Closing the Door to Microsoft Vista


Recommended Posts

If the OS isn't going to do anything to increase productivity and reliability then its just good business sense. Personally, I run Vista Business x64 and like it very much, but TBO, it hasn't added much to my "experience" as Microsoft would call it other than eye candy. Previous Versions, Full image backups additional security and search functions are nice, but Big Corps like GM are going to be using Enterprise grade solutions in place of these anyway. Waiting for Windows 7 aka "Vista refined" is probably the way to go for most. When my friends ask if Vista is worth buying, I tell them its nice, list some of its features and then tell them to wait and get it with a new PC. Most of them want it cause its the newest thing out, not because its going to do anything for them that XP isn't doing already.

Thats just it, to me thats fine if an os requires more overhead, great...but I want something in exchange for it, sadly thats not the case with Vista, its a high overhead in exchange for what? Fancier looks? I could skin XP to look even better so big deal.

Windows Seven a.k.a. Windows Vista Second Edition.

I am seriously baffled at how people can mock something they know nothing about. I mean seriously, all you know is its internal/working name. So where does this "a.k.a Windows Vista Second Edition" stuff come from?

Ok. I think mocking Vista being an Epic Fail etc. is stupid.

Sure I felt a bit like that previously, but I learned from it.

I only posted this thread because I found the article interesting, not that I'm a Vista hater. Just to set the record straight.

Vista is Microsoft's epic fail.

I wish I could find that picture, where the guy is holding both hands out. in 1 hand he had a gun. I the other hand he had a box of bullets. The picture had the caption "You suck at life".

Anyway that sums that up.

As for the businesses that you say skip XP and go right to vista, I only have one question. Are these companies then replacing large quantities of workstations? Because if their current workstations are running a 1999 - 2000 operating system, they can hardly install vista on that type of hardware.

I am seriously baffled at how people can mock something they know nothing about. I mean seriously, all you know is its internal/working name. So where does this "a.k.a Windows Vista Second Edition" stuff come from?

Welcome to the Internet circa 2008, where every tard has an opinion, and they aren't afraid to voice it.

Somewhere some idiot started the whole "Vista is ME" thing, and ever since, there have been literally millions of empty-headed parrots who repeat this line because it's "FUNNY LOL!!!". Making fun of Vista is a hobby for people who don't actually understand anything about tech, like Mac users and 15 year olds. Just ignore it, and buckle down for more of the same when Windows Seven comes out "Windows 7 is Vista SP2 or Vista SE LOL!!".

Is this really news? This have been the case since Windows 95/98. It have more to do with priorites and economy than the OS. It's quite normal for companies to skip a cycle.

I am seriously baffled at how people can mock something they know nothing about. I mean seriously, all you know is its internal/working name. So where does this "a.k.a Windows Vista Second Edition" stuff come from?

Ignorance

I was unsure of Vista at first. Since using it at home though I have come to quite like it. Although running it on a single core CPU would be out of the question for me.

It's sort of reminded me of my 2000 to XP leap though. I hated XP but now it's rock solid and fast. Hopefully now Windows 2008 is starting to become more mainstream we might see more businesses start to use Vista.

We fully tested vista to see how business ready Vista is and we're taking the same route. We've found that it's hardware requirements are too taxing, almost all of our client machines out there have 1gb ram which vista just does not run well on. We've also found that from an administration point of view it's a nightmare and the OS was just rushed and is still quite buggy.

If they can pull off something special with SP2 it might be a possibility but it's just not business ready. As a home os it's not *too* bad.

tsts, this is their problem and will be their problem when Windows 7 comes around. "their PCs don't even run Windows Vista". what does that mean? Their hardware is outdated. blame it on Microsoft. Sooner or later you have to upgrade to be able to run the most recent software and OS.

This article is clearly not about Windows Vista or not. It's about a company that needs to total system upgrade to replace their old junk that cannot even run Vista. Vista seems just a cover up.

Instead of making these silly points I suggest to go back to Windows 98. that's apparently what you deserve.

Here is what happens with some government places. First you replace all hardware to ensure minimum requirements are met. Then you roll out the new operating system. This is standard procedure. It's quite embarrassing to hear this bull from a big company like this.

tsts

Oh such huge news... we went from 95 to 98R2 (yes skipped the main version) skipped ME and went to W2K then skipped the first SP of XP and went to XP SP2 at work... companies skip revisions all the time... you know how much time it takes to roll out a new version? every other version is a common trend in companies

They wont update their software to work with Vista and they think it will work with Windows 7?

Windows 7 and everything after that will be based on Windows Vista. Better change stuff NOW.

XP is dead.

XP is far from dead for businesses it is supported to 2014, and the hardware requirements for Vista is to much to make it cost effective.

Most companies work on a if it is not broken don't fix it.

They wont update their software to work with Vista and they think it will work with Windows 7?

Windows 7 and everything after that will be based on Windows Vista. Better change stuff NOW.

XP is dead.

What is the need to upgrade to Vista when XP does everything they need. Common sense would tell you there's no reason to spend a gazillion dollars on new computers then.

Besides, haven't you heard how bad the economy and the auto industry are doing? Now they have 2 reasons not to upgrade.

Besides the fact of Vista being more like a Me version!

So, to sum up:

General Motors are on a technology refresh cycle that doesn't tie in with the Microsoft release schedule.

Wow! ZOMG! !!!!!11111 One!

Yeah but that's the logical way to look at it. You're spoiling the fun for people who want to bash Vista if you put it that way...

The IT decisions large companies make really has no bearing on those that home users might make. It's a completely different ball game and says little about the OS. I think a lot of the problems Vista has is that it didn't live up to the infinite levels of hype and unrealistic expectations. Maybe that's MS's fault but I'd also be tempted to blame a lot of users who expected it to also wash the dishes for them.

Another thing, I think that they made a lot of changes, so there is little back compatibility with XP? Is that right? If so, they did it in order to move forward and make progress toward a modern system. Naturally this will make it harder to switch over. But people seem to expect the brand new Vista to be all new and different and do fancy things, while being the same as XP for hardware and software compatibility :blink:

........

I won't deny that Vista has heavier system requirements than XP, but XP had heavier system requirements than 98 or 2000 did, and was also greeted with the same warm reception that Vista has gotten. The only difference is that Microsoft dropped support for 98 and 2000 and that scared a lot of companies over to XP, and that is what it's going to take to get companies to switch to Vista or even Windows Seven.

......

What confuses me is that people expect a fancy new system wtih extra features, but without greater hardware requirements. Am I the only person who finds that irrational? I guess it's just bashing for the sake of it.

People don't complain about the latest games requiring more graphics processing more etc so why the complaints about an OS? Also, hardware is getting cheaper all the time. In a year or two it won't cost all that much to build a system that can run Vista well.

They wont update their software to work with Vista and they think it will work with Windows 7?

Windows 7 and everything after that will be based on Windows Vista. Better change stuff NOW.

XP is dead.

It wasn't that company but the people they buy the software from that haven't upgraded, although I'm sure they will if they want to stay in business.

While I have little issues regarding Vista X64 I will say from a business point of view I see little reason to move to Vista.

1) They most certainly are not bothered about a prettier GUI

2) They have no interest in DX10

3) They certainly don't fancy the cost

4) They don't like how Bitlocker is a Ultimate extra and isn't included in Business

I could go on, but for the average user Vista is OK, I game alot and I like Crysis so Crysis 64bit in DX10 is lovely, for those who enjoy older games, and those whom are set up and familiar with their systems then wait for Windows Seven, Vista isn't all that.

While I have little issues regarding Vista X64 I will say from a business point of view I see little reason to move to Vista.

1) They most certainly are not bothered about a prettier GUI

2) They have no interest in DX10

3) They certainly don't fancy the cost

4) They don't like how Bitlocker is a Ultimate extra and isn't included in Business

I could go on, but for the average user Vista is OK, I game alot and I like Crysis so Crysis 64bit in DX10 is lovely, for those who enjoy older games, and those whom are set up and familiar with their systems then wait for Windows Seven, Vista isn't all that.

Exactly! There is no reason for them to upgrade at all. It's not like they have to test their software on the new OS, or that they have updated their business applications and it's only supported on Vista all of the sudden...

even for my own use at home I don't see significant changes that will convince me to upgrade. I've tested the OS several times (and I still do as part of my job) and the only reason I see why "I" would make the step is just "to follow"...

On my Home Theater PC at home I used to have Vista (I liked the Media Center in it) but then I also started using it as a home-work PC (got rid of my other PC) and it just became too frustrating. It's not designed for business (that's my opinion for those of you waiting to jump in...) so I went back to Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 and would never return to Vista again (Although knowing myself I'll probably try again when a new SP comes out...).

Vista is more than a pretty GUI and DX10. Go read about all the enhancements under the hood. The kiddies love to crap on about how Vista is all fancy graphics and no substance, because they don't understand anything beyond what they see. XP had exactly the same criticisms, people saying that Windows 2000 was much better because XP's eye candy was slowing everything down (yes, we had tards back in 2002 as well...)

Basically one major reason for businesses to upgrade to Vista would be the greatly enhanced security and stability. Vista is far harder to destabilize, and even if you do throw a crap program at it, it can recover your session without locking up tight like XP. Imagine how much work is lost in total in a company when people get a lockup and/or reboot and lose whatever it is they were currently working on.

So if nothing else, if your business doesn't value enhanced security and stability then go ahead and keep XP and spent more hours fixing problems instead of preventing them.

^ I second that.

It's not about what you can do with Vista. It's about what Vista is doing for you. People really have no idea how much this OS is really doing for the user in the background.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!