Microsoft admits Vista failure

Status
Not open for further replies.
^lol..so u admit tat xp was better with the new installation..:bleh:

It just shows u dont know how to maintain a M$ operating system...:lol: .. some of us right here on TE (incl me )have XPs running from loong looong time in its peak performance.;)
 
havent used vista, but not really suffered too many crashes with XP. I see no reason to move to Vista at the moment, xp takes care of all my needs.....
 
Hmmm... what people don't seem to realize is that they want Vista largely because it is a newer code base that is easier for them to secure.

Ignore UAC, which by all accounts doesn't do much good. Then we have the controversial locked up kernel (which they then relaxed a bit).

But what they really have in Vista is an attempt to stop running stuff as Admin. Unfortunately, programs are stupid and suck and demand administrator priveleges. What MS should have done is to include the desktop virtualization tools they bought from Softricity by default (or rather, a small portion of it). That would allow apps to run thinking they are running as admin, but without actually being so. Some things wouldn't work (an app can't place itself in startup), but most others would. (If you don't know what the Softricity tools are, the best comparison I can offer is that of the isolation mechanisms of BitFrost though the focus there is a bit different, and they don't have many of the abilities, or indeed the need for the abilities of MS's product).

Plus, if you have seen the driver programming model, you'll realize how much it really helps. Believe you me, writing drivers for Vista should be much easier.

End result - Vista will replace XP eventually. Most people buying new comps will go the Vista way. And MS will quickly change portions of Aero to make it a productivity enhancer, rather than just a skinning interface.
 
Deja vu, circa 2001 when XP was introduced?

I never thought I'd move, but gradually applications migrated to XP, the game performance became respectable wrt '98, and what was once bandied about as a 'big fat service pack for Win2000', eventually became what it is now, the 'big fat OS that is better than Vista'.

Once SP1 is out and apps start moving to Vista, it'll start growing. By then developers will have become comfortable writing for Vista and the driver development will shift to perfomance from compatibility.

How long do you think it took to reach that state for XP? I migrated in 2005, 4 years after the launch. Till then I was dual-booting. In that year Microsoft also dropped official support for Win98, so that had something to do with it too.

It's not really unheard of to have so many bugs/problems at the launch of any new OS. That's just life.
 
i really dont think its that bad. i am running vista ultimate on my pc ..its just 512mb ram .,2.4ghz P4 and a 128mb 6600gt..and everything runs fine...means i use it for my usual multimedia stuff..and not games(as i i use killer\tiny xp beast edition for games to decrease ram usage)...and i think its giving satisfactory results...

also when i visited a frnds place..who got a new rig with E6700 ,2 GB RAM , 320GB X 3 HDDs..,8800GTX..
i sae that almost any .means any game ..was running smooth on that PC..and the ram usage..with lotssa multimedia and other heavy applications .(not games) was like ..47 %and CPU usage was around 40 %..

so i think any rig with 1gig (say 2 gig for games) and a good processor can run vista...smoothly..and it really looks good..
had no problems at all till now..

so IMO its not even that bad..the prices are quiet high ..i agree...but i dont think we should compare it tO WIN ME ...
 
I dont mean I will never migrate to Vista. Just not until I get a quad core AMD or Intel something with like 4 GB ram and an Nvida 11000 GTX 2 GB ! And of course the Ultimate edition comes down to around 8K !

Until then im more than happy with XP. I hibernate my PC most of the time, so booting isnt an issue and I play loads of games without any crashes for the last 2 years ! The only PC crashed because I was installing a pirated software, so it doesnt really count.

And how do you get that XP runs slow ? I have run Windows XP on a Celeron 2.0 GHz rig with 256 MB ddr 266 ram and it fine. Vista runs fast for u because u have a fast comp. Try running Vista on a comp with 512 MB ram and see the diff !

So spending around 20k for just a 10 - 15 secs faster booting up time ( and that is only for really fast comps. On slower hardware, XP is faster) & a better look ( I dont find XP ugly one bit !) is rather worthless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.