It seems vista is going to be replaced by Windows 7

[Vigormortis]

It's simple really. Last generation we got Window's Millennium Edition. It was buggy, glitchy, expensive, and all around "shitty". Then, shortly after, came XP. It was built on the same architecture, but lacked many of ME's flaws. Fast forward to today. Microsoft gave us Vista. A rushed, REALLY buggy, incompatible piece of code that amounted to nothing more than complete garbage. Suddenly, a short time later, we're being offered Windows 7. Built, unsurprisingly, on the same exact architecture as Vista but, ta dah, without all of Vista's flaws.

Vista = Windows ME 2.0
7 = XP 2.0

They've been doing this for years. They design a new OS. They rush a pre-build out the door and market it as their next major OS. People buy it up, paying way too much. Soon after, people start to realize how bad a piece of code it is. Then, after spending all of that extra time on development, MS gives us their so called "next" OS, which is nothing more than a fixed version of their previous. I've known about Windows 7 going on a year and a half now. One of many reasons I've not given in to the Vista machine. God I wish there was a better version of Linux out there that could easily rival Windows and OSX 10.

Fixed.

Um....not really. I see what you did there, but I wasn't saying they're the new versions of those OS's, I meant they are following the same pattern of development and marketing.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Oh. Fuck. Me. DEAD!

XP IS DONE. IT IS HISTORY. IT SHOULD GO THE WAY OF 2000.

Vista is not perfect. But you know what? It at least implements something like kernel-space protection.

2000 is still better than Vista. It may not have those handy plugins but at least it bloody works.
Feck...I still use 3.1 at times.

 

[BlueMage]

RAM not being used, is RAM going to waste. Prefetch the shit out of my system and leave maybe 10% of RAM free, so I know I'm getting full bang for my buck.

Some of you folks are barking up the wrong tree. The linux you would install on an old DOS-era beast isn't what you'd install on the latest, you-beaut quad-core beast (naturally, on the newer one you'd install Vector Linux, and you'd install Vector Light on the older one) but by the same token, you wouldn't install Vista on an aging machine - you install it on hardware appropriate.

I'm amazed by this constant "but it won't work on my older hardware!" line - my only response is "no shit." If your old system is still working fine, great, stick with it. But when it dies (and it will eventually die) don't cling to it crying and screaming - move on.

 

[BlueMage]

Oh. Fuck. Me. DEAD!

XP IS DONE. IT IS HISTORY. IT SHOULD GO THE WAY OF 2000.

Vista is not perfect. But you know what? It at least implements something like kernel-space protection.

2000 is still better than Vista. It may not have those handy plugins but at least it bloody works.
Feck...I still use 3.1 at times.

3.1 exists for that authentic DOS-game feeling (though admittedly those were the days when Windows was actually a Window Manager rather than a full fledged OS, so yeah, whole lot less that can go wrong there.)

2000 has been long dead and buried. The only reason I still have to work with it is because there are some aging PLCs out there that only communicate with 2000-era modules.

It shits me greatly. Friggin' PLC manufacturers need to learn about proper security policies and how to build friggin' modules that don't require near-total-system re-writes.

 

[Zer_]

Okay, to those of you using the "Well any new computer comes out with at least 2gb of ram." to defend Vista. That's a dumb argument, because new computers do come out with that, or more BECAUSE of Vista.

If you look at the system requirements for most modern games, you'll notice they have 2 seperate requirements. (Vista and XP) Vista usually takes 1gb of ram more.

Each generation of OS should focus more on being more efficient then adding in new aesthetic features. Every time I use a Vista system I just end up reverting all the graphical changes, and going to "Windows Classic" themes. When you get Windows, you get much more then just an operating system, and I actually dislike this. I would rather an OS be just that, an OS. It should run on my computer, take as little system resources as possible, and it should run my software. Yeah, there's networking, and all that shit but any OS doesn't need Plug and Play beyond Mouse, Keyboard, and Disk Drives.

When you consider the processing power of computers that are even 4 years old (or more) I just find it mind boggling that an OS could hurt on system resources so much. Just fuck off with aesthetics.

 

[Dys]

But vista was better than xp...
I don't care if thats only because all my hardware is built around vista, I have always disliked xp...

 

[clarinetJWD]

RAM not being used, is RAM going to waste. Prefetch the shit out of my system and leave maybe 10% of RAM free, so I know I'm getting full bang for my buck.

Some of you folks are barking up the wrong tree. The linux you would install on an old DOS-era beast isn't what you'd install on the latest, you-beaut quad-core beast (naturally, on the newer one you'd install Vector Linux, and you'd install Vector Light on the older one) but by the same token, you wouldn't install Vista on an aging machine - you install it on hardware appropriate.

I'm amazed by this constant "but it won't work on my older hardware!" line - my only response is "no shit." If your old system is still working fine, great, stick with it. But when it dies (and it will eventually die) don't cling to it crying and screaming - move on.

Can...can I hug you?

I've been using Vista since the late betas and release candidates, and it only took a few months after release to be my primary OS. No, it didn't change that much from XP UI-wise, but it made the personal file organization make a lot more sense, and added a few convenient features.

Under the hood, it is MUCH better. More stable, more secure, more efficiently uses high end hardware, as well as little known features like a significantly improved and expanded ability to use folder junctions and move your user files.

Eggo: I agree with 99% of what you say, but the belligerent, argumentative, holier-than-thou attitude is not the way to convince people of anything. Us PC guys have to stick together, but I'm finding it difficult.

 

[Xelioth]

I quite like vist though...

as do I, but can you honestly say that Vista is a good OS?

I quite like a number of the features but even I have to admit that asking if we're sure every tiem we do anything gets old. and while I like the graphics DX10 gives us, the fact that vista runs graphic drivers so crappily that I crash to desktop and then crash the whole computer trying to get back to the desktop from the game is just lame. sure, the crashes aren't THAT numerous and there are only certain things that vista asks for permission for, but seriously, the fac that these major problems exist AT ALL is a black mark against the OS.

I'll be glad for an OS that runs well as opposed to Vista, which runs MOSTLY well.

 

[Jman1236]

I've had no problem with Vista, but yeah there are some problems when it comes to games. One problem is the fact that Direct X 10 is a joke, if you try to play a game under Direct X 10(and you have a compatible graphics card), the game runs slower than it would under Direct X 9.

 

[SunoffaBeach]

I dont need a new Windows. Be it Vista or 7.

Yeah, the start button is now round and not square. What a selling point!

They now have to force you to buy their new shit by making DX10 and 11 incompatible with XP.

They claim to be gamer friendly but all they do is giving me doubts that the PC will be my gaming platform in the future.

I hope people will be smart enough not to buy 7.
Make DX12 XP again!

 

[mr mcshiznit]

I quite like vist though...

as do I, but can you honestly say that Vista is a good OS?

I quite like a number of the features but even I have to admit that asking if we're sure every tiem we do anything gets old. and while I like the graphics DX10 gives us, the fact that vista runs graphic drivers so crappily that I crash to desktop and then crash the whole computer trying to get back to the desktop from the game is just lame. sure, the crashes aren't THAT numerous and there are only certain things that vista asks for permission for, but seriously, the fac that these major problems exist AT ALL is a black mark against the OS.

I'll be glad for an OS that runs well as opposed to Vista, which runs MOSTLY well.

Never had any of those problems so yeah its a good OS for me.