Microsoft looks to 'Mojave' to revive Vista's image


Recommended Posts

Well for now Im sticking with XP pro 64 as it handles memory better, and when I do get Vista I will duel boot and use XP for my 3d programs since the OS is taking up less memory. Yes Ill admit I rather not pick vista but SP1 reloaded the kernal. Basicly it was a new OS. When the first major upgrade was a rewrite of the OS I think Ill wait. Not to mention drop in quality. I belive it went from 1 error in 100k lines of code to 1 error in 10k lines of code.

Well for now Im sticking with XP pro 64 as it handles memory better, and when I do get Vista I will duel boot and use XP for my 3d programs since the OS is taking up less memory.

Vista uses the majority of memory as a cache for other applications, it's not actually taking it for itself. Unused memory is wasted memory.

--

While I like Vista and agree most of the negativity comes from people who haven't even used it those "interview" videos all seem a little staged.

Well for now Im sticking with XP pro 64 as it handles memory better, and when I do get Vista I will duel boot and use XP for my 3d programs since the OS is taking up less memory. Yes Ill admit I rather not pick vista but SP1 reloaded the kernal. Basicly it was a new OS. When the first major upgrade was a rewrite of the OS I think Ill wait. Not to mention drop in quality. I belive it went from 1 error in 100k lines of code to 1 error in 10k lines of code.

That kind of statistic is completely useless since there is no way to quantitatively determine how many actual errors are in the Windows codebase.

Also, if anything, Vista's memory management is better. Superfetch any?

i love this, its so funny when people give it so many compliments when they don't know what it is.

Well for now Im sticking with XP pro 64 as it handles memory better, and when I do get Vista I will duel boot and use XP for my 3d programs since the OS is taking up less memory. Yes Ill admit I rather not pick vista but SP1 reloaded the kernal. Basicly it was a new OS. When the first major upgrade was a rewrite of the OS I think Ill wait. Not to mention drop in quality. I belive it went from 1 error in 100k lines of code to 1 error in 10k lines of code.

what does errors in the code even mean? i mean the OS works so these "errors" can't be that bad.

and since when did a new kernel mean it was a new OS? if only it were that easy.

Well for now Im sticking with XP pro 64 as it handles memory better, and when I do get Vista I will duel boot and use XP for my 3d programs since the OS is taking up less memory. Yes Ill admit I rather not pick vista but SP1 reloaded the kernal. Basicly it was a new OS. When the first major upgrade was a rewrite of the OS I think Ill wait. Not to mention drop in quality. I belive it went from 1 error in 100k lines of code to 1 error in 10k lines of code.

Lol Vista X64 is faster and more secure than XP X64. Also that XP X64 is actually Server 2003.

Well for now Im sticking with XP pro 64 as it handles memory better, and when I do get Vista I will duel boot and use XP for my 3d programs since the OS is taking up less memory. Yes Ill admit I rather not pick vista but SP1 reloaded the kernal. Basicly it was a new OS. When the first major upgrade was a rewrite of the OS I think Ill wait. Not to mention drop in quality. I belive it went from 1 error in 100k lines of code to 1 error in 10k lines of code.

Having demonstrated that you really have no idea what you're talking about, I think you'll be really impressed with Mojave. It has all the features you're after and more, so forget about Vista, just try Mojave and see what you think of it... other people with your level of expertise have been very impressed with it apparently ;)

you know what would be the real kicker with that campaign? if they got all those people that LIKED Mojave, then gave them Vista to work with for real and THEN asked them to come back. then we'd see how good Vista really is...

Lol Vista X64 is faster and more secure than XP X64. Also that XP X64 is actually Server 2003.

Not to mention more compatable. I went from XP x64 to Vista x64 on this computer and I was surprised at how all of the programs that I used to have issues with under XP x64 ran with no issues under Vista x64 (minus ones that needed x64 device drivers of course.)

So it should run better with 1GB than XP? :alien:

That's like asking if XP will run faster than Windows 98 with 64MB of memory. So throw that garbage out the window...

And I love how they changed the slogan for Vista. "See for youself. Decide for yourself."

Lovin it (Y)

That's like asking if XP will run faster than Windows 98 with 64MB of memory. So throw that garbage out the window...

BS. With more efficient usage of memory it should run better, unless it's designed to run worse.

<snipped>

Edited by PureLegend
BS. With more efficient usage of memory it should run better, unless it's designed to run worse.

It's doing a whole lot more, it has more functionality then XP you nonce. Just like XP had more functionality than 98. Of course then I bet you'll say XP does everything you want. Which is what the DOS users used to say when Windows came along, and what Windows 3.11 users said when Windows 95 came along, and so on and so forth.

Mojave proved the point that stupid people carry stupid perceptions they got from other equally stupid people. Or to put it anothe way, you can lead an Apple user to water, but you can't make him drink it unless you charge him $200 and call it iWater :)

To me this says a lot about society, not just the Vista bashers, but a lot of others as well. I love the idea though.

I wonder if they have pictures of the people's faces when they're told they just used Vista...

Hello Simsie,

My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team. I would be happy to share our customer videos. They can be found at www.MojaveExperiment.com.

Thank you

Lindsey

Hello Impact,

My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team. I would be happy to share the customer videos. They can be found at www.MojaveExperiment.com.

Thank you

Lindsey

BS. With more efficient usage of memory it should run better, unless it's designed to run worse.

You just made a new slogan for yourself.

Your assumptions, your failure

Hello Simsie,

My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team. I would be happy to share our customer videos. They can be found at www.MojaveExperiment.com.

Thank you

Lindsey

Hello Impact,

My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team. I would be happy to share the customer videos. They can be found at www.MojaveExperiment.com.

Thank you

Lindsey

SPAMBOT!!! :pinch:

:p

This marketing scheme was interesting, and a good idea, but a bit late for me because on my laptop, I switched back to XP two nights ago after my second trial of Vista, and believe me I've given Vista good chances using the OS for 2-3 months each trial, but I just see much better gaming performance on XP still. (In some cases the difference can be as much as 40 FPS.) I will most likely be taking it off my desktop computer as well since once in a while it gives me blue screen errors for my video driver, no matter what driver I've tried...

I do look forward to Windows 7 with somewhat high hopes though. It's not sounding as grand as when initial ideas were given, but it could turn out good.

User panel : " OMG this is better than Vista !!!1!"

M$ dude : " PWned !!1! This IS Vista !!1!"

:)

haha, just what I was thinking :p

Yeah, I sell computers at Future Shop (Best Buy), and people are always complaining about Vista but literally around 1-2% of people have actually used it.

I've sold hundreds of computers in the last 2 years there, and maybe 3 to 4 people have returned their computer because they didn't like Vista.

Most people I ask actually like it after they've used it.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!