
you do not support the OS any longer, why would you support something that
runs on it?

In other words - the only thing Microsoft did was provide a new platform -
maybe their game design department decided to utilize just that platform -
but so will lots of other game makers - because (perhaps) it is better.

Sure - there is 'absolutely no reason' why MS couldn't continue releasing
things for Windows 2000 or any other previous OS - other than it defies
common sense to keep supporting a product you told users from the get-go
would not be supported after a given date. If you continue using said OS -
that is your choice... But given you knew there was no support for it and
when that support would end from the beginning - whining gets you no where.

Things will *never* be supported forever.
From a business sense stand-point, it would be moronic.
From a common sense stand-point, consumers should know better than to expect
it.

*You* supposedly choose what you do/do not do.