Ballmer: You Want XP, We'll Keep XP

Status
Not open for further replies.
I diagree with needing a high end system to run Vista.
I bought 2 new Pc's at Besbuy for like 1 grand together ( not high end at all). The only thing i added was 1gb of ram ( cheap ram) and Vista runs just fine on those pc's, ones a p4 w/ HT 3.0 and other is amdx2 64 4000. So no, you dont need uber system for Vista. Vista has similar issues XP had when it came out, and look at everyone now they Love xp. But years ago it was omg Xp sucks, stay with 2000 or w/e it was
 
Rydawg5143 said:
I diagree with needing a high end system to run Vista.
I bought 2 new Pc's at Besbuy for like 1 grand together ( not high end at all). The only thing i added was 1gb of ram ( cheap ram) and Vista runs just fine on those pc's, ones a p4 w/ HT 3.0 and other is amdx2 64 4000. So no, you dont need uber system for Vista. Vista has similar issues XP had when it came out, and look at everyone now they Love xp. But years ago it was omg Xp sucks, stay with 2000 or w/e it was
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that not everyone is going to be buying systems like this or adding RAM. Most often, your everyday user will go computer shopping, find a deal on a PC and buy it. The problem with that is, most of these cheap PCs come with 512Mb RAM with onboard video that ALSO uses up RAM. Even if they come coupled with a decent processor, they just do NOT have enough power for this operating system.

Even though that is true, Vista comes with with new systems and therefore the user doesn't get a choice.

Running an operating system on minimum requirements is just stupid. Although you can turn off most features and make the system run decently on the minimum hardware, the everyday user won't know how to do this.

Basically what I'm saying is that, companies need to wait a few years to start pairing their systems with Vista. They need to wait until their BASE system can run the operating system smoothly.
 
mdameron said:
i'll bet you said the same shit when you were pimpin' 2k and XP came out.
Click to expand...

I still use W2k Server to host all my media files. XP does have inherent useful advancements in it from 2k though, mainly useful UI related updates, and major longterm stability increases.

What does Vista give me? Aero? No thanks. DX10? For what, to decrease my frame rates for no really perceivable benefits? Superfetch? Even after 3 months using Vista on my laptop I turned it off and saw no difference. Sidebar? I use Samurize, and have for years. Flip 3D? lol, I've got an exposee emulator that is *much* more useful.

The reason I upgraded to XP was for the extra extensibility of the OS... With Vista I have incompatible peripherals and breadcrumbs as the things to look forward to... Along with a decrease in frame rates (even if it's a 1% decrease, I'm still paying 150$+ for it!) and a loss in UI snappiness... The inability to properly share files between my networked computers (unless they're both Vista, thanks to the new "Network" panel, and loss of Network Places)... etc.No thanks...

It's all about ROI. I like Vista. A lot. But not enough to spend 150$ on it. I've since uninstalled the copy of Vista I bought, and sold it on eBay to recoup my losses. Once it brings something I will actually *need* to the table, I'll re-consider it... But until then...
 
DeadlyAura said:
Keep in mind that not everyone is going to be buying systems like this or adding RAM. Most often, your everyday user will go computer shopping, find a deal on a PC and buy it. The problem with that is, most of these cheap PCs come with 512Mb RAM with onboard video that ALSO uses up RAM. Even if they come coupled with a decent processor, they just do NOT have enough power for this operating system.

Even though that is true, Vista comes with with new systems and therefore the user doesn't get a choice.

Running an operating system on minimum requirements is just stupid. Although you can turn off most features and make the system run decently on the minimum hardware, the everyday user won't know how to do this.

Basically what I'm saying is that, companies need to wait a few years to start pairing their systems with Vista. They need to wait until their BASE system can run the operating system smoothly.
Click to expand...
You need to do your research, there are NO basic systems in major stores with 512mb of ram.
 
keep it... its definately outdated and I'd never use it on my main rig again.. but at our store, I'm certain Windows sales will just be anihilated.. we still sell 90% windows XP despite my strongest recommendations to the contrary... i say keep windows xp 32bits for legacy systems and scrap Windows Vista x86, it's like a pimple.
 
gaspah said:
keep it... its definately outdated and I'd never use it on my main rig again.. but at our store, I'm certain Windows sales will just be anihilated.. we still sell 90% windows XP despite my strongest recommendations to the contrary... i say keep windows xp 32bits for legacy systems and scrap Windows Vista x86, it's like a pimple.
Click to expand...

I haven't had any issues with the 32bit version of XP on my laptop. Though for some reason it didn't do to well in the brief time it was on my desktop.
 
I'm too young to remember, but how long did it take Wind98 to gain support over WinXP? Did
Win98 have slow and sluggish sales for the first couple of years it was on the market? A new type of operating system always takes a while to become commonplace. The major draw back to WinVista is the fact that most people need to upgrade their entire computer just to use WinVista, which in the end makes people stand pat because most people aren't willing to spend much.
 
Everything will take time. I used to work at a PC shop and hated this one guy who'd RECOMMEND 98 or Win2k when XP came out. I mean IT really all depends on what you're going to use the New OS for. Everything will eventually convert over to Vista, just time. Part of the problem is that the IT sector [programming etc...] is not all there at the same time. Then you have people who have programs and they just port it over to Vista even though it's really meant to only work on XP. Slap the Vista logo and say it's compatible [after patching and all these work-arounds]
 
sliverjazz said:
I'm too young to remember, but how long did it take Wind98 to gain support over WinXP? Did
Win98 have slow and sluggish sales for the first couple of years it was on the market? A new type of operating system always takes a while to become commonplace. The major draw back to WinVista is the fact that most people need to upgrade their entire computer just to use WinVista, which in the end makes people stand pat because most people aren't willing to spend much.
Click to expand...

All of Microsoft's operating systems took awhile to be accepted. Win 3.x to 95 because 3.x was familiar and 95 was totally different and lots of people were still running old Tandys and IBM PS2's with no drive space to hold Windows 95.

98 was crash prone and people generally avoided it and used 95 SR2 for USB support until 98SE came out and stabilized Windows quite a bit.

I think we all remembered ME. I'll leave that alone.

Few people adopted 2000 except in the business world. 2000 was the glorified successor to the bland and restrictive NT4 Workstation, not to mention more hardware and better DirectX support. But a few home users picked up on 2000 too, especially in the enthusiastic market.

Since most 2000 drivers worked on XP, migrating was more or less smooth and quick. XP made 2000 more home-friendly too, so people gladly dumped their aged 98SE for it. XP SP2 made XP into probably one of the most stable Microsoft consumer OS to date which is why people loathe to give it up for Vista.

Personally I believe thats why Vista is having a hard time getting it's foot in the door. It's a new OS, so it's not as stable as XP Pro right off the bat. But drivers matured and updates fixed a lot of things, but users aren't very trusting or forgiving, nor do they remember what XP was like at first.

Anyways.. this is what I think. I might be a little off, but I think this summarizes Microsoft's OS pretty well.
 
sliverjazz said:
I'm too young to remember, but how long did it take Wind98 to gain support over WinXP? Did Win98 have slow and sluggish sales for the first couple of years it was on the market?
Click to expand...

Both were adopted pretty quickly if I remember correctly. The mainstream move from 95 to 98 was fast, and XP was a godsend. 98 would crash so often and XP came working pretty solid right out of the gate, presumably because some of the issues with the OS had already been worked out with 2000 in the year before.
 
Serpico said:
Both were adopted pretty quickly if I remember correctly. The mainstream move from 95 to 98 was fast, and XP was a godsend. 98 would crash so often and XP came working pretty solid right out of the gate, presumably because some of the issues with the OS had already been worked out with 2000 in the year before.
Click to expand...

Yep, I went from 95 to 98 without even thinking ... I don't remember that many crashes, but then again the memory is starting to go. 98SE was great, at least for me as a home user. XP? didn't jump on until SP1 and a new computer. Yes, I did have to upgrade peripherals (scanner/printer, etc.), but had no software compatibility issues tbh.

Part of the Vista thing with peripherals/software - everything's gotten more expensive. I know, progress, inflation, all that. But some of us just either don't want to change, don't see a reason to change or can't afford to change. And in a way it seems wasteful to have to get new 'stuff' when what you have is working perfectly fine. XP Pro and Home (on older puter) are working fine for me and for alot of my friends.

So, basically, if Microsoft wants to keep their word (you want XP, we'll keep XP) and keep customers the best thing imho they could do is keep XP Pro on the shelves and supported without the sneaky SP3 "vista lite" stuff added on. Home could be supported I'm sure quite easily even if they stopped selling it.

Why I think this? I thought about buying an extra XP Pro disc/key as a "just in case" when Vista came out and figured I'd wait, that the prices would drop like a stone. In fact, the opposite has happened.

On newegg, XP Home Edition with SP2 - Retail is $191.49; XP Professional with SP2 - Retail is $269.99 ... of course the OEM versions are cheaper, but overall, the price of XP has gone up since the release of Vista. That's got to say something - and I don't mean they're trying to price people out of using XP; to me it means that XP is definitely in demand.
 
ditzilla said:
So, basically, if Microsoft wants to keep their word (you want XP, we'll keep XP) and keep customers the best thing imho they could do is keep XP Pro on the shelves and supported without the sneaky SP3 "vista lite" stuff added on. Home could be supported I'm sure quite easily even if they stopped selling it.
Click to expand...

Sneaky "vista lite" stuff? What the heck are you talking about?
 
Vista is trash. Its been more than a year already and still its crappy. Games run a lot slower in vista and so does a lot of other things. Vista basically made it longer for you to access what you want by adding a bunch of bloated crap in the way. Driver support isn't great at all. Just wait it out for windows 7. They should just dump it and put full steam into windows 7. Even after the service pack its still the same. You can butter up and paint a rotted apple red but its still going to be rotten. Thats why vista is not being adopted much at all.
 
"vista is trash" and "xp is old, upgrade stingy bastards" comments aside, I find no reason to upgrade to vista, I dont see it offering anything that my xp cant already do, to me, i dont care about OMG IT HAS DX10, or WOW OMG IT LOOKS SO COOL.

If given the ability, i would have stuck with windows 95, STILL my fav OS, just keep upgrading the security crap for it :p.

my 2 cents.
 
Conker said:
Vista is trash. Its been more than a year already and still its crappy. Games run a lot slower in vista and so does a lot of other things. Vista basically made it longer for you to access what you want by adding a bunch of bloated crap in the way. Driver support isn't great at all. Just wait it out for windows 7. They should just dump it and put full steam into windows 7. Even after the service pack its still the same. You can butter up and paint a rotted apple red but its still going to be rotten. Thats why vista is not being adopted much at all.
Click to expand...

ignorance is bliss, eh?
 
evanisthecoastie said:
"vista is trash" and "xp is old, upgrade stingy bastards" comments aside, I find no reason to upgrade to vista, I dont see it offering anything that my xp cant already do, to me, i dont care about OMG IT HAS DX10, or WOW OMG IT LOOKS SO COOL.

If given the ability, i would have stuck with windows 95, STILL my fav OS, just keep upgrading the security crap for it :p.

my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

You'd rather run a gui shell over DOS? That's your favorite OS? Odd, but okay, whatever works for you. Windows 95, Windows 95B, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, and Windows ME were all pieces of shit because they were just gui programs run over DOS. The only difference in how they worked vs. Windows 3.1 was instead of starting via the autoexec, they started via a system file. You could actually go in and disable the gui startup and make it work exactly like Windows 3.1.

Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista are VASTLY superior to previous efforts. Windows 2000 was really the first good OS we ever got out of Microsoft. Sure Windows NT was ok, but it was very limited in its' capabilities.
 
Dan_D said:
You'd rather run a gui shell over DOS? That's your favorite OS? Odd, but okay, whatever works for you. Windows 95, Windows 95B, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, and Windows ME were all pieces of shit because they were just gui programs run over DOS. The only difference in how they worked vs. Windows 3.1 was instead of starting via the autoexec, they started via a system file. You could actually go in and disable the gui startup and make it work exactly like Windows 3.1.

Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista are VASTLY superior to previous efforts. Windows 2000 was really the first good OS we ever got out of Microsoft. Sure Windows NT was ok, but it was very limited in its' capabilities.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. Remember Packard Bell back in the old days? Weren't they supposed to be the crap of all crap? Regardless, my family bought a system and made sure Windows 2000 pro was put on it. I helped set the thing up myself. We put an extra 64 megs of ram in it for a total of 128, I think. The thing ran flawlessly for FOUR YEARS without a BSOD and without an OS reinstall. My dad ran Office apps and all his real estate software on it, and my brother and I even did some gaming on it. I don't even remember the specs. We finally had to reinstall Win2k pro. After which it ran for FIVE more years without needing another reinstall. It was like 10 yrs old when we finally upgraded to a newer machine. It died with the original hard drive, processor, motherboard, optical drives, and everything pretty much intact. Amazing OS. I ran it on some video editing systems in a studio I worked at for a while. Extremely stable. We ran it nonstop until XP was finally ready for us and all our rendering hardware worked in it. I was an official beta tester for XP - got the certificate and everything. The only thing that XP had going for it in the beginning was the fact that many customers had the flop that even MS admitted was ME. They were so desperate to get away from ME that XP was a godsend. Our top end Dell we bought for my dad's office had ME, and it was BSOD'ing right out of the box! I even followed the instructions for once in my life while setting it up. The first screen we saw on our brand new $2400 Dell was a blue screen of death. I think the beta of XP pro worked better on that machine than ME did ...

aggr1103 said:
Gimme my mac os X!
Click to expand...

Lol...

Conker said:
Vista is trash. Its been more than a year already and still its crappy. Games run a lot slower in vista and so does a lot of other things. Vista basically made it longer for you to access what you want by adding a bunch of bloated crap in the way. Driver support isn't great at all. Just wait it out for windows 7. They should just dump it and put full steam into windows 7. Even after the service pack its still the same. You can butter up and paint a rotted apple red but its still going to be rotten. Thats why vista is not being adopted much at all.
Click to expand...

Gee, I hate how hitting a single button, then typing whatever I want and instantly having it pop up automatically for me takes SO LONG /sarcasm.

Vista 64 is quite good, quite powerful, and quite functional. I have given it a chance and learned how to push it. As a huge XP fan and 2000 fan I gave it the full test. I found out what it could really do for me, and as it turns out, it's not just a pretty face. I was THERE when XP came out. I was beta testing it when all those around me were calling it Win2K with a pretty face...
 
SirKronan said:
Vista 64 is quite good, quite powerful, and quite functional. I have given it a chance and learned how to push it. As a huge XP fan and 2000 fan I gave it the full test. I found out what it could really do for me, and as it turns out, it's not just a pretty face. I was THERE when XP came out. I was beta testing it when all those around me were calling it Win2K with a pretty face...
Click to expand...

I too beta tested Windows XP. I prefered it to Windows 2000 for a number of technical reasons. Faster disk access and a number of other reasons. Once I installed a retail copy of Windows XP Professional I never had to go back to Windows 2000 or Windows 9x.

Windows Vista is even better. Once installing it I never went back and I can't see ever having to do so. Personally I think Windows Vista has less problems than Windows XP did given the same time on the market. After one year Vista is far better than XP was after one year.
 
Rockjay420 said:
keep it! add support for dx10 and more than 3GB of ram
Click to expand...

Facepalm.

Thread necromancy, so I guess that makes it a double fail.

Apple or somebody must be hiring people to smear Microsoft. Who else would dig through the forum just to find old XP threads and post more uneducated BS?
 
Rockjay420 said:
ok, i guess dx10 is ridiculous
Click to expand...

The point your missing is that this thread is dead and there have probably been hundreds of more recent threads about this topic since this thread.

Beyond that, if you had actually bothered to read the thread that you brought back from the dead, you'd realize that there is some base code in Windows XP that would need to be changed to allow for DirectX 10. As for support for more memory... Um... XP 64-bit? Hi? You missed something there.
 
Keep it. I've bought just abort every version of Win (outside of server versions) there's been. If they think I'll keep shelling out more money for new OS's and software to go with it every few years they've got another thing coming. And I have too. Linux P.S. And my hardware is way more powerful than anything I need. (even what's in my sig)
 
I made this, just for you...
rescopy.jpg
 
get rid of it already. How can anyone turn back after using Vista SP1.
 
yeah, lol
didn't notice the age
points remain the same
don't worry, I'm sure MS will kill it soon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top