Vista is Slower, But XP Is Still Dying 573
An anonymous reader writes "Though the Redmond software giant may be extending the lifetime of XP on low-end laptops, the end is nigh for the aging OS. That extension makes perfect sense, as recent studies have shown XP is far faster than Vista across a number of platforms. Still, Microsoft is 'sticking to its guns' when it comes to drop-dates for most other uses of the XP operating system. 'There are several dates that apply, but the one you're probably thinking of is the June 30 deadline that Dix referred to. That's the last day when large computer makers -- the Dells, HPs and Lenovos of the world -- will be allowed to preinstall Windows XP on new PCs. It also marks the official end of XP as a retail product.'"
Activation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
This all sounds a lot like Apple, MacOS X and Classic, doesn't it?
Anyway, there we go. I'm sure there are a thousand valid reasons why this couldn't/wouldn't work and naturally it will never happen. I understand that. I can dream though, can't I?
XP won't die (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Next generation OS. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:That was easy (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of Windows-only programs run fine under wine - including such core products as Internet Explorer 7.
Other products have free equivalents that can do the job for most people - OpenOffice, etc.
great answer (Score:5, Interesting)
>>How do I get those to work?
>This wikipedia link [link to playstation 3] should help.
So your answer on how to get PC games to work on Linux, is to not play PC games? I'm just *not allowed* to play starcraft II when it comes out?
Many people own PC's specifically for playing games, and don't do much else with them. Is your solution for them, that they don't need a computer at all? Or maybe they should put Linux on their computer, and then throw it in the closet and never look at it again?
Blind evangelism isn't helping Linux... it turns people off when they are given bad advice by people with an agenda.
Re:Next generation OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
That could get MS into legal hot water (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft will have several choices:
* offer a full refund/buyback
* maintain some way to activate the product
* issue a patch so activation is not required
* get Congress to exempt them and others who use this technology from fair-trade and contract laws
In the interests of avoiding negative publicity, MS will probably keep their activation lines open for as long as they can without spending a lot of money, then issue a patch.
Re:Vista is dying you say? (Score:5, Interesting)
10% plus in one year. Now, how often does the average computer user change his hardware? Every 3-5 years. So, assuming that he also gets a new system when he gets a new machine (which is the norm for those buying computers preassembled rather than building them on their own), this should be reflected by at the very least 20% increase in Vista userbase, because 1/5 of the people should have replaced their machines (assuming a 5 year cycle).
Essentially, what this 10% increase means is, that about half of the people who got new hardware also got Vista to it, and nobody switched "mid-life" for their hardware.
Personally, I'm not impressed.
Time for Damn Small Windows? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Next generation OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
Worse things vary a lot between linux distros, the configuration tools provided are often completely different.
The config files are a bit more consistant but even there sometimes things differ and then there is this whole network manager shit which seems to run roughshod over the conventional configuation options (including the ones in the menus on my debian systemt that had it installed by default) making it almost impossible to fix my network configuration.
Win2K still in use in small businesses (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the going rate for NT Server with 5 CALs is $30-$50 at computer fairs. It's been out of support for ages. If it were truly worthless it would be in the dollar pile.
Re:What you're saying is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well he was answering the question "How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?" Your issue is with the question, not the fact that he answered it. If the questioner had asked "what can I use for an Office app in Linux" and the responder said run Office 2007 in Citrix, you would have had a point. But he didn't.
How about we're going to run an Exchange server on 2003 but our clients will run Evolution in KDE, or something like that? Does it have to be all or nothing? Oth, what's wrong with having "stop using proprietary software" as a "big picture" goal, that everyone works towards. Just like asking everyone to be frugal and reuse things as much as possible to cut down on overhead, you could also give people incentives to bring in free and open source alternatives to proprietary software you are using, especially if the vendor you are currently using charges fees at every opportunity and does its best to lock you in and prevent you from using it in concert with software from other vendors.
This is what I'm doing at my work. I may never get us completely rid of Windows and other "squeeze-every-last-penny-out-of-you-we-can" type software, but every time I manage slip in a FOSS solution (using Drupal in a LAMP box to create a resource center on the company intranet for example) it's a win for the company, and an overall step in the right direction.
Re:That was easy (Score:3, Interesting)
you trailed off before you came up with a suitable alternative to VisualStudio too... MS Office = OpenOffice... i'll give you that, infact in many ways its almost a better alternative to switch from MS Office 2003 to OpenOffice than it is to switch to Office 2007...
But what about VisualStudio?... which has C\C++, VB, C#, J#, WebDev, all in the same IDE with a magnificent compiler, help system, and IDE?
What about Photoshop?... don't same the Gimp, and consider it in a full media production environment with graphics in the 10,000x10,000 pixel ranges, and 50 layers...
And although there are quite a few 3D software packages that run natively on Linux, more of them do not... and for someone in 3D, switching their package/software is worse than switching OS's...
Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops (Score:3, Interesting)
I did the same thing as you. I gave it 6 months to grow on me. All it did was aggravate the hell out of me too!
My grievances are as follows:
1. Give me the ability to turn aero completely off damn it! I don't need all of that resource gluttonous crap running at all period. Even if I do run the Win2K look!
2. Give me the option to not use "Windows Explorer Proper" when I'm browsing through my files. I also want my little "up a directory" button back!
3. I want an OS that is compatible with my Server 2K3 file server right out of the box. I don't want to have to put up with the fact that I have to apply a hotfix to it just to get acceptable transfer rates.
4. Give me the option to truly uninstall shit that I don't use instead of simply disabling it. I'm not going to run IIS, telnet server, or anything named with Windows as the leading word in the list to enable/disable features. So why not let me liberate some of my hard drive space?
5. I want a real login screen. Not the cartoonish XP Home-style login screen. Logging into a domain was a lot easier when I could just select the domain name from a dropdown list.
6. Don't make me feel bad when I upgrade from 512MB of memory to 2GB and the Windows Experience Meter or whatever the hell it's called doesn't move because I can't run Vista Aero bling as well as the latest and greatest machine.
[/vent] I really had to get that off my chest. I feel better now.
Microsoft will extend XP's life. (Score:2, Interesting)
Nah. Microsoft will extend XP's life again.
It's different this time. Performance increases in PCs have slowed down. Until now, hardware was keeping ahead of bloatware. Not this time. Vista is a price/performance lose for corporate buyers. If Microsoft pushes too hard here, big customers will stop buying new machines until the recession is over. Or move to the new "low end PCs", which still run XP and are enough for 80-90% of corporate users. Watch for a boom in low-cost XP Flash-based desktops aimed at the corporate market.
Re:What you're saying is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Next generation OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup. Similar in usability and price.
I'm a HUGE GTA fan and when San Andreas came out I bought a PS2 just for that game. I think I paid around $200 CAD for both the game and the system.
GTA 4 comes out later this month and with the PS3 and XBox 360 at $400 + there is simply no freakin' way I can justify shelling out the cash, and I'm heart broken because I've been looking forward to it since like 2004 after I finished San Andreas.
On the other hand, my PC is a great gaming machine and I have a lot of PC games that I love to play. If GTA 4 were available on the 29th for the PC then I would consider buying it. Although I found that San Andreas was much more enjoyable on the PS2 so I'm afraid that the same may be true for GTA 4.
Anyway my point is, while everyone keeps saying "consoles are just as powerful as PCs these days so why not game on your console ?" my answer is "because I already paid $400 + for a PC and I don't feel like I should have to shell out my hard earned cash for another one that can only play games (well besides surfing the net and playing DVDs but my PC and DVD player do those just fine too tyvm)".
The attractiveness of consoles (to me anyway) were their relatively low price (compared to a computer) and the better gaming experience offered by controllers as oppose to keyboards / joysticks / mice etc. But you can get gamepads for the PC (hell using an I-PAC [ultimarc.com] you can even build an arcade control panel for your PC for about 1/5 the price the console will cost you) and now they're just as expensive as entry level PCs. Assuming you already have a PC for work / internet etc. you can add a decent video card and up your RAM and CPU (if necessary) for cheaper than the PS3 or Xbox 360.
Re:I'm not being silly (Score:1, Interesting)
For what it's worth, a number of professional game devs I know have told me they strongly prefer programming against the last version or two of DirectX to the last version or two of OpenGL.
(I don't know shit about the differences in API myself, and I have to assume OpenGL will catch up soon in any shortcomings, but I trust these folks' opinions as to the state of things today.)
Re:New Hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
Many people getting new hardware, got an OS other than Vista. My dad got a Mac. My new Core 2 Duo machine runs Ubuntu Studio. To get it without an unwanted OS meant assembling it myself. Boot to login and login to homepage on screen on the Mac or Ubuntu machine is much faster than any of the Windows machines in the house.
Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That was easy (Score:3, Interesting)
Much too simplified - and complacent.
Microsoft offers solutions that work from the server room down to the point of sale.
You want small business accounting integrated with your core office software? Web-based collaboration and document management? [AKA SharePoint] No problemo.
Just because you can't play some specific Windows only game under Linux doesn't make Linux bad.
The thing is, there is - for all practical purposes - no such thing as a Linux-exclusive PC game.
While damn near every mainframe, arcade or PC game ever written can be run directly or under emulation in Windows. Colossal Cave to Bioshock.
You could spend years mining resources like the Underdogs, barely scratch the surface of what is out there. and never spend a dime.
Some of the shit you're used to on Windows isn't going to work under Linux. If you can't deal with that, stop complaining and just use Windows.
Which is what you'll find on 92% of the world's desktops.
Re:Next generation OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm someone who's grown up with windows... I installed Vista recently and it is quick (though it does play with the hard drive far too much for my liking). I play games...
I bought a new PC recently and got vista oem with it because I wanted it. I've got windows 2000 installed on my system too, it's a decent operating system. It was a hell of a lot easier to get up and running than Vista... I just installed the drivers that weren't there and it worked full stop. Anyone who thinks Vista 64 is easy to set up, try it. Mine wouldn't even install - I got the BSOD with no real information of the problem. I did some research for the problem with my win2k installation and it turns out that Vista had a big old bug with 4gb of RAM or more and nvidia motherboard chipsets - it just doesn't work without a hotfix.
I've not got a point here really, save that Vista boots and runs quickly for me now (about 15 seconds from my boot manager), and works ok for me. I want to install some Linux distribution at some point, but I haven't gotten round to it (since a couple of terminal failed attemts on my old PC which had defective hardware). I have just bought a new PC which might explain why Vista runs well on it - I built my PC myself, so it's got decent parts all the way through, rather than some obvious weaknesses. I did go for the 8800GT though which I'm 1/2 regretting... though I had a ti4200 for years and years - I'm hoping that the 8800gt will be the equivalent... but I'm not too sure.
Linux did not install at all on my old system. It crashed and burned because of my dodgy IDE hardware (this was I assume a problem with the hardware, since the bios lost secondary IDE too). Windows 2000 was installed, and did work - though I never tried to install windows when the IDE was playing up (it was installed a lot earlier), it just worked throughout. That's why I used it. I'm one of these people who would use Linux exclusively except for the games.
I admit it - I'm a Windows junkie - their operating systems have worked well for me generally. I personally never liked XP, which to some is the pinnacle of windows to some degree. Windows 2000 did everything XP did as well with less resources with certain technical differences. 2000 is a very good operating system in my opinion - it's served me well, and I'll continue using it (with dodgy serial numbers because I lost mine ages ago... such is life). 2000 does just work - XP did build on it, but added nothing new.
I am an absolute fan of free software, but I am too much of a games junkie to abandon Windows. However, I will get around to putiing a Linux boot on this system soon hopefully. I've left 300Gb of space on my striped drives just for that - no, I don't value integrity over speed before anyone asks.
Ok, karma death : This is most definately why you should not post when high on coke.... you just talk crap which is not relevant. The point I was trying to make was that I, as a consumer, have no reason to leave Windows save those ideological, and the 70 quid I paid for Vista OEM. I'm too much of a gamer slut to actually make a stand and not get Vista. I know this, and I'm unhappy about it. I wish I could game as effectively with Linux, but I know I can't. That being said, I do have Vista 64, and some games just don't work with it - designed purely for XP - could work with 2000 I'm sure, but just deliberately crippled.
This is a long rant about how Windows is not as bad as people make it out to be, without any factual backup. I personally like 2000, and I like Vista - It is actually quicker than 2000 on my system (though 2000 is installed on my old drive, and cannot see my striped drives (nvidia raid). If anyone can tell me how to install drivers to let 2000 see my striped array, 650i motherboard, I'd be very appreciative, because I can't seem to get it working.
It is easy to say switch, but there are loads of reason I personally don't - well 1 reason, really, and that is games. I'm part of the problem if you
Let me lead with... (Score:4, Interesting)
You guys aren't getting any traction in this thread and your best bet is to ignore it. You won't, but at least I told you so.
The vagaries of licensing are some of the things that make open solutions so much more inviting. If you discontinue your support contracts, you don't get any more support from your open source provider. The don't sue you for continuing to experience the benefits of the support you've already paid for.
And your solution for this is to make yourself a hostage to the good intentions of a commercial software vendor? That sounds like a bad plan.
Copyright protects sales of things, not non-sales (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm not being silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Developing for Nintendo and Sony requires a bit of a taste for the black arts.
Re:Vista is dying you say? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:History repeats itself... (Score:2, Interesting)
What else did XP add to win2k exactly?
Re:Reality check (Score:3, Interesting)
Your wife is happy with Vista Home on a 6 year old laptop with half a gig a RAM? Now I know you're BSing us. You're seriously nuts if you upgraded a 6 year old laptop to Vista. I am a debian developer. I run Linux on all my laptops and desktops. But I don't try to force it on my family and friends if they don't like it. I support Windows 2000 and Windows XP for home usage at my parents and in-laws houses. Both Win2K and WinXP are pretty decent microsoft OSs compared to Win98 or WinME.
Comparing Vista to Windows XP may not sound fair, but the fact is Vista does not bring too much to the table for the such a massive increase in resource usage. On that benchmark, Windows XP to Windows 2000 was a fair comparison too. XP was not compellingly better than Windows 2000, at least it didn't suck badly on existing hardware that ran Windows 2000.
Re:Let it die (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sick of Loonix fags telling me how secure Linux is on the very same day that yet another exploit is released and Linux was first to fall in the recent hacker competition.
I'm sick of Loonix fags telling me how great OSS apps are when the interface looks like something I used to get in DOS applications in the early 90's.
I'm sick of Loonix fans telling me how great it runs on older hardware when I can run XP at decent speeds on 256MB and any of the current versions of Suse, Ubuntu, Fedora etc run like a fucking pig under 512MB RAM. And how they go on about how great it is that all graphics cards are supported like using FB and having to WAIT as the screen updates when you scroll through a document can be counted as supported somehow.
Yes Linux is good. It's progressed a lot but it's by nowhere near the capabilities of Windows either in the software base (that's decent stuff actually worth having) or hardware support. But I ask you this. If Linux is so good, how come so many Eee PC users are uninstalling it?
Re:Let me lead with... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm not being silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux has independent [wesnoth.org] games [happypenguin.org]. The indie scene has already expanded into penguinland. Which is good, since - in my experience - getting older games to work on Linux is far easier than getting them to work on Windows; even some of Microsoft's own games (such as Crimson Skies) seem to have trouble on newer Windows machines. Whether this is because of OS incompatibilities or shitty coding in said games I couldn't say.