ninjageek Posted June 8, 2008 Author CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 I just think that people will rember vista and use a wait and see for the next verson of windows. To many jumped on the vista bandwagon only to ask how to get rid of it and go back to xp. I just think gates will really have to pull out all the stops to get people away from xp and on to a new operating system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudmanc4 Posted June 8, 2008 CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 I just think that people will rember vista and use a wait and see for the next verson of windows. To many jumped on the vista bandwagon only to ask how to get rid of it and go back to xp. I just think gates will really have to pull out all the stops to get people away from xp and on to a new operating system. I hear you , but once again, for the better part, the general user, those who know how t point and click, and thats it, the ones that bought the system set up from a box store, feel the same about Vista, as they do about XP, or any other OS. They don't know what is bad or good. See what I mean ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted June 8, 2008 CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 I have Vista & would sure choose XP instead.Vista does run fairly well for me but I have tweaked & leaned it down a lot.I use Classic & not Aero just for one thing. Right now I use 1 GB ram & that's two 512 MB sticks.I intend to go to a 2GB stick(not that cheap) & try that then add another 2 GB later if necessary. One of the slowness problems is MS caved even more to the MPAA &RIAA .The constant checks for Blueray piracy cause some of the slowness.I think Gates should have told them Go to Hell on that & DRM or any other automatic copy protection.That his customers didn't want that & shouldn't have to put up with the extra space & slowness to protect someone elses commercial interest.Then if they didn't want computers to be able to use DVD's by not selling him the rights he would not include these abilities/But he could sure advertise that & maybe computer customers could have boycotted movies & music. The thing is the RIAA & MPAA want computers to be able to use DVD's & CD's with music & movies.If Gates had refused to cooperate on this they would have caved instead & we would have a better OS with Vista than we do now. It will take a lot to convince that Windows 7 will be any better.Because I think it will have the same protections or worse.I think it's time thea MS said they don't believe most of their customers are pirates so their not putting these protections in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTB Posted June 8, 2008 CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 It needs 2GB minimum, it needs a dual or quad core processor, it needs a 512mb dx10 video card. That's what it was designed for and that's where it runs as it should. If you haven't noticed it's mid 2008 not 2001. we're not running p3's or p4's anymore. Dual core and 1GB ram is standard on even entry level pc's. dx10 cards are cheap and that is the current standard. It needs all that, and just for an operating system? Dual core is becoming standard, dx10 being the standard that no one really takes advantage of. Personally I want my OS to be optimized for current hardware. My ipod nano has 8GBs and it cost $200. Big ram, big hard drives and multicore processors are not for the hardcore PC's anymore, they are the standard and that is what vista is there for. Your nano has a completely different kind of memory, which is far cheaper to manufacture. Is there a point in having an operating system require that much resources while not offering anything fundamentally new? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted June 8, 2008 CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 first off, windows vista never flopped. it didn't sell like hotcakes, but it is a solid moneymaker. people reverted back to xp? so what? they still bought vista to begin with. as for making any judgement on win 7, i think that has to wait before any facts about it are revealed. the only sure thing known atm is that it will likely support some form of multitouch interface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted June 8, 2008 CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 first off, windows vista never flopped. it didn't sell like hotcakes, but it is a solid moneymaker. people reverted back to xp? so what? they still bought vista to begin with. as for making any judgement on win 7, i think that has to wait before any facts about it are revealed. the only sure thing known atm is that it will likely support some form of multitouch interface. The poll is invalid till further info is available. That was what I was thinking when I came in this thread also. Just a bit presumptuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coknuck Posted June 8, 2008 CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 The poll is invalid till further info is available. That was what I was thinking when I came in this thread also. Just a bit presumptuous. Actually my wife had it on a Dell Desktop and I almost switched. Like I said before people are afraid of change. When I went from Windows 98SE to XP I hated it. Why! Because I wasn't used to it! I tried Vista with an open mind and knew I had to learn something new. True Vista is a little slower but its got to learn your responsiveness, like a good firewall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTB Posted June 8, 2008 CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 first off, windows vista never flopped. it didn't sell like hotcakes, but it is a solid moneymaker. people reverted back to xp? so what? they still bought vista to begin with. Without seeing the numbers on how much it cost to make Vista, you can't know that. What I do know is that most of the vista sales came from pre-installed versions. That does say something, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted June 8, 2008 CID Share Posted June 8, 2008 Without seeing the numbers on how much it cost to make Vista, you can't know that. What I do know is that most of the vista sales came from pre-installed versions. That does say something, doesn't it? Without seeing the numbers on how much it cost to make Vista, you can't know that. What I do know is that most of the vista sales came from pre-installed versions. That does say something, doesn't it? Microsoft has never said the actually cost of vista, But I remember reading, and one of there reps. said it had cost well over a billion dollars to make. Perinstalled versions of windows don't cost a whole lot, so they don't really make any money there. Even from retail sales they don't really make any money. They only really make the money from enterprise sales. i'm sure they have made money off vista by now, but at what cost? There reputation is nothing now, and everyone knows they can't innovate even tho they say they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted June 9, 2008 CID Share Posted June 9, 2008 most vista sales came off preinstalls? o rly? wow. what a shocker. unlike xp, where most sales came from, oh, wait, those were mostly oems topo, right? just like 2k, 98, 95 prolly 3.1 too windows 2 was probably the last one to go more over the counter than preinstalled. and that was way back when the 286 was hot shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grambler Posted June 10, 2008 CID Share Posted June 10, 2008 To early to tell yet, need more data Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.