Microsoft Pulls Vista RC2 Public Download
Posted by Mazhar on 13 October 2006 - 06:16 · 25 comments & 13650 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Mazhar
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Mazhar
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(3 replies)
#1 Posted by pallavsuri on 13 Oct 2006 - 07:49
- that and vista 5744 was crap
-
#1.1 Posted by markukcouk on 13 Oct 2006 - 08:31
- Quote - pallavsuri said @ #1that and vista 5744 was crap
RC2 is good. I'm using it as my primary OS, without XP even installed on another partition. Its not RTM, but its definately usable until the real vista ships. -
#1.2 Posted by pallavsuri on 13 Oct 2006 - 20:54
- Quote - markukcouk said @ #1.1Quote - pallavsuri said @ #1that and vista 5744 was crap
RC2 is good. I'm using it as my primary OS, without XP even installed on another partition. Its not RTM, but its definately usable until the real vista ships.
That's great i hope ms gives a 90 day trial for RTM. Don't mind giving Vista more chances as eventually Windows users don't have too much choice unless RTM really flops too.
Then computing will get complicated. -
#1.3 Posted by ThePopeSVCD on 15 Oct 2006 - 00:54
- Quote - pallavsuri said @ #1that and vista 5744 was crap
Are you sure that it isnt your system that is crap???
-
(5 replies)
#2 Posted by Scorbing on 13 Oct 2006 - 08:44
- I tried Vista and all I have to say is this:
I am not very impressed by it. Sure, it has cool features. Sure, its GUI is quite different. The 3D effects are quite impressive but...If you tweak XP enough, you can achieve the same effects. Vista requires way too much memory, resources and power to run. It has too many services running in the background. Games suck on Vista ( I tried it) and worst of all, it takes so much space on your hard drive it's not funny. It still has way too many bugs and to be honest with you, I like XP better. I know that a couple of years from now Microsoft will force us to jump to Vista by discontinuing support for XP but I will wait for that day to come. It has taken a long time for XP to be what it is today and it has a long way to go still. Microsoft needs to concentrate on improving XP more. There are a lot of companies that are just now jumping to XP from Windows 2000 Pro and Microsoft is slapping their face with a new OS to replace XP. What do you think those companies are going to do? Vista can wait. -
#2.1 Posted by bobbba on 13 Oct 2006 - 09:34
- critisize vista for the right reasons:
it's very late
it's benefits are not all that compelling
imop, the ui is over complex
many features have been dropped on the way
it's expensive
the licensing is very restrictive
not for the wrong ones:
ram/disk space hungry
wakeup, the world has has moved on, hardware is cheaper so buy more.
what's the cost per GB of disk space now? and you're complaining about how much vista uses...
game performance
it's not all about games, some peope will happily sacrifice a few fps for a desktop with graphical features.
hardware is faster anyway and people b1tched that xp was slower than win9x but still moved to it in the end.
the drivers are all beta's so how do you know that the rtm game perf will "suck", ms have said that some functions will be much faster under directx10.
companies and upgrading
xp has been out over 5 years... how long should ms wait then before releasing a new os??? many people are unhappy that it has taken this long for ms to release vista.
microsoft is not a charity, they would make very little money by improving xp -
#2.2 Posted by phantom on 13 Oct 2006 - 11:13
- Quote - bobbba said @ #2.1
not for the wrong ones:
ram/disk space hungry
wakeup, the world has has moved on, hardware is cheaper so buy more.
what's the cost per GB of disk space now? and you're complaining about how much vista uses...
game performance
it's not all about games, some peope will happily sacrifice a few fps for a desktop with graphical features.
hardware is faster anyway and people b1tched that xp was slower than win9x but still moved to it in the end.
the drivers are all beta's so how do you know that the rtm game perf will "suck", ms have said that some functions will be much faster under directx10.
newer/bigger hard drives dont excuse blotware.
if thats true why do most people whine and moan about having some score on a synthetic benchmark? see above. -
#2.3 Posted by Broken Halo on 13 Oct 2006 - 15:03
- Quote - phantom said @ #2.2
newer/bigger hard drives dont excuse blotware.
if thats true why do most people whine and moan about having some score on a synthetic benchmark? see above.
correction: Most people don't even know what a synthetic benchmark is. ^_^
Seriously though, I haven't used RC1 or RC2 yet, was waiting to finish my new desktop first and install it on there, got the MoBo DOA so waiting on an RMA, but I thought Vista's footprint was way down from the Betas? Also remember the RCs are of Ultimate, if you don't buy ultimate it's going to be quit a bit smaller, and I'm sure those sample videos take quit a bit of space, the Media Center configure video has to be HD, and is probably pretty huge
And what isn't bloatware these days? I gave up watching megs long ago. I still try to code everything I do as compact as a possible, in natively compiled languages for low footprint and better performance, but most developers don't think that way. Programming schools teach that better languages are ones that are easier to learn/read and do a lot of stuff for you, not efficiency. That's why most CS classes are now taught in Java these days... It's lame, but as hardware gets more powerful it's the way the industry is moving, time to buy some more RAM I guess... -
#2.4 Posted by ThePopeSVCD on 15 Oct 2006 - 01:07
- 1.Why you would even waste your time with XP is beyond me, you should be using a real OS like server 2003 it has many more benefits than a piece of crap OS like XP.
2. Server 2003 requires less memory, resources and power to run than XP and yet you use XP and flame Vista
3.It still has way too many bugs and to be honest with you, I like XP better
LOL are u kidding me look at the bugs XP has FFS
4.It has taken a long time for XP to be what it is today
LOL i think it has just taken you a long time to finally open up your eyes to realize XP is a piece of crap
Vista has many more things to offer than what XP does. I think you really need to educate yourself before you come and decide to make comments about an OS u seem to know nothing about. How can you sit there and say you like XP better than Vista?, what kind of analysing have you actually done besides downloading it from irc or a torrent install it and open up a few things. -
#2.5 Posted by bobbba on 16 Oct 2006 - 07:38
- Quote - ThePopeSVCD said @ #2.41.Why you would even waste your time with XP is beyond me, you should be using a real OS like server 2003 it has many more benefits than a piece of crap OS like XP.
2. Server 2003 requires less memory, resources and power to run than XP and yet you use XP and flame Vista
3.It still has way too many bugs and to be honest with you, I like XP better
Sorry but I can't take you seriously. Using a server OS as a workstation is one of the dumbest things you can do. How much does it cost to for a 2003 license or do things like that not bother you... How much hacking to get your apps and drivers to work? How big a perf gain do you get (a few %) and is it worth it?Quote - ThePopeSVCD said @ #2.4Vista has many more things to offer than what XP does. I think you really need to educate yourself before you come and decide to make comments about an OS u seem to know nothing about. How can you sit there and say you like XP better than Vista?, what kind of analysing have you actually done besides downloading it from irc or a torrent install it and open up a few things.
Isn't just downloading vista, installing it and using it enough to make a judgement as to whether or not you like it more than XP??? what more do you need to do?
As for the current state of XP vs Vista, I don't think that there is any debate to be had as to whether Vista has more bugs than XP.
Why don't you educate your self as to what a server OS is really for? Maybe get a job where you can use a server OS for what it's really intended to do instead of hacking it to run your games and ignoring 95% of it's functionality.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by Croquant on 13 Oct 2006 - 08:45
- I hope they do an RC3.
-
#4 Posted by sgtLENIN on 13 Oct 2006 - 08:51
- Give me the RTM!
-
(3 replies)
#5 Posted by NinjaGinger on 13 Oct 2006 - 09:25
- Who cares
-
#5.1 Posted by Boogiman on 13 Oct 2006 - 10:36
- I hate ppl like you. If you don't have anything usefull to say, STFU!!
-
#5.3 Posted by ~Greeno~ on 13 Oct 2006 - 17:28
- Quote - Guol said @ #5.2@Boogiman: boy, that was a useful comment, eh?
Just like yours eh Guol... and so it continues...
/waits for someone to say something about this one... why do people get wound up by idiots? and why do people think what they say goes?
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by xpclient on 13 Oct 2006 - 11:29
- Will someone with a Mac tell me if Vista RC2 supports EFI and thus whether there is any need to use Boot camp? I had got to test Vista RC1 on a Mac few weeks ago and it supported EFI (like beta 2) probably for testing purposes but anyways therefore I could install it WITHOUT USING BOOT CAMP.
-
#7 Posted by chopyaedoff on 13 Oct 2006 - 20:29
- I couldn't even get this build to boot.
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by beniza on 14 Oct 2006 - 02:19
- only comment i can say is, they should fix all the driver issues, hardware and software compatibility
-
#8.1 Posted by Internal Storm on 15 Oct 2006 - 01:15
- Quote - beniza said @ #8only comment i can say is, they should fix all the driver issues, hardware and software compatibility
Microsoft is in no way responsible for releasing faulty drivers. The hardware and software companies are responsible for their own products and the support of Windows Vista.
Also ,I need to point out that to those who keep saying "Vista uses too much ram!! OMG IT SUCKS!!!"
Is it so hard to look into the newly implimented technologies such as SuperFetch? I can honestly say that by using my free RAM for storage of frequently opened applications, my startup times for programs such as Photoshop CS2 have dropped by 60%. From 12-13 seconds to a mere 5 seconds. If a program wishes to have more memory, it will be given as necessary from the SuperFetch cache.
-
(2 replies)
#9 Posted by eilegz on 14 Oct 2006 - 04:43
- bleh so i stick with rc1 with vista NO SOUND version if vista continues like this it will be Windows ME 2
-
#9.1 Posted by Internal Storm on 15 Oct 2006 - 01:18
- Quote - eilegz said @ #9bleh so i stick with rc1 with vista NO SOUND version if vista continues like this it will be Windows ME 2
Again, please note that Microsoft is in NO WAY responsible for your sound card developer not releasing functioning drivers for their product. -
#9.2 Posted by greenreaper on 15 Oct 2006 - 19:35
- Quote - Internal Storm said @ #9.1Quote - eilegz said @ #9bleh so i stick with rc1 with vista NO SOUND version if vista continues like this it will be Windows ME 2
Again, please note that Microsoft is in NO WAY responsible for your sound card developer not releasing functioning drivers for their product.
They did change the underlying sound system rather significantly - for the perfectly valid reason of wanting to improve it. If they had not done that, new drivers would not have been required. So, it is both Microsoft's fault (their excuse is that they wanted to improve the product) and the driver manufacturer's fault (their excuse is that making drivers for a half-built system is not exactly the easiest thing in the world).
But despite rumors of problems, Microsoft says its removal of RC2 was all part of the plan.
"Windows Vista RC2 was an interim release distributed for the purposes of final testing by a limited audience," a Microsoft representative told me late yesterday. "Once that limit was reached and the necessary feedback was collected from the CPP audience, Microsoft closed the site. For now, Windows Vista RC1 remains the primary version for distribution and ongoing use."