"Users fight to save Windows xp"

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, it's not because Vista Code reset that caused MS to extend XP's support, if MS stopped XP support after 5 years (released Oct. 2001, it would be Oct. 2006), there won't be any new OS for user to move to since Vista was released Jan. 2007.

See again, it's not how long the OS has been supported, its how long the new OS has come to the market. People were still getting XP PC before Jan. 2007, that's barely 1 1/2 year ago. That's hardly a very long time ago, and those system are hardly "ancient". For people like us, we would never call MS for support, all we need is security updates and hot-fixes. But for average users, and most importantly business, where cover your own ass with somebody else to support you, support is important and it sucks to know that something you only bought less then 1 1/2 year ago is gonna be out of "mainstream" support. Which to many non-tech. people can be a scary thing.

Now if Vista has been on the market for 3+ years, it wouldn't be as bad since most people would have vista by then since PC buying cycle is around 3~4 years, and for those who still have the old OS, they'd understand because they know their system is pretty old.

I doubt the average user even knows or cares about MS support. Ive never known anyone to ever call MS for an issue (they call me ). Businesses are going to be able to get support till 2014, thats still quite a long time.

And despite the fact that Win2k is in "extended support", it still receives regular critical security updates through windows update.

If someone called me with a problem on their 13, or even 7 year old PC, unless it was a simple fix, the obvious answer is "buy a new PC". Computers don't last forever, and a 7-year old PC that was once top of the line is probably worth less than $50 7 years later.

With all due respect, this has become a bit of an exercise in stupidity, nothing more than a semantic argument over the word "mainstream" and "support", ignoring what those terms actually mean to MS, and then playing around with numbers to try to make a reasonable situation sound like a conspiracy. Everything you claim to want from MS is what they're actually doing, so whats the problem?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BD2003

I doubt the average user even knows or cares about MS support. Ive never known anyone to ever call MS for an issue (they call me ). Businesses are going to be able to get support till 2014, thats still quite a long time.

And despite the fact that Win2k is in "extended support", it still receives regular critical security updates through windows update.

If someone called me with a problem on their 13, or even 7 year old PC, unless it was a simple fix, the obvious answer is "buy a new PC". Computers don't last forever, and a 7-year old PC that was once top of the line is probably worth less than $50 7 years later.

With all due respect, this has become a bit of an exercise in stupidity, nothing more than a semantic argument over the word "mainstream" and "support", ignoring what those terms actually mean to MS, and then playing around with numbers to try to make a reasonable situation sound like a conspiracy. Everything you claim to want from MS is what they're actually doing, so whats the problem?

The difference between mainstream and extended support is not just semantic, it's real. You get free incident support under mainstream support and you have to pay for incident support under extended support.

Maybe because I work as an enterprise resource planning system consultant and stuff I work with is critical to companies' bottom line. Every client I work with is very conscious in their OS decision, how much support they are going to get and what type of support they are going to get. Go talk to some CTO/CIO or some decision maker to see if it's acceptable to see something you just bought a little over 1 1/2 years ago only to see the free support stopped in the very near future.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: BD2003

I doubt the average user even knows or cares about MS support. Ive never known anyone to ever call MS for an issue (they call me ). Businesses are going to be able to get support till 2014, thats still quite a long time.

And despite the fact that Win2k is in "extended support", it still receives regular critical security updates through windows update.

If someone called me with a problem on their 13, or even 7 year old PC, unless it was a simple fix, the obvious answer is "buy a new PC". Computers don't last forever, and a 7-year old PC that was once top of the line is probably worth less than $50 7 years later.

With all due respect, this has become a bit of an exercise in stupidity, nothing more than a semantic argument over the word "mainstream" and "support", ignoring what those terms actually mean to MS, and then playing around with numbers to try to make a reasonable situation sound like a conspiracy. Everything you claim to want from MS is what they're actually doing, so whats the problem?

The difference between mainstream and extended support is not just semantic, it's real. You get free incident support under mainstream support and you have to pay for incident support under extended support.

Maybe because I work as an enterprise resource planning system consultant and stuff I work with is critical to companies' bottom line. Every client I work with is very conscious in their OS decision, how much support they are going to get and what type of support they are going to get. Go talk to some CTO/CIO or some decision maker to see if it's acceptable to see something you just bought a little over 1 1/2 years ago only to see the free support stopped in the very near future.

Then if this is your job, you should have known this well ahead of time - it took me 2 seconds to google it and find out that they have supported products for either 5 years or 2 years after the successor product is released, whichever is longer. Again, this isnt a conspiracy due to Vista, the document I found is from 2004.

If XP is so stable, you shouldnt need much support anyway. OS upgrades are nothing new, and neither is this policy. If support is such a massive concern, I'd seriously consider implementing an OS that will have mainstream support until at least 2011, like good ol Vista. Seriously, it's not that bad of an OS, its actually quite nice.

But we get it, you don't want vista? Then pay for support for XP after 2009.

And there's always linux, which is free, but well...you've gotta pay for support.

You've still got options here, theres no conspiracy, no one is twisting your arm into using Vista.

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: BD2003

I doubt the average user even knows or cares about MS support. Ive never known anyone to ever call MS for an issue (they call me ). Businesses are going to be able to get support till 2014, thats still quite a long time.

And despite the fact that Win2k is in "extended support", it still receives regular critical security updates through windows update.

If someone called me with a problem on their 13, or even 7 year old PC, unless it was a simple fix, the obvious answer is "buy a new PC". Computers don't last forever, and a 7-year old PC that was once top of the line is probably worth less than $50 7 years later.

With all due respect, this has become a bit of an exercise in stupidity, nothing more than a semantic argument over the word "mainstream" and "support", ignoring what those terms actually mean to MS, and then playing around with numbers to try to make a reasonable situation sound like a conspiracy. Everything you claim to want from MS is what they're actually doing, so whats the problem?

The difference between mainstream and extended support is not just semantic, it's real. You get free incident support under mainstream support and you have to pay for incident support under extended support.

Maybe because I work as an enterprise resource planning system consultant and stuff I work with is critical to companies' bottom line. Every client I work with is very conscious in their OS decision, how much support they are going to get and what type of support they are going to get. Go talk to some CTO/CIO or some decision maker to see if it's acceptable to see something you just bought a little over 1 1/2 years ago only to see the free support stopped in the very near future.

Actually, under mainstream support, unless you discover a bug, support incidents are not free. The following three things are not part of extended support:

- No-charge incident support
- Warranty claims
- Design changes and feature requests

If you work as an enterprise resource planning system consultant, you should hopefully be telling your clients how this works. MS is not going to change for your single situation. Again, 13 years is a long time to support an OS. That support will be there until 2014.

PhreePhly

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BD2003


Then if this is your job, you should have known this well ahead of time - it took me 2 seconds to google it and find out that they have supported products for either 5 years or 2 years after the successor product is released, whichever is longer. Again, this isnt a conspiracy due to Vista, the document I found is from 2004.

If XP is so stable, you shouldnt need much support anyway. OS upgrades are nothing new, and neither is this policy. If support is such a massive concern, I'd seriously consider implementing an OS that will have mainstream support until at least 2011, like good ol Vista. Seriously, it's not that bad of an OS, its actually quite nice.

But we get it, you don't want vista? Then pay for support for XP after 2009.

And there's always linux, which is free, but well...you've gotta pay for support.

You've still got options here, theres no conspiracy, no one is twisting your arm into using Vista.

Heh, sure I know ahead of time, but what's the option? Whose fault is it that MS doesn't release the successor product for XP until 5+ years after the release? And if you work in IT environment long enough, you'd know support agreement got nothing to do with how stable the product is, management always makes decision based on worst case scenario. Doesn't matter how stable XP is, they want their support people to have someone to call when there is a critical problem and often they are too cheap to spend a dime.

And again, up to 1 1/2 years ago, companies are still getting XP machines, and not like they had a choice. So they have to pay for support only 2 years buying those pretty recent desktops now? And yes, 2 year is a short time and is no where near any company's PC replacement cycle.

And sure MS can force their customers to consider other options like linux, I am just saying it's a stupid on their part to make such move.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Mem
You do know if Microsoft kept to their normal OS replacement time period,XP would of long gone by now,its only because XP has been around too long we now have this problem or resistance if you like.

It seems apparent that, as PCs become more and more popular, the time required for EVERYONE to migrate to the next-generation OS will get longer and longer. That means that Microsoft will have to support their OSes for longer and longer. If XP is supported for ten years, then Vista may be supported for fifteen years.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: BD2003


Then if this is your job, you should have known this well ahead of time - it took me 2 seconds to google it and find out that they have supported products for either 5 years or 2 years after the successor product is released, whichever is longer. Again, this isnt a conspiracy due to Vista, the document I found is from 2004.

If XP is so stable, you shouldnt need much support anyway. OS upgrades are nothing new, and neither is this policy. If support is such a massive concern, I'd seriously consider implementing an OS that will have mainstream support until at least 2011, like good ol Vista. Seriously, it's not that bad of an OS, its actually quite nice.

But we get it, you don't want vista? Then pay for support for XP after 2009.

And there's always linux, which is free, but well...you've gotta pay for support.

You've still got options here, theres no conspiracy, no one is twisting your arm into using Vista.

Heh, sure I know ahead of time, but what's the option? Whose fault is it that MS doesn't release the successor product for XP until 5+ years after the release? And if you work in IT environment long enough, you'd know support agreement got nothing to do with how stable the product is, management always makes decision based on worst case scenario. Doesn't matter how stable XP is, they want their support people to have someone to call when there is a critical problem and often they are too cheap to spend a dime.

And again, up to 1 1/2 years ago, companies are still getting XP machines, and not like they had a choice. So they have to pay for support only 2 years buying those pretty recent desktops now? And yes, 2 year is a short time and is no where near any company's PC replacement cycle.

And sure MS can force their customers to consider other options like linux, I am just saying it's a stupid on their part to make such move.

First, we need to work on the math skills. Vista was released late 2006. XP mainsteam support ends mid 2009. Thats over 2 1/2 years that people had a choice, NOT 1 1/2. Thats also 1/2 year longer than they promised to support it, a promise they made a long, long time ago.

Now let me see if I understand this correctly - MS didnt release an OS for 5 years, thus making XP the longest supported OS ever. Therefore, rather than being pleased there was a long peaceful lull in IT where a new deployment isnt around the corner, they are bastards for finally moving on with a new OS after 5 long years.

I cant imagine how many heads were rolling in 2001 when XP came out a year or so after Win2K. I guess everyone was used to peace and quiet and MS rocked the boat with Vista, but you should have known it was coming.

Every morning I hit my snooze bar at least 5 times, because I just don't want to get up. Yet there comes a point where I have to, no matter how many times I snooze. When that time comes, I dont blame the clock for making me get up, and if I'm late for work, I certainly don't blame the clock for letting me snooze so long and/or not slowing down time and space, and thus making me late.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BD2003


First, we need to work on the math skills. Vista was released late 2006. XP mainsteam support ends mid 2009. Thats over 2 1/2 years that people had a choice, NOT 1 1/2. Thats also 1/2 year longer than they promised to support it, a promise they made a long, long time ago.

Now let me see if I understand this correctly - MS didnt release an OS for 5 years, thus making XP the longest supported OS ever. Therefore, rather than being pleased there was a long peaceful lull in IT where a new deployment isnt around the corner, they are bastards for finally moving on with a new OS after 5 long years.

I cant imagine how many heads were rolling in 2001 when XP came out a year or so after Win2K. I guess everyone was used to peace and quiet and MS rocked the boat with Vista, but you should have known it was coming.

Every morning I hit my snooze bar at least 5 times, because I just don't want to get up. Yet there comes a point where I have to, no matter how many times I snooze. When that time comes, I dont blame the clock for making me get up, and if I'm late for work, I certainly don't blame the clock for letting me snooze so long and/or not slowing down time and space, and thus making me late.

Customer usually don't wait until the day when the support ends to start complain or panic. I was talking about today, right now, which is 1 1/2 year from the Vista release, and they already have to think about XP support being shifted to extended mode.

And again, I don't have any problem with XP on the market for so long, I don't mind using it for another 5 years if I can since it does everything I need for a desktop OS. And I don't mind MS rocked the boat with Vista and I know it was coming. What I do mind, and I think those others who complain, is the short time frame between Vista release, and the changing of XP support from mainstream to extended. People who are not enthusiast don't jump on the the latest and the greatest, hardware/software don't completely shift their support from one OS to anther in 2 short years. Maybe the real impact from mainstream to extended support isn't gonna be too much, but the problem is people, especially business don't like to deal with the uncertainty that comes with that change.

I don't mind the change, but you have to understand it's not easy, especially for business to change OS, and to only give people a little over 2 year after the new options is available to change (and the first year is likely to have quite a bit of bugs/incompatibilities problem), I am not surprised that people is gonna complain about it.

 

[apoppin]

"Users fight to save Windows xp"

nothing worth fighting for .. like fighting to keep "creationism" in School
:roll:

XP is *primitive* when set alongside Vista
- good fricking riddance to it!

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: BD2003


First, we need to work on the math skills. Vista was released late 2006. XP mainsteam support ends mid 2009. Thats over 2 1/2 years that people had a choice, NOT 1 1/2. Thats also 1/2 year longer than they promised to support it, a promise they made a long, long time ago.

Now let me see if I understand this correctly - MS didnt release an OS for 5 years, thus making XP the longest supported OS ever. Therefore, rather than being pleased there was a long peaceful lull in IT where a new deployment isnt around the corner, they are bastards for finally moving on with a new OS after 5 long years.

I cant imagine how many heads were rolling in 2001 when XP came out a year or so after Win2K. I guess everyone was used to peace and quiet and MS rocked the boat with Vista, but you should have known it was coming.

Every morning I hit my snooze bar at least 5 times, because I just don't want to get up. Yet there comes a point where I have to, no matter how many times I snooze. When that time comes, I dont blame the clock for making me get up, and if I'm late for work, I certainly don't blame the clock for letting me snooze so long and/or not slowing down time and space, and thus making me late.

Customer usually don't wait until the day when the support ends to start complain or panic. I was talking about today, right now, which is 1 1/2 year from the Vista release, and they already have to think about XP support being shifted to extended mode.

And again, I don't have any problem with XP on the market for so long, I don't mind using it for another 5 years if I can since it does everything I need for a desktop OS. And I don't mind MS rocked the boat with Vista and I know it was coming. What I do mind, and I think those others who complain, is the short time frame between Vista release, and the changing of XP support from mainstream to extended. People who are not enthusiast don't jump on the the latest and the greatest, hardware/software don't completely shift their support from one OS to anther in 2 short years. Maybe the real impact from mainstream to extended support isn't gonna be too much, but the problem is people, especially business don't like to deal with the uncertainty that comes with that change.

I don't mind the change, but you have to understand it's not easy, especially for business to change OS, and to only give people a little over 2 year after the new options is available to change (and the first year is likely to have quite a bit of bugs/incompatibilities problem), I am not surprised that people is gonna complain about it.

I'm sure its a pain in the ass. Change always is. But this situation is no different than every other windows upgrade, it's just not a conspiracy due to Vista. Apple's OSX support isnt any better, and neither is most supported linux distros, although thats a slightly different situation. I'm sure business would love to reduce their support costs and stick with one OS forever, and never need to update hardware either, but unfortunately thats out of line with reality.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

MS ended "Mainstream support" for Win2K a few years ago, yet there are still people and business running it. MS is not going to stop supporting XP anytime soon. They aren't going to be selling it. MS probably won't stop supporting XP until around 2014. Personally, I think supporting an OS for 13 years is more than enough. No other software company supports their products that long.

MS will end current mainstream XP support in April 2009. The support until 2014 is a "more limited" support, who knows what that means.

Who knows what that means? Anyone who can read.
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

April 2009 is only a little over 2 years after Jan 2007 Vista release. Windows 2000 moved from mainstream support to the "extended" support phase on June 2005, almost 4 years after Windows XP (Oct 2001) release.

So what? Extended support still provides security fixes, Knowlege base information and general MS support. They will still provide everything an average user needs for support. And the stuff that business need for support are generally covered by the service contracts they pay for.

Yes Vista has similar adoption rate compared to XP, but XP was given much more time for users to move from their old OS compared to Vista.

And this is significant why? Home users won't need to do anything differently. Businesses that have site licenses for XP won't suddenly find that they are invalid. All of them can still get support.

It's obvious the reason why MS wanna cut the XP support so soon is because Vista took so long to complete, and MS wanna recover the R&D it spend ASAP.

It's more obvious that MS wants to move its development to Vista vs XP. If "extended support" meant not even doing security hot fixes then you may have a valid point, but that's not what it is.

Sure it will benefit them, but what about the majority of their customers out there still using XP. And like I said already, it doesn't matter how long MS have been supporting XP, what matters is 1. Majority of their customer is still on XP, 2. It doesn't give enough time for people to move to new OS.

How, does it not give enough time for people to move the the new OS? For consumers the Extended support phase means nothing. For businesses it means that they can't get MS to make non security changes via hot fixes unless they purchase an agreement.

 

[JACKDRUID]

where do i sign up?

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: BD2003

I'm sure its a pain in the ass. Change always is. But this situation is no different than every other windows upgrade, it's just not a conspiracy due to Vista. Apple's OSX support isnt any better, and neither is most supported linux distros, although thats a slightly different situation. I'm sure business would love to reduce their support costs and stick with one OS forever, and never need to update hardware either, but unfortunately thats out of line with reality.

there is a reason why XP is being supported for so long, because its a great OS offering windows 2000 stability with windows 98/me ease of use.

what does Vista bring on top of XP?

so far i only see issues with compatibility, dialog boxes, hardware requirement... no advantages at all..

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: BD2003

I'm sure its a pain in the ass. Change always is. But this situation is no different than every other windows upgrade, it's just not a conspiracy due to Vista. Apple's OSX support isnt any better, and neither is most supported linux distros, although thats a slightly different situation. I'm sure business would love to reduce their support costs and stick with one OS forever, and never need to update hardware either, but unfortunately thats out of line with reality.

there is a reason why XP is being supported for so long, because its a great OS offering windows 2000 stability with windows 98/me ease of use.

what does Vista bring on top of XP?

so far i only see issues with compatibility, dialog boxes, hardware requirement... no advantages at all..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...s_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...s_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...s_new_to_Windows_Vista

 

[JACKDRUID]

All cosmatic changes... nothing to improve stability...dx10 doesn't really do much..

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
All cosmatic changes... nothing to improve stability...dx10 doesn't really do much..

Then you obviously havent read it.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
All cosmatic changes... nothing to improve stability...dx10 doesn't really do much..

Then you obviously havent read it.

actually i tested it.. games in dx10 don't run better or prettier... its all theoratical...
btw, care to share your opinion on vista? why do u like it over xp?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
All cosmatic changes... nothing to improve stability...dx10 doesn't really do much..

Then you obviously havent read it.

actually i tested it.. games in dx10 don't run better or prettier... its all theoratical...
btw, care to share your opinion on vista? why do u like it over xp?

For the vast majority of the new features and changes outlined in those wiki articles.

I wouldnt upgrade a perfectly working older system from XP to Vista, but I also wouldnt buy a new PC with XP.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
All cosmatic changes... nothing to improve stability...dx10 doesn't really do much..

Then you obviously havent read it.

actually i tested it.. games in dx10 don't run better or prettier... its all theoratical...
btw, care to share your opinion on vista? why do u like it over xp?

XP is primitive
--welcome to 2000 ... you might as well be arguing to Keep Win2K - there is way less difference - XP is just a Pretty Win2K

:roll:

you keep the old crap .. and DX9 .. you certainly didn't test it or else you are blind.
--DX10 runs good and looks a Hell of a lot better than DX9 - get a nice rig if you really care to test the difference .. and use Vista 64 to play Hellgate:London fully maxed out if you *really* want to know what the future looks like - right now.

 

[flexy]

i am/was planning a longer vista-related posting..if i have time....

Anyway....my personal opinion:

It's exactly those radical changes at the core which are actually causing the problems with incompatibility, software and certain hardware not running anymore. (Respective under Vista with limited funtionality).

I could make a LONG list of software which run fine under XP...but now under Vista, and ESPECIALLY udner 64bit doesn't run at all. I run into those problems ANY fricking day. Just yesterday i wanted to isntall Genie Backup which is a big and otherwise backup package, just another one which does NOT support Vista 64bit yet. The list is long of software and device drivers which are still about to be rewritten so they run fine under V. Some run halfa$$ but with less functionality they had under XP.

The OTHER "features" of vista are those features which have "stacked up" to what's otherwise still XP (IN MY OPINION)...this is: features which VERY WELL could have been part of an "extended professional XP add-on pack" - but are now patr of Vista instead.

Ironically, MANY, MANY of those added features annoy the **** out of me.
Just as ONE example of many, many:

recently i posted a about my problems that, despites a lot of research and trying to turn this off in Vista there is alway a "mobsync.exe" running which also starts an instance of wmplayer (!!!!) in the background. This seems to index devices.
Now i run into the bizarre situation that everytime i wanted to burn a CD/DVD with imgburn i got a message that i cannot access the DVD writer since the wmplayer was accessing it - so i had to kill this process to be able to burn DVDs.

I looked on the web for days already how to get rid of the "mobsync.exe" and wmplayer running without my consent..no success.

So..i went "brute force"....i just renamed the "mobsync.exe". Even this was a pain in the ***.
I firts had to take ownership of the file, set permissions etc..etc...and now finally this thing is gone and i dont see wmplayer running in the background anymore.
This only ONE example.

I dont mind useful features and new improvements like the new memory management, readyboost, superfetch. (Even THOSE have a disadavantage since a 4GB cache on my USB results in very long shutdown times).
But V has so much stuff "out-of-the box" running without user consent, indexing, scanning, search indexing, media indexing.

I am aware that V is an OS which is supposed to "fine-tune" itself in time...but there is just too much bloat which i dont need and want and some of it is very tricky to get rid of. I am not talking about useful things running, but stuff which is really uneeded, also depending on a user's needs and configuration.

Some people argue that XP is "old" and vista must be good "since it's new". Sorry, i dont agree.

IMHO MS should've waited longer with the implementation of the radical core changes and give driver developers more time to adapt to those changes. MANY of the changes actually translate into a lesser user experience and lesser features. Another example:
Now it is virtually impossible for drivers to change in-game gamma anymore since the way how drivers talk to the hw has changed.
There is no way to set direct3d/gamme gamma if a game does not have the option.
Similar story with reduced functionality in regards to sound/eax etc. etc.

XP was and still is a VERY solid OS and i am still amazed how snappy it feels on a machine which is only a fraction as fast as my Vista machine.

Vista DOES have some new features, but they all have a price...and i think that some people should stop just blindly praising Vista as the best thig since sliced bread since the overall and obvious changes compared to XP (in terms of real-life and real experienecable benefits) are indeed NOT as big as you make it sound!

MS still would have a big interest to get a real, native DX10 title going (Say: Alan Wake ???) where its visible for the common user that DX10 is as awesome as stated...since most of the other titles failed in that department with their DX10 implementation.

 

[apoppin]

some people will never "get" Vista .. i am so sorry ..
- but frankly i don't give a crap as i happily game without issue - even on 64-bit. Perhaps i am just unusually skilled - i'd like to think so - but i think it is because i left it stock without tweaking it as i realized that MS was trying for something 'evolutionary' - an adaptive OS > and only got halfway; Half monkey/half-fish = Vista .. but still better than XP = Ancient [imo, with weeks of experience with all 3 side-by-side]

And i *guarantee* that there WILL be that compelling DX.1 only Game .. MS just f'd up their PR and could NOT figure out how to properly market their own OS
-maybe Bill should ask me for advice for Vista 7 before they screw it up also

probably not

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: apoppin
you keep the old crap .. and DX9 .. you certainly didn't test it or else you are blind.
--DX10 runs good and looks a Hell of a lot better than DX9 - get a nice rig if you really care to test the difference ..

Heh!

No kidding!!!

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: apoppin
you keep the old crap .. and DX9 .. you certainly didn't test it or else you are blind.
--DX10 runs good and looks a Hell of a lot better than DX9 - get a nice rig if you really care to test the difference ..

Heh!

No kidding!!!

LOL no it does not. (not in crysis anyway)

some sweet features are seen alan wake, pt boats, and other brand new titles. The visual improvements are minimal at best, while performance averages 20% less than the 8yr old XP pro's performance. No thanks.

Requirement for dx10 capability in brand new game titles is the only reason i would reluctantly run vista. By this time dx10 hacks for xp or Windows 7 Final will be out.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: apoppin
you keep the old crap .. and DX9 .. you certainly didn't test it or else you are blind.
--DX10 runs good and looks a Hell of a lot better than DX9 - get a nice rig if you really care to test the difference ..

Heh!

No kidding!!!

LOL no it does not. (not in crysis anyway)

some sweet features are seen alan wake, pt boats, and other brand new titles. The visual improvements are minimal at best, while performance averages 20% less than the 8yr old XP pro's performance. No thanks.

Requirement for dx10 capability in brand new game titles is the only reason i would reluctantly run vista. By this time dx10 hacks for xp or Windows 7 Final will be out.

You forget a couple of things jaredpace DX technology is aways being improved,video cards and gaming software are also improving over time, with Vista you have the OS that can take advantage of all the improvements both now and in the future that XP can't,no matter how you slice it DX in XP has really ended with DX9.

I say again its no brainer to get Vista working fast and stable in a Dell Vostro laptop,I 'm proof of that so I suggest your problem is elsewhere.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: apoppin
you keep the old crap .. and DX9 .. you certainly didn't test it or else you are blind.
--DX10 runs good and looks a Hell of a lot better than DX9 - get a nice rig if you really care to test the difference ..

Heh!

No kidding!!!

LOL no it does not. (not in crysis anyway)

some sweet features are seen alan wake, pt boats, and other brand new titles. The visual improvements are minimal at best, while performance averages 20% less than the 8yr old XP pro's performance. No thanks.

Requirement for dx10 capability in brand new game titles is the only reason i would reluctantly run vista. By this time dx10 hacks for xp or Windows 7 Final will be out.

You have to experience it to believe it .. nothing would make me want to go back to that sinking ship .. NSMS XP

Vista is as superior to XP as Win 98 was to 95 .. and the security level is improved of a similar factor of Win2K over Win98

what is not to like *except*

1) you tweak it like XP
2) you can't figure it out
3) you don't have the HW to see the difference

that is the summary .. there are NO issues for 99% of us current vista users - after the first month of "figuring it out"

i don't care if you migrate
--but don't think i believe ANY of your sour grapes stories has ANYTHING to do with Vista

imo, it is like fighting to save outdated junk