Decade Later: Windows 95 Keeps Going ? and Going..

[IGBT]

Text

Microsoft's own worst enemy for Windows Vista is the kinds of users who are still running Windows 95. What, if anything, might convince these die-hards to upgrade?



Microsoft officials have admitted one of their biggest challenges in continuing to grow the company's Windows business is the impression among some of its installed base that older Windows versions are good enough. The users of Windows 95, which turns ten years old on Wednesday, are a case in point.
Check out any of a number of Windows support forums and it is readily apparent there are still lots of Windows 95 die-hards out there.

 

[kamper]

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, but what the heck...

...the impression among some of its installed base that older Windows versions are good enough.

The "impression"? Just who exactly makes the decisions about what windows versions are good enough?

 

[Canterwood]

I guess if their PC does what they want it to with 95, then why upgrade?

Their hardware will be incapable of running Vista, so they'd have to get a new PC anyway.
If their just doing a little office work and checking email, then whats the point?

I personally haven't run any Win9x OS on my PC since Win2K was released, and I'm not sure I'm going to need or want Vista either.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Text

Microsoft's own worst enemy for Windows Vista is the kinds of users who are still running Windows 95. What, if anything, might convince these die-hards to upgrade?



Microsoft officials have admitted one of their biggest challenges in continuing to grow the company's Windows business is the impression among some of its installed base that older Windows versions are good enough. The users of Windows 95, which turns ten years old on Wednesday, are a case in point.
Check out any of a number of Windows support forums and it is readily apparent there are still lots of Windows 95 die-hards out there.

Thats because the functionality hasnt changed. XP is still just a multitasking environment, 95 does the same thing.. has the same taskbar and start menu.

People cry stability as a reason to upgrade, but I've never found 95/98 to be inherently unstable.. Ive found even XP runs best when you restart your PC about every day or so.

95 brought in all the major changes we are used to having today. The "upgrades" brought higher system requirements and not much new in abilities.

It was worth buying a faster PC for Win95, it brought a whole new way for PC people to use their PC.
Everything since then has gotten so much more "efficient" and "faster" yet the requirements keep going up.. and up..

you can run a P100 with 32mb of ram and multitask in W95.. cant even boot 2000/XP with that system.
Progression should mean doing MORE with LESS.. not MORE with MORE. We should have W95 quality OS's running great on 4MB of ram by now if things were getting so much more efficient.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: kamper
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, but what the heck...

...the impression among some of its installed base that older Windows versions are good enough.

The "impression"? Just who exactly makes the decisions about what windows versions are good enough?

The user?

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: kamper
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, but what the heck...

...the impression among some of its installed base that older Windows versions are good enough.

The "impression"? Just who exactly makes the decisions about what windows versions are good enough?

The user?

ROFL

too simple maybe? lol

 

[mechBgon]

Microsoft's own worst enemy for Windows Vista is the kinds of users who are still running Windows 95. What, if anything, might convince these die-hards to upgrade?

If I were Microsoft, I would not worry one iota about the Win95 users. When their Packard Bell P100 finally kicks the bucket, the problem is solved for good.

In the meantime, if they get new peripherals, accessories or software, chances are decreasing that Win95 is going to be supported or even workable. Where do I plug my new digital camcorder's Firewire cable in? How come my new Adobe software won't install. Why did that guy at the computer-repair shop wave me off when I tried to buy EDO SIMMs to upgrade this thing to meet the minimum system requirements for Sarah's Barbie game. Etc.

If MS wants to get people to move on, they can just promote modern use of the computer to do stuff that Win95 systems don't do. And gee, they just started that Start something campaign, didn't they In the end, that is the right reason to buy a newer, more capable PC anyway.

 

[thegorx]

I've been setting up my old sony vaio pcv90 since I can't give it away
I think I'm going to go with windows 95 and all software of that time

then also put Remote Desktop on it so it can also run my main computer


oh yeah, I think microsoft should have a bare OS with no thrills and charge a lot less for it

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Microsoft's own worst enemy for Windows Vista is the kinds of users who are still running Windows 95. What, if anything, might convince these die-hards to upgrade?

If I were Microsoft, I would not worry one iota about the Win95 users. When their Packard Bell P100 finally kicks the bucket, the problem is solved for good.

Do you take joy in that thought or something?

In the meantime, if they get new peripherals, accessories or software, chances are decreasing that Win95 is going to be supported or even workable. Where do I plug my new digital camcorder's Firewire cable in? How come my new Adobe software won't install. Why did that guy at the computer-repair shop wave me off when I tried to buy EDO SIMMs to upgrade this thing to meet the minimum system requirements for Sarah's Barbie game. Etc.

If MS wants to get people to move on, they can just promote modern use of the computer to do stuff that Win95 systems don't do. And gee, they just started that Start something campaign, didn't they In the end, that is the right reason to buy a newer, more capable PC anyway.

So basically theres no inherent problem with W95 other than the fact MS refused to enable it to support new technology.
You must like the idea they offer incremental upgrades, like Firewire support and call it a new OS huh?

Loser. :thumbsdown:

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Microsoft's own worst enemy for Windows Vista is the kinds of users who are still running Windows 95. What, if anything, might convince these die-hards to upgrade?

If I were Microsoft, I would not worry one iota about the Win95 users. When their Packard Bell P100 finally kicks the bucket, the problem is solved for good.

Do you take joy in that thought or something?

Having worked with a Packard Bell P60, I sort of do, yes :evil: but the wrath is directed at the hardware, not the owner of it. It's a reality. Stuff dies.

In the meantime, if they get new peripherals, accessories or software, chances are decreasing that Win95 is going to be supported or even workable. Where do I plug my new digital camcorder's Firewire cable in? How come my new Adobe software won't install. Why did that guy at the computer-repair shop wave me off when I tried to buy EDO SIMMs to upgrade this thing to meet the minimum system requirements for Sarah's Barbie game. Etc.

If MS wants to get people to move on, they can just promote modern use of the computer to do stuff that Win95 systems don't do. And gee, they just started that Start something campaign, didn't they In the end, that is the right reason to buy a newer, more capable PC anyway.

So basically theres no inherent problem with W95 other than the fact MS refused to enable it to support new technology.
You must like the idea they offer incremental upgrades, like Firewire support and call it a new OS huh?

Oh, you're right. It would be simple for Microsoft to issue software patches that do the following things to a Win95 comptuer:

• a patch to add SATA ports to the motherboard
• a patch to make the motherboard recognize high-capacity ATA drives despite inherent lack of such capabilities at the hardware level
• a patch to add SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 capabilities to a PentiumMMX 200MHz processor
• a patch to make aforementioned processor about 50x-100x faster so it would have a ghost of a chance of doing digital video editing at a reasonable speed
• a patch to make the motherboard capable of suddenly accepting 512MB DDR modules instead of just EDO SIMMs (or maybe a PC66 SDRAM DIMM if you're lucky) so that there is enough RAM available to do digital video/photo editing compotently
• a patch to make all software and hardware manufacturers keep producing drivers for an ancient DOS-based OS

The "inherent problem" with W95 is only as big as you make it. It was built for 486-era and Pentium-class computer hardware. If you have needs that don't exceed what that hardware can do, then you're golden, keep using W95 until the hardware dies. Then you can buy ten more Pentium systems at Goodwill and use them up next. If your needs do exceed what those computers can do, then you buy a new Dell or Emachines and oh look, it comes with a new OS that has all the capabilities you think MS should add to W95. Edit the boot screen so it says Windows95 instead of WindowsXP, and there you go. If you build your own, buy an OEM or retail WinXP Home license.

If you have a problem with Microsoft not going back and reinventing Win95 to work on modern systems with dual-core processors and 2GB of RAM and high-capacity drives and SLI/Crossfire (especially when they already have WinXP to fill that need), then I don't know what to say, except that you now own my official Windows95 Fanboy award

*waits to see if someone can top this guy by being angry that Windows 3.11 is not supported anymore*

 

[mechBgon]

Oh, and

Loser. :thumbsdown:

That was a mistake. I'm sending my loyal newbies to steal your hat!

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: southpawuni
So basically theres no inherent problem with W95 other than the fact MS refused to enable it to support new technology.
You must like the idea they offer incremental upgrades, like Firewire support and call it a new OS huh?

Yes. Windows 95 is a fine operating system, just don't expect it to work with all of 2005's software and hardware. If you have an older system and it works for you, there's no reason to upgrade.

It's completely unreasonable to expect any software company to continue to support and update old software after a certain period of time (well, for free ).

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Having worked with a Packard Bell P60, I sort of do, yes :evil: but the wrath is directed at the hardware, not the owner of it.

Ahhh yes...my first experience with Windows 95 was with a Packard Hell P60. THat damn thing never died though, it just felt so slow I decided to trash it. When I compared it to my K6-2 350, I couldn't justify keeping it.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Microsoft's own worst enemy for Windows Vista is the kinds of users who are still running Windows 95. What, if anything, might convince these die-hards to upgrade?

If I were Microsoft, I would not worry one iota about the Win95 users. When their Packard Bell P100 finally kicks the bucket, the problem is solved for good.

Do you take joy in that thought or something?

Having worked with a Packard Bell P60, I sort of do, yes :evil: but the wrath is directed at the hardware, not the owner of it. It's a reality. Stuff dies.

In the meantime, if they get new peripherals, accessories or software, chances are decreasing that Win95 is going to be supported or even workable. Where do I plug my new digital camcorder's Firewire cable in? How come my new Adobe software won't install. Why did that guy at the computer-repair shop wave me off when I tried to buy EDO SIMMs to upgrade this thing to meet the minimum system requirements for Sarah's Barbie game. Etc.

If MS wants to get people to move on, they can just promote modern use of the computer to do stuff that Win95 systems don't do. And gee, they just started that Start something campaign, didn't they In the end, that is the right reason to buy a newer, more capable PC anyway.

So basically theres no inherent problem with W95 other than the fact MS refused to enable it to support new technology.
You must like the idea they offer incremental upgrades, like Firewire support and call it a new OS huh?

Oh, you're right. It would be simple for Microsoft to issue software patches that do the following things to a Win95 comptuer:

• a patch to add SATA ports to the motherboard
• a patch to make the motherboard recognize high-capacity ATA drives despite inherent lack of such capabilities at the hardware level
• a patch to add SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 capabilities to a PentiumMMX 200MHz processor
• a patch to make aforementioned processor about 50x-100x faster so it would have a ghost of a chance of doing digital video editing at a reasonable speed
• a patch to make the motherboard capable of suddenly accepting 512MB DDR modules instead of just EDO SIMMs (or maybe a PC66 SDRAM DIMM if you're lucky) so that there is enough RAM available to do digital video/photo editing compotently
• a patch to make all software and hardware manufacturers keep producing drivers for an ancient DOS-based OS

The "inherent problem" with W95 is only as big as you make it. It was built for 486-era and Pentium-class computer hardware. If you have needs that don't exceed what that hardware can do, then you're golden, keep using W95 until the hardware dies. Then you can buy ten more Pentium systems at Goodwill and use them up next. If your needs do exceed what those computers can do, then you buy a new Dell or Emachines and oh look, it comes with a new OS that has all the capabilities you think MS should add to W95. Edit the boot screen so it says Windows95 instead of WindowsXP, and there you go. If you build your own, buy an OEM or retail WinXP Home license.

If you have a problem with Microsoft not going back and reinventing Win95 to work on modern systems with dual-core processors and 2GB of RAM and high-capacity drives and SLI/Crossfire (especially when they already have WinXP to fill that need), then I don't know what to say, except that you now own my official Windows95 Fanboy award

*waits to see if someone can top this guy by being angry that Windows 3.11 is not supported anymore*

Dont you get it?
No because unlike going from 3.11 to 95, there hasnt been any innovation in the OS itself since.

They are rehashing the same OS, while raising hardware requirements to force new PC purchases.

The 95 OS can do anything the XP OS can besides the fact they've come up with ways to make sure new software doenst work on it.. as well as new hardware.

Releasing a "new" OS, that offers no innovation in actual usability (they all still use the Win95 start menu, task bar ect), while raising hardware requirements every time is not innovation.

Progression is doing more work, with less hardware. Not more work with more hardware.. anyone can program that OS for you.
Its called bloatware.

Unfortunately you are defending Microsoft bloatware. Good for you!

95 was a good OS, but they havent taken it in the right direction.. and looking at Vista its clear they have no clue where else to take it..

Microsoft peaked with a start menu and taskbar. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[mechBgon]

Dont you get it?
No because unlike going from 3.11 to 95, there hasnt been any innovation in the OS itself since.

They are rehashing the same OS, while raising hardware requirements to force new PC purchases.

The 95 OS can do anything the XP OS can besides the fact they've come up with ways to make sure new software doenst work on it.. as well as new hardware.

Releasing a "new" OS, that offers no innovation in actual usability (they all still use the Win95 start menu, task bar ect), while raising hardware requirements every time is not innovation.

That is so ridiculous it's hardly worth rebutting. The GUI is not the OS.

Progression is doing more work, with less hardware. Not more work with more hardware.. anyone can program that OS for you. It's called bloatware.

Nonsense. Capture an entire 90-minute MiniDV tape to your system as an .AVI for processing. That file is so big that Win95 can't even store it in the FAT32 file system, and most Win95-era computers wouldn't have the disk capacity for it even if they could store it. Actually processing that data into a DVD in a reasonable amount of time requires more CPU power, more instruction sets such as MMX, SSE and SSE2, more disk capacity, more RAM. There is no magic way to make the task of processing several gigabytes of data anything less than what it is. To do the stuff that we use computers for today, we need more hardware, and not just for the OS either.

Unfortunately you are defending Microsoft bloatware. Good for you!

Not really. As I said before, the best reason for people to give up their old Win95 boxes is because their needs have expanded and they need a new PC to meet them. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't care if Vista could run on a 200MHz PentiumMMX, I would still want my SCSI-equipped A64 with 2GB of RAM anyway, or preferably an A64 X2. Because I've got work to do, and I can use all the CPU power I can possibly afford. Any system that meets my needs for power will easily run Vista.

For a person who is going to be a lighter user, I guess it's conceivable that the hardware requirements of Vista itself will seem "excessive," but remember this: that Packaged *ell Pentium60 with the fishbowl 13" color monitor and Windows95 cost my dad $2500. When Vista arrives, you will be able to score a complete Vista-equipped system with an LCD for way less than half of that price, and do far more with it as your needs grow too. So keep it all in perspective.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Dont you get it?
No because unlike going from 3.11 to 95, there hasnt been any innovation in the OS itself since.

They are rehashing the same OS, while raising hardware requirements to force new PC purchases.

The 95 OS can do anything the XP OS can besides the fact they've come up with ways to make sure new software doenst work on it.. as well as new hardware.

Releasing a "new" OS, that offers no innovation in actual usability (they all still use the Win95 start menu, task bar ect), while raising hardware requirements every time is not innovation.

That is so ridiculous it's hardly worth rebutting. The GUI is not the OS.

Yes, the GUI implementation is the whole point to Windows operating systems.
Otherwise MS would have expanded the functionality of DOS.

Progression is doing more work, with less hardware. Not more work with more hardware.. anyone can program that OS for you. It's called bloatware.

Nonsense. Capture an entire 90-minute MiniDV tape to your system as an .AVI for processing. That file is so big that Win95 can't even store it in the FAT32 file system, and most Win95-era computers wouldn't have the disk capacity for it even if they could store it. Actually processing that data into a DVD in a reasonable amount of time requires more CPU power, more instruction sets such as MMX, SSE and SSE2, more disk capacity, more RAM. There is no magic way to make the task of processing several gigabytes of data anything less than what it is. To do the stuff that we use computers for today, we need more hardware, and not just for the OS either.

You are missing the point. While you keep attacking the PCs that typically were in popularity during the reign of W95, those PCs and their lack of power in todays standards have no bearing that we have made little to no progression from W95 to XP.

The GUI is the same with no new functionality whatsoever. One of the few major changes is that the hardware requirements have gone up exponentially to do the same basic task.. multitask on a taskbar.

You have to think outside the box here. MS is not. There are more, other, and more intuitive ways to run an OS.. and maybe a GUI is not the answer to that question.. but with all fo MS's money, they have not done it yet.

As stated, MS peaked with a start menu and taskbar.

Unfortunately you are defending Microsoft bloatware. Good for you!

Not really. As I said before, the best reason for people to give up their old Win95 boxes is because their needs have expanded and they need a new PC to meet them. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't care if Vista could run on a 200MHz PentiumMMX, I would still want my SCSI-equipped A64 with 2GB of RAM anyway, or preferably an A64 X2. Because I've got work to do, and I can use all the CPU power I can possibly afford. Any system that meets my needs for power will easily run Vista.

For a person who is going to be a lighter user, I guess it's conceivable that the hardware requirements of Vista itself will seem "excessive," but remember this: that Packaged *ell Pentium60 with the fishbowl 13" color monitor and Windows95 cost my dad $2500. When Vista arrives, you will be able to score a complete Vista-equipped system with an LCD for way less than half of that price, and do far more with it as your needs grow too. So keep it all in perspective.

Yet all of the expansion since W95 to 98, 98SE, 98Gold, ME, 2000, XP Home, XP Pro.. nothing has really been changed. Outside of merging the NT line and home OS line kernal. And tossing in firewire support, which would take 2 seconds for MS to put in a patch in W95.

I'm not saying W95 is the way to go, or that MS shoudl support it. I'm saying they dropped support for financial reasons.. and trying to portray how pathetic the innovation is within the Windows lineup.

95 was a good development for the PC market overall, though I like CLIs.
I havent been impressed since.

I think from the entire 95-Vista lineup, theres TWO good/honest OS's in there worthy of launch. Windows 95 and Windows 2000.

And they are doing it by adding things like Firewire support. Worth an entire OS upgrade? I think not.
MS releases rehashed OSs with incremental upgrades like firewire support (which could probably be added to W95 regardless, it does not require a "new" OS to add support to things such as this) because its a tremendous cash influx.. not because its whats necessary to support firewire. I've said it about 3 times now, MS peaked with the start menu and task bar.
You've seen the pinnacle of MS innovation in GUI designs within W95.
The rest was almost purely business innovation.

 

[imported_Rampage]

While I wait for your response. I'd like to direct you here.

We have very different ideas of what progress is, and this is my idea of progress.

I would like to see MS program Windows XP in assembly language. Not just parts (as I think is done today typically).. all of it.

Why could MS not have taken W95 the direction of say, this assembly OS? Its just an example, but you CAN do more work with less hardware.

MS does not want to do this though. Like I said, progress is not raising RAM requirements from 32MB with W95 to 256MB (or whatever it is) with Vista to do the same BASIC function (multitask).

We should be running W95 quality OS's on less than W95's required 32mb or 16mb (whichever it was) of RAM and an even slower processor.

Progress to me means doing more with less. Not more with more.

 

[mechBgon]

I take it you don't manage an Active Directory domain? Even the jump from Win2000 Pro to WinXP Pro as the client OS is quite noticable in the dabbling I've done so far. Win9x/ME are an absolute no-go from a management standpoint.

Keep thinking merely as a home user, and keep looking at just the GUI, and maybe they will all keep appearing to be the same thing in fancier and fancier clothing. But that's a superficial viewpoint.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
I take it you don't manage an Active Directory domain? Even the jump from Win2000 Pro to WinXP Pro as the client OS is quite noticable in the dabbling I've done so far. Win9x/ME are an absolute no-go from a management standpoint.

Keep thinking merely as a home user, and keep looking at just the GUI, and maybe they will all keep appearing to be the same thing in fancier and fancier clothing. But that's a superficial viewpoint.

You managed an active directory with 95?

Thats a nice switch in topics. Servers and industrial grade software doesnt have much to do with Windows 95.

And real system administrators use Netware or Windows Server 2003 or similar to manage their network directorys.. not Windows 2000 or XP.

And besides since when did Netware not interact well with Windows 95?

You only brought up yet another shortcoming to upgrading your entire OS for menial things.

With MS, you upgrade from 2000 to XP for better network support (or so you stated). Netware just install the client software.

What you mention is yet another way MS forces people to upgrade, but the way they push corporations into doing it and other companys.
Want any new network admin software or features? Upgrade your servers and your desktops to the latest MS OS.. just for incremental changes.
In Active Directorys case, it was a push MS endured for years to catch up to Novell.

Netware client didnt require a whole new OS for this. Why does MS?
Shouldnt need to move to XP from 2000 as you said for easier management.. it doenst make sense at all besides to fill MS's coffers.

All we accomplished here was move from the way that MS pushes home users to move to the 'new' OS (hardware and software support, which amounts to about 1MB of additional coding by itself in many cases). To explain how they force corporations to move to new OS's.. easier/better network management.

Novell, for years.. without needing Windows 2008.. worked great from DOS to XP, just install a client. No special OS needed.

Win9x/ME are total "Go's" from a mangement standpoint once you remove your mindset from a MS centric world.
Theres no reason they can't be. Unless you demand on AD.

I personally dont like being locked on the MS platform myself, which is why I prefer Java or .net.
Write a program in java.. works on 95-XP. Write an app in .Net.. you need 2000 or newer.
Kinda nice that MS doesnt support programs written on their .Net platform doesnt work on all their OS's huh? Not really. Its about the money, which explains your ease of running your active directory on XP over 2000.. and needing Vista to play Wing Commander 10.
All these things are done to fill their coffers, adding firewire or support for DX11 in Win2000 is easy to do.

I'm sticking with my original premise on MS OSs- Progress to me means doing more with less. Not more with more.
Shouldnt require Windows XP to get good network management when Novell (and others, jsut using them as an example since I've taken courses here at the university in both Netware/Windows networking) has been doing it across all OS environments.. and MIXED environments for years!

Cutting W9x/ME support from networking is not progress.. Esp when your name is MS and you created those very OS's..

 

[n0cmonkey]

Reasons to upgrade past DOS (Widows 9x):
NTFS
User accounts that mean something.

Don't really need anything else. Basic security is a great thing.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Reasons to upgrade past DOS (Widows 9x):
NTFS
User accounts that mean something.

Don't really need anything else. Basic security is a great thing.

I like those two things as well.


Which is why I said there are about two good, honest OS's out of the entire 95-98-98SE-98Gold-ME-2000-XP-XP Pro-Vista debacle.

Windows 95 for the GUI. And Windows 2000 for the technology.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: mechBgon
I take it you don't manage an Active Directory domain? Even the jump from Win2000 Pro to WinXP Pro as the client OS is quite noticable in the dabbling I've done so far. Win9x/ME are an absolute no-go from a management standpoint.

Keep thinking merely as a home user, and keep looking at just the GUI, and maybe they will all keep appearing to be the same thing in fancier and fancier clothing. But that's a superficial viewpoint.

You managed an active directory with 95?

blah

blah

....

blah

Cutting W9x/ME support from networking is not progress.. Esp when your name is MS and you created those very OS's..

I see your reading comprehension suffers when you don't have your hat Anyway, I think you might be making too big a deal out of the hardware requirements for Vista. Presently, Microsoft's info is here and it doesn't sound too crazy, considering the OS doesn't arrive for quite a while. Check the AMD, Intel, ATI and nVidia links on that page. For full Vista goodness with all the GUI bells and whistles, it appears you will need

• Any current or future AMD or Intel CPU (oh noes, this will cost at least $60! :roll: )
  
• Any nVidia GPU from the lowly FX5200 on up, or any ATI GPU with DX9 capabilities (9600 on up, maybe 9550) (oh noes, this will cost at least $40! :roll: )
  
• 512MB of RAM (oh noes, this will cost $40! :roll: )

And if you have a lesser GPU, then you get a 2D GUI. I fail to see where any of this is a big deal in reality, especially when you compare the cost of 512MB of RAM today, versus what I paid to upgrade my Win95 system with an additional 16MB of EDO back in 1996-ish. Actually I could almost piece together an official Vista-Ready PC out of leftover scraps right now. I have 1GB of DDR400 RAM lying across the top of my keyboard, for instance.

If you like minimalistic OS'es for their own sake, then hey, I can respect that and you should find something to suit you in the open-source area. But your gripes about Vista's hardware requirements are a tempest in a teacup; I think you'd have a hard time finding a '07 PC that didn't meet them.

 

[spyordie007]

oh yeah, I think microsoft should have a bare OS with no thrills and charge a lot less for it

They do, it's called XP Starter Edition. However it's not available in a lot of the world (including the US).

I'm not even going to comment on the rest of this. There are those who are still running 95, I'm not going to help them or have any sympothy when they have problems.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: mechBgon
I take it you don't manage an Active Directory domain? Even the jump from Win2000 Pro to WinXP Pro as the client OS is quite noticable in the dabbling I've done so far. Win9x/ME are an absolute no-go from a management standpoint.

Keep thinking merely as a home user, and keep looking at just the GUI, and maybe they will all keep appearing to be the same thing in fancier and fancier clothing. But that's a superficial viewpoint.

You managed an active directory with 95?

blah

blah

....

blah

Cutting W9x/ME support from networking is not progress.. Esp when your name is MS and you created those very OS's..

I see your reading comprehension suffers when you don't have your hat Anyway, I think you might be making too big a deal out of the hardware requirements for Vista. Presently, Microsoft's info is here and it doesn't sound too crazy, considering the OS doesn't arrive for quite a while. Check the AMD, Intel, ATI and nVidia links on that page. For full Vista goodness with all the GUI bells and whistles, it appears you will need

• Any current or future AMD or Intel CPU (oh noes, this will cost at least $60! :roll: )
  
• Any nVidia GPU from the lowly FX5200 on up, or any ATI GPU with DX9 capabilities (9600 on up, maybe 9550) (oh noes, this will cost at least $40! :roll: )
  
• 512MB of RAM (oh noes, this will cost $40! :roll: )

And if you have a lesser GPU, then you get a 2D GUI. I fail to see where any of this is a big deal in reality, especially when you compare the cost of 512MB of RAM today, versus what I paid to upgrade my Win95 system with an additional 16MB of EDO back in 1996-ish. Actually I could almost piece together an official Vista-Ready PC out of leftover scraps right now. I have 1GB of DDR400 RAM lying across the top of my keyboard, for instance.

If you like minimalistic OS'es for their own sake, then hey, I can respect that and you should find something to suit you in the open-source area. But your gripes about Vista's hardware requirements are a tempest in a teacup; I think you'd have a hard time finding a '07 PC that didn't meet them.

You seemed interested in debating.. but if all you have to say is "yes I dont mind buying a new PC for Vista because all I need is a lowly fx5200". then more power to ya.

*edited for profanity. I am drunk and it is not necessary! (the profanity, not the drinking)* Thank you.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

oh yeah, I think microsoft should have a bare OS with no thrills and charge a lot less for it

They do, it's called XP Starter Edition. However it's not available in a lot of the world (including the US).

The problem with that is that it's goal is to be minimal from a usability perspective more than a hardware perspective. Arbitrary limits like a maximum number of open windows and refusing to run on certain processors are just a way to make the user want to upgrade, not save processing power.

For a minimal-power os from microsoft I think you'd have to look at what they've got for handheld devices but of course you probably couldn't get that to run nicely on an old pc. The open source world, with things like damn small linux, is a better environment for catering to old pcs with new functionality.