So who's going to buy Windows Vista when it 1st comes out in 2006?

[pcthuglife]

I imagine it'll be more or less unavoidable at work though, so knowing it a bit can't hurt.

Yeah thats what im affraid of. It's going to be impossible to convert my office to linux because all of the software we use is only written for MS products. oh well, at least i can always use my ubuntu laptop at work.

 

[JackMDS]

LOL.

Every time we get the same pathetic threads (Was the same when Windows XP came out, and might be that few of the current posters just pasted there reaction from 4 years ago) .

So, how many of you are still using Win98SE as your prime OS?

At the end it is a choice between being at the Head of Lion or the Tail of the Fox.

The funny thing about it that it is all about Fashion and not the money. Looking at the Forums, the current fad is spending a fortune on fancy PSUs.

Prediction - Very soon the PSU would be forgotten and it would be ??My CPU has 4 cores yours only 2??.

I attended the AMD tour two days ago, the New AMD CPUs (with the Cores) combined with Windows x64 is really Cool when using 64 bits application.

As publish by Activewin.com

WinVista Beta1: Aug. 3, 2005
WinVista Beta2: Nov. 16, 2005
WinVista RC0: Mar. 17, 2005
WinVista RTM: June 28, 2006

:sun:

 

[Nothinman]

Every time we get the same pathetic threads

That's because MS can't name a product if their business depended on it, good thing for them it doesn't. How is a regular person supposed to know which is newer/better? 98, 2000, ME, XP, 2003 or Vista?

The only good thing about this is that 3rd partys won't be able to rape the brand like they did with XP. Everything was "Stupid tool XP" 4 months after XP was released, but I doubt MS will let people abuse their Vista branding.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
LOL.

Every time we get the same pathetic threads (Was the same when Windows XP came out, and might be that few of the current posters just pasted there reaction from 4 years ago) .

So, how many of you are still using Win98SE as your prime OS?

I may be teh branedead, but wut is Win98SE?

I steal you's DOS.



PS, I voted no

 

[Nothinman]

I may be teh branedead, but wut is Win98SE?

Win98 Second Edition.

 

[stash]

How is a regular person supposed to know which is newer/better? 98, 2000, ME, XP, 2003 or Vista?

How is a regular person supposed to know which version of Linux is right for them? Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, etc, etc. How is a regular user supposed to know which version of Mac OS is newer/better? NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, OS 8 OS 9, OS X, cat names, etc, etc.

Point is, everyone's naming conventions suck.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: STaSh

How is a regular person supposed to know which version of Linux is right for them? Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, etc, etc.

LOL, it is Not Fair you chose all the Hard names and omitted the ""easy"" self descriptive names: Caldera, Kondara, SuSE, Knopix.:shocked::roll:

Actully Knopix makes the most sense since Knop is a button in German.😉

:sun:

P.S. It is just a weekent fun.:thumbsup:

 

[ProviaFan]

If you all would have kept with the NT naming convention, things would be so much simpler... 😉

But at least the boot screen won't have the ironically humorous "based on NT technology" - in other words, based on New Technology Technology. 😛

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: STaSh

How is a regular person supposed to know which is newer/better? 98, 2000, ME, XP, 2003 or Vista?

How is a regular person supposed to know which version of Linux is right for them? Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, etc, etc. How is a regular user supposed to know which version of Mac OS is newer/better? NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, OS 8 OS 9, OS X, cat names, etc, etc.

Point is, everyone's naming conventions suck.

Fedora is pretty simple.

Fedora Core 1
Fedora Core 2
Fedora Core 3
Fedora Core 4

Same thing with Suse:
Suse 7.x
Suse 8.x
Suse 9.x

The only confusion realy comes up with Redhat vs Fedora vs Redhat ES... which was a stupid move on Redhat's part. They should of kept moving up the redhat number sceme to from Redhat 9 to Redhat ES 10 instead to Redhat ES 2 or 3 (I forget which was first public release version), which screws people up.

Mac OS is pretty simple, too..
Mac OS 6
Mac OS 7
Mac OS 8
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X/OS 10.1 10.2.4 10.2.6
And it's pretty obvious to most people X is the roman numeral for 10. And so on and so forth..

Now go ask your mom, which do you think is newer? Fedora Core 2 or Fedora Core 4?
Then ask her which is newer: Windows 2000 or Windows ME or Windows Vista.

 

[Nothinman]

How is a regular person supposed to know which version of Linux is right for them? Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, etc, etc. How is a regular user supposed to know which version of Mac OS is newer/better? NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, OS 8 OS 9, OS X, cat names, etc, etc.

Point is, everyone's naming conventions suck.

At least Debian, Fedora, Slackware, etc use version numbers that increment normally make sense. Debian 3.2 > Debian 3.0, FC4 > FC3. And technically you could say the X in OS X is for 10 which makes it > 9. As for the others, no one outside of ethusiasts who are going to do the research would care.

LOL, it is Not Fair you chose all the Hard names and omitted the ""easy"" self descriptive names: Caldera, Kondara, SuSE, Knopix.

Knoppix, Caldera, etc are analogous to the Windows portion of the brand name. Each of them have a normal version number represending which version of the brand that they are, that isn't true with Windows or most of the sh!t MS puts out.

 

[stash]

At least Debian, Fedora, Slackware, etc use version numbers that increment normally make sense. Debian 3.2 > Debian 3.0, FC4 > FC3

True, but how is Grandma Computer User supposed to which distro is the one for her in the first place?

Now go ask your mom, which do you think is newer? Fedora Core 2 or Fedora Core 4?
Then ask her which is newer: Windows 2000 or Windows ME or Windows Vista.

Well given that her son works for Microsoft, I think my Mom would know the answer 😛 On the other hand, she might think FC is some sort of secret government agency whose members all wear funny hats.

 

[Nothinman]

True, but how is Grandma Computer User supposed to which distro is the one for her in the first place?

Chances aren't very good that grandma is asking about Linux in the first place and if she is chances are good that the grandchild in charge of removing all of the spyware and crap from her current Windows installation will just select one for her if that's what she wants.

Do you know how many people say sh!t like "I just got upgraded to Microsoft XP" and give a blank stare when you say "Office or Windows?" There's no way anyone will be able to get people to understand what is what, so MS is just wasting their time and should stick to good old version numbers so that the people who do understand can easier tell what's what.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Chances aren't very good that grandma is asking about Linux in the first place and if she is chances are good that the grandchild in charge of removing all of the spyware and crap from her current Windows installation will just select one for her if that's what she wants.

Do you know how many people say sh!t like "I just got upgraded to Microsoft XP" and give a blank stare when you say "Office or Windows?" There's no way anyone will be able to get people to understand what is what, so MS is just wasting their time and should stick to good old version numbers so that the people who do understand can easier tell what's what.

Well, as long as Microsoft doesn't do something stupid and name the next revision of Office "Vista," then if these people make the same error, at least we'll be able to tell the difference between "Microsoft Vista" and "Microsoft [whatever Office is]." 😉

Yeah, right, I know that's wishful thinking. 🙁

 

[JackMDS]

Hmm.

Win XP states: Copyright 2001

Win Vista would State: Copyright 2006.

Nah!, it is too hard you have to know which year is the current year, after all your VCR is Blinking Jan. 01 1999 12:00 am 🙂:shocked::beer:

:sun:

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
Hmm.

Win XP states: Copyright 2001

Win Vista would State: Copyright 2006.

Nah!, it is too hard you have to know which year is the current year, after all you VCR is Blinking Jan. 01 1999 12:00 am 🙂:shocked::beer:

:sun:

What's "copyright?" Is that like a negative?

 

[13Gigatons]

I'll run V beta 1 and V beta 2 and then the RC's and then the Eval edition.

 

[MBrown]

Imma get it I think. I have XP home now and this drm thing might be worse with XP. And call me crazy but I dont really want to learn linux all that much.

 

[mb]

How do you know which Windows is the newest?? Look in any major computer store catalog that you get in the mail! I do believe they stopped shipping computers with Windows 98.

Or, just go to microsoft.com.

 

[corinthos]

when i overclocked my system, unoverclocked it, and then overclocked it again.. i had to reactivate xp.. when i swapped motherboards and cpu, i had to reactivate xp, when i popped in a new video card, i had to reactivate xp.. unless they remove activation or make it less ridiculous, i'll be giving os x for pc a hard look.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
LOL.

Every time we get the same pathetic threads (Was the same when Windows XP came out, and might be that few of the current posters just pasted there reaction from 4 years ago) .

So, how many of you are still using Win98SE as your prime OS?

What if I never ran Win98? I went from 95A to NT4. Except in the summer (Voodoo2 w/ no HS 🙂), I was solid as a rock, and it was hard to find reputable hardware that didn't work well, or decent games that wouldn't run (the only one I encountered came w/ my video card--G-police, I think it was called), in spite of everyone's cries about such crap.

Then, with real PnP and good USB support, I got Windows 2000.
XP has nothing on Windows 2000, except for eye candy.

Vista will need to encourage software makers to break backwards-compatibility (x86-64 is one step, if they start supporting only 64-bit) for me to think about upgrading.

 

[Nothinman]

XP has nothing on Windows 2000, except for eye candy.

Actually there were a lot of changes at the kernel level of XP, it removed a lot of limitations and added a bunch of low level features.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

XP has nothing on Windows 2000, except for eye candy.

Actually there were a lot of changes at the kernel level of XP, it removed a lot of limitations and added a bunch of low level features.

What is a useful one?

 

[Nothinman]

Amazing what you can find with google.

• Prior to Windows XP, the combined sizes of Registry hives could not exceed approximately 376MB (about 80 percent of the maximum paged pool size), but in Windows XP there is no hardcoded upper limit on total Registry size.
  
• The way Windows XP decides which pages to remove in working sets when the system needs to create additional free pages is greatly improved for multiprocessor systems
  
• A number of critical internal locks used to synchronize access to various internal memory management data structures have been either removed completely or optimized, resulting in much less contention.
  
• Windows XP uses the SYSENTER/SYSEXIT pair of instructions to transition into and out of kernel-mode for system calls if it's running on a Pentium II or higher. This instruction sequence requires fewer clock cycles to execute, improving the speed of system calls.
  
• Now serial and networking device drivers initialize in parallel, unlike in Windows 2000 where they initialize serially. Logons are allowed sooner, laptops can hibernate and resume more quickly, and applications start faster
  
• The implementation of hibernation has been revamped for better performance.
  
• In addition to these power management-related performance improvements, Windows XP now supports Intel SpeedStep, AMD PowerNow!, and Transmeta LongRun processor power management. When a system is running on battery (DC power), the Power Manager automatically adjusts the processor's clock rate to accommodate the processing demands of applications, throttling back the speed during idle periods to save power.
  
• Windows 2000 was already a reliable platform. Windows XP builds on that foundation by adding a number of significant recovery capabilities and reliability improvements such as System Restore, Driver Rollback, Volume Shadow Copy, a more reliable service infrastructure, and new Driver Verifier options.
  
• Windows XP now supports DVD-RAM devices as CD, DVD, and rewritable disks. DVD-RAM media can be formatted with the FAT32 file system.
  
• NTFS can mount read-only media and has better security defaults.
  
• File system filter drivers can register callbacks to intercept fast I/O operations.
  
• Prior to Windows XP, NTFS would fail to mount volumes on read-only media, but now it does, and it returns the new FILE_READ_ONLY_VOLUME flag for the GetVolumeInformation API on such volumes.
  
• Windows XP supports booting and executing applications from ROM. While the operating system and device drivers are copied from ROM into RAM and then executed, user applications can be executed directly from ROM. This support was added to enhance capabilities of the upcoming embedded Windows NT release based on the Windows XP kernel.
  

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Amazing what you can find with google.

• Prior to Windows XP, the combined sizes of Registry hives could not exceed approximately 376MB (about 80 percent of the maximum paged pool size), but in Windows XP there is no hardcoded upper limit on total Registry size.

• Maybe nice for servers, and a good design change, but I'm at 19MB, about 5% of max.
  
  

  [*]The way Windows XP decides which pages to remove in working sets when the system needs to create additional free pages is greatly improved for multiprocessor systems

  Which, even now, isn't even 1% of users.
  
  

  [*]A number of critical internal locks used to synchronize access to various internal memory management data structures have been either removed completely or optimized, resulting in much less contention.

  And exactly how much does this affect my use of Writer, or Firefox?
  
  

  [*]Windows XP uses the SYSENTER/SYSEXIT pair of instructions to transition into and out of kernel-mode for system calls if it's running on a Pentium II or higher. This instruction sequence requires fewer clock cycles to execute, improving the speed of system calls.

  Ok, you've got one that could offer some real benefit.
  
  

  [*]Now serial and networking device drivers initialize in parallel, unlike in Windows 2000 where they initialize serially. Logons are allowed sooner, laptops can hibernate and resume more quickly, and applications start faster

  Applications start faster? Not noticeably. Logons are fast enough as it is. I can have a fully useable PC in under 5 seconds from logon now, if I turned off Avast!.
  
  

  [*]The implementation of hibernation has been revamped for better performance.

  Again, eh.
  
  

  [*]In addition to these power management-related performance improvements, Windows XP now supports Intel SpeedStep, AMD PowerNow!, and Transmeta LongRun processor power management. When a system is running on battery (DC power), the Power Manager automatically adjusts the processor's clock rate to accommodate the processing demands of applications, throttling back the speed during idle periods to save power.

  For a desktop, useless. For a laptop, not bad.
  
  

  [*]Windows 2000 was already a reliable platform. Windows XP builds on that foundation by adding a number of significant recovery capabilities and reliability improvements such as System Restore, Driver Rollback, Volume Shadow Copy, a more reliable service infrastructure, and new Driver Verifier options.

  System restore ends up made useless by malware, or the PC is still fine. I'd much prefer a home folder that I could back up to system restore points.
  
  

  [*] Windows XP now supports DVD-RAM devices as CD, DVD, and rewritable disks. DVD-RAM media can be formatted with the FAT32 file system.

  ...and it does so with a poor interface. The zip support is the only useful one, as it adds worthwhile functionality.
  
  

  [*] NTFS can mount read-only media and has better security defaults.

  How is mounting read-only media useful, when read-only media won't be using NTFS, unless it is a boot ROM of some kind, in which case you certainly aren't running stock XP?
  
  Security defaults...you don't mean crappy file sharing and annoying folder access, do you?
  
  

  [*] File system filter drivers can register callbacks to intercept fast I/O operations.

  Something I'll never see, or worry about.
  
  

  [*] Prior to Windows XP, NTFS would fail to mount volumes on read-only media, but now it does, and it returns the new FILE_READ_ONLY_VOLUME flag for the GetVolumeInformation API on such volumes.

  See above.
  
  

  [*] Windows XP supports booting and executing applications from ROM. While the operating system and device drivers are copied from ROM into RAM and then executed, user applications can be executed directly from ROM. This support was added to enhance capabilities of the upcoming embedded Windows NT release based on the Windows XP kernel.

Kind of nifty, if I wanted a thin client.

So, added up, I think that gets to 1 1/2. The paging bit as half, since multi-processor systems are finally here.

What sucks: all of those added up still wouldn't be 1/10th as worthwhile as WinFS. All of them added up might be as useful as per-user command history, which Windows still lacks.

 

[Nothinman]

Maybe nice for servers, and a good design change, but I'm at 19MB, about 5% of max.

Actually I doubt server hives get very large, but regular user's hives do as they tend to add/remove a lot of software that dosen't clean up properly. And even if it's not useful for you, it's an advancement to remove old limits.

Which, even now, isn't even 1% of users.

Considering all of the HT machines out there, I would say you're way off.

And exactly how much does this affect my use of Writer, or Firefox?

Without profiling each app it's impossible to say how reduced lock contention will affect them, but the only possible affect is less latency of memory operations. And FF is pretty memory hungry so the amount might actually be noticable.

For a desktop, useless. For a laptop, not bad.

Thank you, Mr Obvious.

Ok, you've got one that could offer some real benefit.

Duh.

System restore ends up made useless by malware, or the PC is still fine. I'd much prefer a home folder that I could back up to system restore points.

Why not submit a bug report or feature request then?

...and it does so with a poor interface. The zip support is the only useful one, as it adds worthwhile functionality.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it any less useful.

How is mounting read-only media useful, when read-only media won't be using NTFS, unless it is a boot ROM of some kind, in which case you certainly aren't running stock XP?

You can format discs as NTFS if you really want, hell SysInternals has a tool to let you format a floppy NTFS if you want. BartPE isn't technically stock XP, but it can be made to be real close.

Security defaults...you don't mean crappy file sharing and annoying folder access, do you?

Um, no. It means sane default permissions, instead of that "Everyone Full Control" crap. But since most people run as local admin it doesn't really matter anyway. Thankfully that's supposed to change with Longhorn.

Something I'll never see, or worry about.

Which is why it's a good advancement. It's invisible to the user and yet causes a noticable improvement, in this case it can really help things like AntiVirus and AntiSpyware tools.

So, added up, I think that gets to 1 1/2.

And thankfully your opinion on them doesn't matter. They are added improvements that have real benefits, whether you notice or care about them or not. You asked for some useful improvements in XP over 2000 and I provided them, if you want to keep thinking that 2000 is better because it dosen't have activation or whatever that's fine but don't spread misinformation.