Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Vista may still have its day ...

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Vista may still have its day ...

 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008

"Biggles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:g966jb$13vu$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Interesting read ....
>
>
> http://reseller.co.nz/reseller.nsf/f...2574B00075302D
>
>


Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex. But
often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance to XP and
Vista alike were initially based on significant lapses in design that were
were only corrected a year or more after the intial release. Still, it's
downright comical to see the same voices in this group rising up in turn to
sing the praises of DOS5 over Win3x, Win3x over Win9x, Win9x over Win2k,
Win2k over XP, and and now XP over Vista.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
EMB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
impossible wrote:
>
> Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex. But
> often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance to XP and
> Vista alike were initially based on significant lapses in design that
> were were only corrected a year or more after the intial release. Still,
> it's downright comical to see the same voices in this group rising up in
> turn to sing the praises of DOS5 over Win3x, Win3x over Win9x, Win9x
> over Win2k, Win2k over XP, and and now XP over Vista.


I think the issue is more like the one that affected Windows 2000 uptake
(many businesses moved straight from Windows 98 to XP) - namely that
there are not enough improvements over XP to justify the expense of
migrating to Vista.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
On 2008-08-29, impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> "Biggles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:g966jb$13vu$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> Interesting read ....
>>
>>
>> http://reseller.co.nz/reseller.nsf/f...2574B00075302D
>>
>>

>
> Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex. But
> often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance to XP


Was activation.

Get more more memory gentle poster
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
On 30 Aug 2008 06:20:55 GMT, Gordon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2008-08-29, impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> "Biggles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:g966jb$13vu$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> Interesting read ....
>>>
>>>
>>> http://reseller.co.nz/reseller.nsf/f...2574B00075302D
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex. But
>> often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance to XP

>
>Was activation.
>
>Get more more memory gentle poster


The business versions of XP do not need activation.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Biggles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:43:10 +1200, EMB wrote:

> impossible wrote:
>>
>> Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex.
>> But often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance to XP
>> and Vista alike were initially based on significant lapses in design
>> that were were only corrected a year or more after the intial release.
>> Still, it's downright comical to see the same voices in this group
>> rising up in turn to sing the praises of DOS5 over Win3x, Win3x over
>> Win9x, Win9x over Win2k, Win2k over XP, and and now XP over Vista.

>
> I think the issue is more like the one that affected Windows 2000 uptake
> (many businesses moved straight from Windows 98 to XP) - namely that
> there are not enough improvements over XP to justify the expense of
> migrating to Vista.




I think good ol Linus summed it up .. Vista is way to different than XP
and desktop users hate change. Computer shops here in the wellington
suburbs have long since closed down which happened long before Vista
shipped ..

Strange that cuppee had no answer to this article lmao ...

Cheers Biggles ..
 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
"Gordon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 2008-08-29, impossible <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> "Biggles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:g966jb$13vu$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> Interesting read ....
>>>
>>>
>>> http://reseller.co.nz/reseller.nsf/f...2574B00075302D
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex. But
>> often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance to XP

>
> Was activation.
>
> Get more more memory gentle poster


99.99% of users never had an issue with activation. The rest all posted
their complaints in nz.comp.

 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2008
Somewhere on teh intarweb "Biggles" typed:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:43:10 +1200, EMB wrote:
>
>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex.
>>> But often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance
>>> to XP and Vista alike were initially based on significant lapses in
>>> design that were were only corrected a year or more after the
>>> intial release. Still, it's downright comical to see the same
>>> voices in this group rising up in turn to sing the praises of DOS5
>>> over Win3x, Win3x over Win9x, Win9x over Win2k, Win2k over XP, and
>>> and now XP over Vista.

>>
>> I think the issue is more like the one that affected Windows 2000
>> uptake (many businesses moved straight from Windows 98 to XP) -
>> namely that there are not enough improvements over XP to justify the
>> expense of migrating to Vista.

>
>
>
> I think good ol Linus summed it up .. Vista is way to different than
> XP and desktop users hate change.


How true. The first thing I did on installing XP all that time ago was to
make it look as much like 98SE as possible. As an added bonus it made the
whole OS twice as responsive turning off the eye-candy.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I'll not be moving to Vista. Maybe
if MS's next offering isn't as bloated I'd look at it. <shrug> With a
growing trend towards low-power decives such as the EEE box there is an
increasing need for lightweight OS's. Folks are starting to wake up to the
fact that, although modern computers can run bloated operating systems, they
suck the electricity to do so.

Case in point; A modern mid-range PC running Vista and an entry-level C2Duo
integrated system would pull ~120W from the outlet. How many of those could
be replaced by an EEE box (or similar) running XP and an Intel Atom and only
pull ~20W? For most business users the Atom based PC would be absolutely
fine. It produces similar 'power' to a P4 Prescott while not getting warm
enough to need a fan on it's heatsink.

MS can keep a flagship bloated OS if they want to but I'll bet dollars to
dog **** that, when they finally cut XP off for good, they'll have another
light-weight OS to replace it. They simply can't afford to leave that big a
door wide open for OSS software as increasing end user consciousness of
power consumption influences almost every buying decision.

"Desktop users hate change". How true. However, if there's one thing that'll
make that change less distaseful it will be the knowledge that they're being
green and saving the planet. That and the bean counters insisting on more
efficient use of resources. MS have a window of opportunity to produce a
light-weight 'Windows' operating system (or to keep XP and fine-tune it) or
they *will* lose an ever-increasing sector of the market. They seem
hell-bent on obsoleteing XP yet, until they produce something as
resource-miserly (in comparison to Vista) they run the very real risk of
losing serious market share.

I dug out my old faithful Compaq Deskpro 4000 the other day. It'd been a
while since I put it into storage as 98SE told me it'd been 2090 days since
my last defrag. It's running 96MB RAM and a Pentium 200MMX along with 98SE
and, by golly, it's actually still usable for internet / email /
wordprocessing. There wasn't even majorly annoying wait times when opening
programmes. It uses so little power that the PSU fan comes on for about 120
seconds every half hour to exhaust heat from the case. The Atom based
systems would produce ~12 x the computing power for even less electrictiy.

I ran CPU Mark on the MMX 200 and it got a score of 11.4. My main PC (OC'ed
E7300) gets 506 CPU Marks *per CPU core*. That's nigh on 100 x as powerful!
Yet to use them (and their different OS's) you'd think that maybe the C2D
was twice as powerful. (Does anyone have access to an EEE box to run CPU
Mark? I'm thinking it'd get ~120. A Celeron 420 [1.6GHz, same as the Atom]
gets 210, slightly more than an XP3200+ Barton got.)

Yes, there was resistance to changing to XP. However, along with it's
increased demands on hardware came some very real benefits in
user-friendliness and reliability. Not so much with Vista.

Vista is the last of the dinosaurs. The only way it'll "have it's day" is as
a curiousity. A fossil. Like the US muscle cars of the late 70's / early
80's. An ephemeral product of it's 'little regard for efficiency' time.
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jasen Betts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2008
> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Biggles" typed:
>
> I've said it once and I'll say it again. I'll not be moving to Vista. Maybe
> if MS's next offering isn't as bloated I'd look at it. <shrug> With a
> growing trend towards low-power decives such as the EEE box there is an
> increasing need for lightweight OS's. Folks are starting to wake up to the
> fact that, although modern computers can run bloated operating systems, they
> suck the electricity to do so.


wince
 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2008

"~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Biggles" typed:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:43:10 +1200, EMB wrote:
>>
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex.
>>>> But often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance
>>>> to XP and Vista alike were initially based on significant lapses in
>>>> design that were were only corrected a year or more after the
>>>> intial release. Still, it's downright comical to see the same
>>>> voices in this group rising up in turn to sing the praises of DOS5
>>>> over Win3x, Win3x over Win9x, Win9x over Win2k, Win2k over XP, and
>>>> and now XP over Vista.
>>>
>>> I think the issue is more like the one that affected Windows 2000
>>> uptake (many businesses moved straight from Windows 98 to XP) -
>>> namely that there are not enough improvements over XP to justify the
>>> expense of migrating to Vista.

>>
>>
>>
>> I think good ol Linus summed it up .. Vista is way to different than
>> XP and desktop users hate change.

>
> How true. The first thing I did on installing XP all that time ago was to
> make it look as much like 98SE as possible. As an added bonus it made the
> whole OS twice as responsive turning off the eye-candy.
>


You're an over-clocking pirate gamer who lives for eye candy. So what's the
problem? Oh, right...you can't so easily steal the hardware you envy. Now I
get it!

> I've said it once and I'll say it again. I'll not be moving to Vista.
> Maybe if MS's next offering isn't as bloated I'd look at it. <shrug>


Nah, because you won't be able to pirate a copy of Windows beyond XP.

> With a growing trend towards low-power decives such as the EEE box there
> is an increasing need for lightweight OS's. Folks are starting to wake up
> to the fact that, although modern computers can run bloated operating
> systems, they suck the electricity to do so.
>


Yeah, right. Says the inveterate over-clocker who doesn't give a toss how
much energy their inefficient systems suck.

> Case in point; A modern mid-range PC running Vista and an entry-level
> C2Duo integrated system would pull ~120W from the outlet. How many of
> those could be replaced by an EEE box (or similar) running XP and an Intel
> Atom and only pull ~20W? For most business users the Atom based PC would
> be absolutely fine. It produces similar 'power' to a P4 Prescott while not
> getting warm enough to need a fan on it's heatsink.
>


You're an old man devoted to playing games. Perhaps you should leave
business decisions to others slightly more qualified.

> MS can keep a flagship bloated OS if they want to but I'll bet dollars to
> dog **** that, when they finally cut XP off for good, they'll have another
> light-weight OS to replace it. They simply can't afford to leave that big
> a door wide open for OSS software as increasing end user consciousness of
> power consumption influences almost every buying decision.
>


You have only dog-**** to bet, so it's no risk for you. But you'd be wrong.
XP is already the best-selling OS on EEEs, and the next generation of EEEs
and Atoms are as apt to run Vista as anything else.

> "Desktop users hate change". How true. However, if there's one thing
> that'll make that change less distaseful it will be the knowledge that
> they're being green and saving the planet. That and the bean counters
> insisting on more efficient use of resources. MS have a window of
> opportunity to produce a light-weight 'Windows' operating system (or to
> keep XP and fine-tune it) or they *will* lose an ever-increasing sector of
> the market. They seem hell-bent on obsoleteing XP yet, until they produce
> something as resource-miserly (in comparison to Vista) they run the very
> real risk of losing serious market share.
>


Applications demand power, not operating systems. Your games would be the
most inefficient applications going, sucking excess energy from gpus and
cpus for the sole purpose of entertainment. Should we ban them perhaps?

> I dug out my old faithful Compaq Deskpro 4000 the other day. It'd been a
> while since I put it into storage as 98SE told me it'd been 2090 days
> since my last defrag. It's running 96MB RAM and a Pentium 200MMX along
> with 98SE and, by golly, it's actually still usable for internet / email /
> wordprocessing. There wasn't even majorly annoying wait times when opening
> programmes. It uses so little power that the PSU fan comes on for about
> 120 seconds every half hour to exhaust heat from the case. The Atom based
> systems would produce ~12 x the computing power for even less electrictiy.
>
> I ran CPU Mark on the MMX 200 and it got a score of 11.4. My main PC
> (OC'ed E7300) gets 506 CPU Marks *per CPU core*. That's nigh on 100 x as
> powerful! Yet to use them (and their different OS's) you'd think that
> maybe the C2D was twice as powerful. (Does anyone have access to an EEE
> box to run CPU Mark? I'm thinking it'd get ~120. A Celeron 420 [1.6GHz,
> same as the Atom] gets 210, slightly more than an XP3200+ Barton got.)
>
> Yes, there was resistance to changing to XP. However, along with it's
> increased demands on hardware came some very real benefits in
> user-friendliness and reliability. Not so much with Vista.
>


Back with the cliches. You, of course, would never seriously investigate a
version of Windows you couldn't steal, so what do you really know? But that
has never stopped you from yammering on as if you did know. You're so
predictably arrogant and ignorant.

> Vista is the last of the dinosaurs. The only way it'll "have it's day" is
> as a curiousity. A fossil. Like the US muscle cars of the late 70's /
> early 80's. An ephemeral product of it's 'little regard for efficiency'
> time.
> --


Spoken like someone who has always envied what others can afford. I pity
you -- I really do..

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2008
In article <48b86d6f$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>impossible wrote:
>>
>> Yes, resistance to new versions of Windows is something of a reflex. But
>> often there's more than sheer stinginess involved. Resistance to XP and
>> Vista alike were initially based on significant lapses in design that
>> were were only corrected a year or more after the intial release. Still,
>> it's downright comical to see the same voices in this group rising up in
>> turn to sing the praises of DOS5 over Win3x, Win3x over Win9x, Win9x
>> over Win2k, Win2k over XP, and and now XP over Vista.

>
>I think the issue is more like the one that affected Windows 2000 uptake
>(many businesses moved straight from Windows 98 to XP) - namely that
>there are not enough improvements over XP to justify the expense of
>migrating to Vista.


Yep. Vista ... nothing to see here, moving on.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Its a bird, its a plane, its.. um, an Attribute based System? thunk Ruby 0 04-01-2010 10:25 PM
Its a bird, its a plane, no ummm, its a Ruide thunk Ruby 1 03-30-2010 11:10 AM
Now.day and day(now) returning the wrong day! Andy ASP .Net 1 11-06-2008 12:20 PM
Re: Vista may still have its day ... Biggles NZ Computing 2 09-22-2008 06:45 AM
News Proxy may be why many people may have missed the vote Renee Digital Photography 5 10-27-2004 06:02 AM



Advertisments