Fortune puts Blu-Ray on the top 9 tech flops of the year

By DaDude
in Home Theatre Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted
+1

People have short memories. The same is true for Vista vs XP. Nobody seems to remember that XP had at release nearly all the same issues Vista had at release.

I'd like to see some proof of that. I don't remember ever hearing about widespread issues with XP like we have with Vista. So show some proof. I keep hearing that nonsense that XP was just as buggy, but no one ever offers proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted
I agree with their number 8 on the list of flops, Vista (Y)

I don't. It is stupid for one big reason: Vista came out in 2007, not 2008. Vista was more of a success this year, than last, yet it is a flop this year? Makes no sense.

Whomever made this list up should stay away from technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
I'd like to see some proof of that. I don't remember ever hearing about widespread issues with XP like we have with Vista. So show some proof. I keep hearing that nonsense that XP was just as buggy, but no one ever offers proof.

If anything XP had more issues at release than Vista did. But both XP and Vista where actually very solid released and whre and still are solid Operting systems, though Vista is slightly more solid but neither actually have any big huge issues.

Though SP1 was far more improtant for XP than it was for Vista, for Vista SP1 was very much a placebo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted
If anything XP had more issues at release than Vista did. But both XP and Vista where actually very solid released and whre and still are solid Operting systems, though Vista is slightly more solid but neither actually have any big huge issues.

Though SP1 was far more improtant for XP than it was for Vista, for Vista SP1 was very much a placebo.

So where's the proof? I was around when XP was released and I never saw anywhere near the issues that Vista had. I'm not saying that they were Vista's fault, but that still doesn't make it any less of a hassle for businesses.

I would like to see some articles, some proof that XP had as many launch issues as Vista. I even did a Google search and couldn't find anything even suggesting it, other than people's opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
So where's the proof? I was around when XP was released and I never saw anywhere near the issues that Vista had. I'm not saying that they were Vista's fault, but that still doesn't make it any less of a hassle for businesses.

I would like to see some articles, some proof that XP had as many launch issues as Vista. I even did a Google search and couldn't find anything even suggesting it, other than people's opinions.

What issues did Vista have though.

in both cases I'd say the only issues they really had was whiney users and mostly the haters who keot makign up reasns why it sucked.

prime in both cases how they hated the new GUI. and then there was the ativation controversies and outcries in XP, and the fact that back then activation was new, and it had a few birthing problems causing it not to work quite as easily and predictably as it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted
What issues did Vista have though.

in both cases I'd say the only issues they really had was whiney users and mostly the haters who keot makign up reasns why it sucked.

prime in both cases how they hated the new GUI. and then there was the ativation controversies and outcries in XP, and the fact that back then activation was new, and it had a few birthing problems causing it not to work quite as easily and predictably as it should.

You are looking at it from a tech enthusiast/consumer standpoint. Look at it from a business standpoint and there's a world of difference.

Again, I'm not necessarily blaming XP or Vista. But Vista had a ton of launch issues, whether it be Microsoft's fault or software developer's fault is up for debate. Regardless, Vista's change in security, TCP/IP, etc. caused a lot of headaches for companies while software developers took their time getting updates out to their customers.

XP's didn't have any major kernel changes (hence 2000 being 5.0 and XP being 5.1 and Vista being 6.0). Drivers were another issue too. I never had any driver issues, but I did with Vista in the beginning.

Again, not necessarily Microsoft's fault, but that doesn't change the fact that XP's launch was 100 times smoother than Vista's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

From a bsuiness standpoint they where allready running on least user access or whatever it's called on all their users, and had been since NT 3.5 and wouldn't have a problem with UAC and users not being admins.

so that only leaves comopatibility, and in that regard, I'd in fact say there was more problems with XP at launch than with Vista, especially from those skipping 2000 and moving straight from NT4 or worse, Win9x. Most businesses didn't adopt XP untill very long into it's life, most would rather stick with 2k wich essentially was the business version of XP, or rather XP was the conumer/gamer version of 2k.

and speaking of security, this is one place where XP failed and Vista is far superior. Vista hasn't really had any actual security issues as such, there's been threats and malware. but so far no real viruses or security issues. At least not unless the users have deliberately turned of security features. Meanwhile the main problem with XP was that it was an OS designed for the regular user, but it wasn't prepared for a world where every computer had at least partial internet access and a great many, and more every day, had permanent "broad"band connections.

there haven't been any "I Love you" cases or any of the other mass spread viruses, trojans and worms with Vista that businesses (and consumers as well) had with XP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted
From a bsuiness standpoint they where allready running on least user access or whatever it's called on all their users, and had been since NT 3.5 and wouldn't have a problem with UAC and users not being admins.

so that only leaves comopatibility, and in that regard, I'd in fact say there was more problems with XP at launch than with Vista, especially from those skipping 2000 and moving straight from NT4 or worse, Win9x. Most businesses didn't adopt XP untill very long into it's life, most would rather stick with 2k wich essentially was the business version of XP, or rather XP was the conumer/gamer version of 2k.

and speaking of security, this is one place where XP failed and Vista is far superior. Vista hasn't really had any actual security issues as such, there's been threats and malware. but so far no real viruses or security issues. At least not unless the users have deliberately turned of security features. Meanwhile the main problem with XP was that it was an OS designed for the regular user, but it wasn't prepared for a world where every computer had at least partial internet access and a great many, and more every day, had permanent "broad"band connections.

there haven't been any "I Love you" cases or any of the other mass spread viruses, trojans and worms with Vista that businesses (and consumers as well) had with XP

You are completely missing the point.

Companies have still had more issues with Vista than with XP. Period, plan and simple. And besides your opinion you haven't offered a shred of proof to suggest otherwise. I can go to Google, however, and pull 10 different articles easily with Vista issues in the corporate environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Joel

Posted
Posted
You are completely missing the point.

Companies have still had more issues with Vista than with XP. Period, plan and simple. And besides your opinion you haven't offered a shred of proof to suggest otherwise. I can go to Google, however, and pull 10 different articles easily with Vista issues in the corporate environment.

Most of the problems we've seen at companies would have to do more with the security changes (VisionFS compatibility, stupid programs that MUST run as admin, etc.). Making Windows more secure should not be the reason why it's a flop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

DaDude

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Whoa! This topic changed from Blu-ray to Vista. Anyways, I use Vista. When I first got the computer, I had problems left and right. Then I reformatted and Vista has been working flawlessly ever since. My advice: reformat your computer and reinstall Vista. My guess is that people's computer's are filled with junk and bloatware and Vista doesn't handle it well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted
Most of the problems we've seen at companies would have to do more with the security changes (VisionFS compatibility, stupid programs that MUST run as admin, etc.). Making Windows more secure should not be the reason why it's a flop.

Oh I completely agree that Vista is not a flop. It is a rock solid OS, especially now that developers are developing for Vista.

I still get tired of seeing people say that XP had just as many launch issues as Vista. That simply isn't true. Now if people were to say that about 98 to 2000, that I would be more incline to agree with because it was a major upgrade. Or going from 3.1 to 95. But not from 2000 to XP. Kernel wise, there wasn't much difference. It will be like going from Vista to 7, there won't be much difference and the upgrade will be pretty damn smooth for people already on Vista (outside of the learning curve for the new taskbar, etc.).

Whoa! This topic changed from Blu-ray to Vista. Anyways, I use Vista. When I first got the computer, I had problems left and right. Then I reformatted and Vista has been working flawlessly ever since. My advice: reformat your computer and reinstall Vista. My guess is that people's computer's are filled with junk and bloatware and Vista doesn't handle it well.

The article isn't just about Blu-Ray though, so it is really justified talking about anything the article discusses IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

DaDude

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The article isn't just about Blu-Ray though, so it is really justified talking about anything the article discusses IMO.

True. I was just shocked that the topic of this thread changed abruptly given that this is a Home Theater Forum. I wasn't complaining; I was just surprised. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
Neowinian

Wasted Credit Generation

Posted
Posted

Lol with the crappy broadband caps out there, Blu-ray has nothing to worry about, it's going to be decades or more before broadband infrastructure is good enough to cope with true HD downloading and streaming, and with a world average of a crap 4mbps, it isn't gonna happen anytime soon, and ISPs have started to cap bandwidths at peak times, so much for the digital download/streaming revolution lol.

Anyway I'm off to Blockbuster, to rent some Blu-rays, at least that's something I can TRUST.

Oh then again there's SkyHD, rofl I think not (rip off).

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.