654 replies to this topic

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Vista SP1 in 2009?
Vista SP1 going to be 1GB?

This is coming from the guy that says Leopard isn't licensed.


Hey, did anyone else notice how Leopard's requirements are similar to Vista's? Yet, Vista runs better than Leopard on Macs? (in my testing, at least)

[vbetts]

So here's the real question, is it vista SP1, OR is it Windows XP Service Pack 4? Considering that a lot of people refer to vista as "Windows XP Service Pack 3 with eye candy"

I've never heard anyone refer to Vista as that...o_o

[Pentad]

Ok, I haven't read the whole thread but I read enough to want to add my thoughts to the discussion.

I am a CS Professor for Purdue University. I am also a beta tester for Microsoft (since Nashville - if any of you remember that?).

Windows Vista is not Microsoft at its best. Its slow, buggy, and NOT what the kids in Redmond promised in Longhorn. I personally was looking forward to WinFS as NTFS is a great FS but really showing its age. For the first time in my workings with Microsoft, I've seen them drop the ball. On all previous products, their dev cycle was top notch. Vista Development was an example of a company divided internally.

My humble opinion? I think the source code for Windows is a mess. I think that Bill knows it and Steve knows it. I also think that Bill is tired. I think he has done his bit for king and country and after realizing how bad the source code for Vista is, he wants to move on. He has brought the company this far and its time for somebody else to take over.

Also, Steve Ballmer is no Bill Gates. That might hurt Microsoft more than anything. Steve has some pretty big shoes to fill and I'm not sure that he can do it because 1) He is not a programmer, Gates was and that was a huge asset and 2) I don't think he is as business smart as Gates. That may sound harsh and I'm not trying to personally degrade him but Gates was a programmer AND a great business person. I think that Wallstreet will reflect this when Gates leaves for good.


Some questions about Vista we should be asking:

1. Let's not beat around the bush: What the hell were they doing for all those years? Why didn't they leverage the knowledge they gained from ME, XP, 2k, and 2k3 Srvr? This has been one of Microsoft's strengths in the past.

2. How did the insane copy bug get past Q/A? It was in the betas I saw. I reported it along with thousands of other folks.

3. From a CS Design perspective, UAC is horrible. I wrote in my bug reports that UAC will be a disaster for MS. You only get a few chances for a user to read what you're telling them. If you annoy them or bug them they will just start to click whatever button gets rid of your message. UAC is a mistake I expect from a first year CS student, not a multi-billion dollar company.

4. Where is the reason to upgrade to Vista? Windows 2000 was a business OS. Not many drivers for the consumer market and MS pushed 2k for the corporate world. XP was 2k with great driver support. Going from 98, 98SE, or godaweful ME was like night and day to XP. It was way more stable and offered many new features to the public was had not be exposed to NT. "What?? A task can crash and not take down the whole system??"

5. Windows 2003 Server's kernel is newer than XP's with some really great improvements. Its kernel has a number of new features including a rewritten job scheduler, thread manager, 4gb of memory support in *32bit* versions, and lots of bug fixes. In many ways, the Win2k3 kernel is faster compared to XP's. How did this turn into the Vista kernel?? (Also, why does Vista 32bit not support 4gb of memory?)

6. Lets talk drivers. Again, what was Microsoft thinking? Did anybody else find Nvida and ATi's response odd? First, why did it take both companies so long to get *good* drivers out the door for Vista? I mean it wasn't like they woke up one day and went "Oh, look at that! Microsoft has a new OS out! I guess we we should get to work writing drivers for it!"

Here are two companies that make good products with very mature drivers (fanboys need not flame me, sorry both are good companies). Yet it took both of them a very long time to get working drivers with good support? I mean, this is what they do, right? Make graphic cards and drivers? Microsoft had to be helping them with their drivers and products, yet it took both of them a long time to get working drivers? This is a huge red flag. If ATI or Nvidia had great driver support from day one and the other didn't, you could blame the the other graphic card manufacturer, but you didn't. You saw both companies struggle with their drivers. Well, that points to a driver/kernel/coding issue that must be much worse then we think.

Now add all the other driver issues from other companies and I think you start to get a better picture behind closed doors...something just isn't right.

7. No matter how you look at it, Vista is much slower compared to XP. I don't mean a little, I mean a lot. I would say anywhere between 15% to 20% depending on what you are doing. Copying large files for example is really, really slow. I would like to see some data regarding Vista's Anti-Piracy code. I have heard everything from 100 to a gazillion times a second Vista runs its anti-theft code. Well, how much CPU time is that eating?

Is it the kernel? Why is it so much slower compared to Win2k3 for example? Is it the new GUI? Well, I've seen the new GUI for Linux do some amazing graphics on less hardware.


Do I think Leopard is perfect? Nope. Do I think its faster compared to Tiger on my MBP. Yep. Do I think the features VS the price is a good deal? Yes, I do. Can I say the same for Vista Ultimate (which I own)? Nope. That is a lot of money for very little return.

Does Microsoft deserve to make the money they will off of Vista? No, they don't. They are going to force the market into buying it and they will not suffer the same wrath of the public another company would have to endure.

Will we 'grow' into Vista? Sure. My next Quad Core Notebook, et al will probably run Vista fine. Not that its still worth the Ultimate price mind you.

I will make one prediction: Windows 7 will be subscription based. Microsoft has always admired the Cable TV Industry. Getting people to pay per month for something is a great deal (for the company).

Office 2003 was going to offer a subscription based mode. It almost made it in to the RC versions when they canned the idea. You could rent Word, Excel, etc... or the whole thing for a month if you wanted. I put in my reports that people will not do that. They will go with an Open Source Office or just pirate Office 2k3.

Just my thoughts,
-P

[Maxintosh]

This is coming from the guy that says Leopard isn't licensed.

Hi fanboy wannabe, show me where I ever said that 10.5 was not licensed. Seems your comprehension skills are a bit lacking. Let's hope mommy and daddy get you an appointment with the optometrist after the holidays

...and ONLY time will tell when SP1 comes out and how big it is, and all of your close-mindedness on the topic can't change that. Merry Christmas

Did anybody else find Nvida and ATi's response odd? First, why did it take both companies so long to get *good* drivers out the door for Vista? ...This is a huge red flag.

Excellent point Pentad. Actually the entire post was good. Love your signature

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

OS X is also licensed, not sold.

Not true.

Maybe you should focus on your own mental issues before targeting others.

PS. You should consider getting the Pickle... er... Apple out of your rear, since it's getting to your head.

Speaking about wannabes, by the way, do you even own a Mac? It's kinda hard to believe this when you think that OS X isn't licensed...

[Maxintosh]

Maybe you should focus on your own mental issues before targeting others.

...or, maybe you could do us all a favor and learn what comprehension is all about. When we said 'not true' it was in direct reference to when you were trying to say that vista and OS X were the same. If you would have been honest with everyone here you would have also posted the very next sentence which read "OS X has the same general licensing scheme as windows XP and other windows programs.". Oh well, at least you tried. Perhaps being a politician is in your future, but let's not jump ahead of ourselves just yet. Let's wait to see what that optometrist says first

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

...or, maybe you could do us all a favor and learn what comprehension is all about. When we said 'not true' it was in direct reference to when you were trying to say that vista and OS X were the same. If you would have been honest with everyone here you would have also posted the very next sentence which read "OS X has the same general licensing scheme as windows XP and other windows programs.". Oh well, at least you tried. Perhaps being a politician is in your future, but let's not jump ahead of ourselves just yet. Let's wait to see what that optometrist says first

Yeah, I said OS X is licensed. And you said, "Not true". How clear can this get? Even other people had to correct you, lmfao.

It's like me saying, "Ice Cream tastes bad, but it tastes good." How many people are going to take you seriously after such a comment? Usually Apple fanboys make some sense, but I guess you're an exception.

Maybe you're a hypocrite? Or maybe your memory is that of a goldfish?

Eh, Don't you work for a PC shop? I thought it took some intelligence to get your A+ Certification... or in your case, apparently you can win one in a crackerjack box.

PS. omg wow! You're able to use a dictionary. High five!


Edit: Again, do you even own a Mac?

[Maxintosh]

I said OS X is licensed. And you said, "Not true". How clear can this get?

The trick is to read the sentences in progression, one after another. If you stop in the middle of a paragraph (as you seem to make a habit of) you could lose the entire meaning of what the person is saying. This should have been taught to you in the first of second grade. Looks like 'No child left behind" isn't working. LOL

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Anyone out there -- does this make sense?

Person 1: OS X is licensed.
Person 2: THATS NOT TRUE! Its licencded liek XP!

[Maxintosh]

I feel for you man. Here, maybe this will help you Take small steps. Just remember, read one sentence and then the next one that follows. Repeat this procedure until the entire paragraph is finished. In time you'll get the hang of it

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

I feel for you man. Here, maybe this will help you Take small steps. Just remember, read one sentence and then the next one that follows. Repeat this procedure until the paragraph is finished. In time you'll get the hang of it

I bet that's your home page.

[Maxintosh]

I bet that's your home page.

LOL

No, this is

[vbetts]

Did anybody else find Nvida and ATi's response odd? First, why did it take both companies so long to get *good* drivers out the door for Vista? ...This is a huge red flag.

Because Vista is a new platformed, designed around DX10. Which the added dx10 feature in dx10 cards is one thing to try to get around in Vista, and the lack of DX10 in DX9 cards. What both ATI and Nvidia basically did with early drivers is take XP drivers, and throw a vista approved mark on it.

Plus, ATI/AMD just can't get their {censored} together....=[

[robotskip]

ATi and NVidia have never really been good for drivers, ever, there's always been problems. I can remember problems way back with my MX440 and before my 9700Pro. Also, in an interview with one of the popular hardware sites an NVidia guy was asked if WDDM drivers were way harder and he said no, simply different.

[apowerr]

if those stuck with vista are lucky - microsoft will 'finally' be releasing vista SP1 in June/July '08 (a full year and a half after vista was released). And some say that vista SP1 won't actually be released until 2009 As you've already admitted, Apple released its first update in just two short weeks! Maybe it's because Apple cares more about its OS, or maybe it's because Leopard just doesn't have as many bugs to fix. Whatever the reason it's clear that vista is much more screwed up then even windows ME was Based on current test versions, vista SP1 will be over 1GB when uncompressed.

Hmm, you're right MS hasn't released any updates for Vista. Nope, no updates at all, they don't come until SP1 (Sarcasm). I'd like to nominate you for the 'I don't know what the {censored} I'm talking about' award for 12/24/07. You're sitting here implying that Apple published updates for Leopard just two weeks after release-- while MS will wait a year and a half after RTM before publishing updates! Although you claim to work with Vista, I really doubt that now. If you had used Vista at all you'd probably be commenting on the massive, almost myriad amounts of updates available for RTM Vista through Windows Update.

So here's the real question, is it vista SP1, OR is it Windows XP Service Pack 4? Considering that a lot of people refer to vista as "Windows XP Service Pack 3 with eye candy"

Who has said that? Although Windows Vista is NT based like XP, it is still very different. Really, it's pretty apparent that you know little about Windows Vista.

[Maxintosh]

If you had used Vista at all you'd probably be commenting on the massive, almost myriad amounts of updates available for RTM Vista through Windows Update.

LOL Too bad for you that you don't understand or comprehend the basic concept that system updates, security updates, device driver updates, bug fixes, etc., etc... are all different things. You're grasping at straws. If what you said had any merit to it, then microsoft wouldn't even have a need to come out with SP1 now would they? DOH! I mean after all, they've already put out a 'massive , almost myriad amount of updates' already - so SP1 would just be redundant right? That's funny, most techs think of SP1 as being many things, but never overkill Apparently hotshot, also according to you microsoft just wasted their precious time developing and detailing this 47 page document that describes SP1 bug fixes and says more may be added soon. But that's OK because according to you erei33, all of these essential vista bug fixes are already covered in the 'massive , almost myriad amount of updates' available already. Oh by the way, just so we're both on the same page - SP stands for Service Pack, not Senseless Phenomenon. LOL

[robotskip]

erei33, don't bother, seriously. You'll slowly lose all faith in humanity listening to some of the morons on here.

[Maxintosh]

Speaking of morons, what moron would pay $450.00 for a badly written operating system like vista? Oh that's right, a microsoft fanboy

[apowerr]

If those stuck with vista are lucky - microsoft will 'finally' be releasing vista SP1 in June/July '08 (a full year and a half after vista was released). And some say that vista SP1 won't actually be released until 2009 As you've already admitted, Apple released its first update in just two short weeks!

You're sitting here implying that Apple published updates for Leopard just two weeks after release-- while MS will wait a year and a half after RTM before publishing updates! Although you claim to work with Vista, I really doubt that now. If you had used Vista at all you'd probably be commenting on the massive, almost myriad amounts of updates available for RTM Vista through Windows Update

If what you said had any merit to it, then microsoft wouldn't even have a need to come out with SP1 now would they? DOH! I mean after all, they've already put out a 'massive , almost myriad amount of updates' already - so SP1 would just be redundant right?

You talked about how Apple users were graced by the 10.5.1 update just two weeks in after the release of Leopard. You then mentioned how Windows Vista users are still waiting for service pack 1 to be released, implying that Mac (and Hackintosh ) users got updates while Windows users didn't. I challenge your claims and reference the numerous updates available for Vista. Because of this:

system updates, security updates, device driver updates, bug fixes, etc., etc... are all different things.

Oh yes, noting that Windows users have indeed received updates from Microsoft makes me know nothing about the nature of updates.

I don't know if you realize this: but 10.5.X≠ Vista service pack X. A service pack is of much greater magnitude than a third digit update from Apple. When one refers to a Vista installation with service pack 1 installed, they refer to all of the updates released between RTM-SP1 and the new updates/fixes/features/whateveryou'dlike introduced with SP1.

Mind you, 10.5.X is also not equal to one particular update for Windows. I would say that the Windows equivalent of a third digit update from Apple is one month or so of Vista updates.

I'm just trying to provide some clarification here, maybe now you'll better understand where I'm coming from.

[robotskip]

Fun fact to add what erei33 has been saying: a fair few patches that will be available in SP1 are already out, so the whole "Users are waiting for SP1" is nowhere near as bad as you (Not you, erei33) make it sound, in that regard and in the other regards you're pushing you're just being silly.

Speaking of morons, what moron would pay $450.00 for a badly written operating system like vista? Oh that's right, a microsoft fanboy

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16832116202
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16832110024

Purchasing Vista Ultimate is pretty ridiculous at the moment and by the way, Ultimate isn't the only version and no matter how often you pretend it is, it doesn't make it so. Oh, and stop saying fanboy, it simply makes you look desperate and pathetic, the only possible way you could be any worse is if you started saying "Windoze" or something similar -- and no, purposefully doing so in your next post won't be amusing, it will simply make you delive deeper into the 2 adjectives I just used.

Do you have proof it's badly written?