# Top 5 reasons why Vista failed?



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Interesting blog posted on ZDNet today. It was written by *Jason Hiner*, the _Editor in Chief_ of Tech Republic:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10303&tag=nl.e539

In a related poll, after 1350 votes, 73% of respondents said their companies would NOT be switching to Vista.

/steve


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Certainly I consider it a failure from a corporate perspective but it's harmless enough for home use.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

I'm perfectly happy with it on my personal laptop, but I don't forsee installing on my company workstations anytime in the near future. There is simply no reason.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> ...it's harmless enough for home use.


 Harmless enough for the home user? Perhaps, if it _worked_ -- or if all you had to do is fiddle with Vista and driver compatibility and other diaper-changing issues in order to make it work for you.

But what about the millions of home/SOHO users who don't have the skills, time or inclination to learn fixes, get patches and do work-arounds just to make the damn thing work?

Would you want to have to set timing, tighten the belts and change the plugs on your car every time you want to go for a six-pack? Why can't MS stop trying to be all things to all people? 50 million lines of code is ridiculous! With all its money, power and expertise, MS should be able to put out an OS that works!

Using a PC is supposed to increase productivity, not impede it.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

I don't think Vista failed from the standpoint of an OS. It's a great OS and light years ahead of XP. (I was skeptical of Vista and resisted it but realized I was mistaken once I tried it out and then realized that XP was way outdated as an OS). 

What failed or did not work well was Microsoft's introduction of Vista into the marketplace too early, not working enough with 3rd party vendors to ensure the 3rd party vendors brought their products up to snuff to work properly (even though it was the 3rd party vendors fault for their programs not working, Vista took the blame), and Microsoft underestimating the effect of negative perception about Microsoft in general and Vista due to the rocky start.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Very well written article...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Hansen said:


> It's a great OS and light years ahead of XP.


Can you please elaborate on this? I consider myself a "bleeding edge" guy and I wrestle with the idea of upgrading from XP SP3 every now and then, but still can't find a compelling reason to do so. What can I do with Vista that I can't do with XP as quickly... if not faster? /steve


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Certainly I consider it a failure from a corporate perspective but it's harmless enough for home use.


On most levels, yes. However, I found a shortcoming over the weekend that I didn't forsee. I use(d) the "Publish to the web" feature of XP quite a bit to get my photos on my personal website and found out that Microsoft decided to remove this feature from Vista. So now the new laptop I have that I bought to be my primary photo-editing and publishing machine is worthless on this front. I had to rearrange my entire website layout and publishing procedure over the weekend. There is a workaround that I found after a few hours of looking but it's clunky, involved editing the registry, and requires about 5 more mouseclicks per upload. It was a no go for me so I revamped it all. That wasn't fun. 

Thanks Microsoft! Thanks for getting me hooked on a feature and then yanking it out. Brilliant way to destroy customer satisfaction. :nono2:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> Can you please elaborate on this? I consider myself a "bleeding edge" guy and I wrestle with the idea of upgrading from XP SP3 every now and then, but still can't find a compelling reason to do so. What can I do with Vista that I can't do with XP as quickly... if not faster? /steve


So far the big benefit is that when browsing a folder that contains mixed videos and photos, they are both viewable using the same viewer app... meaning you can just arrow to the next thing without worrying if it's a photo or a video.

I also find the wireless networking better for home use.

However, I am incredibly annoyed by whatever they call that Data Execution Prevention or whatever that stops and asks you every time you want to launch a system app or change a program.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> However, I am incredibly annoyed by whatever they call that Data Execution Prevention or whatever that stops and asks you every time you want to launch a system app or change a program.


That's been one of my pet peeves, too... anyone figure out to how bypass it?


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Hansen said:


> It's a great OS and light years ahead of XP.


Could you please explain this comment. There are some cool things such as Aero, but I'm not seeing anything that's a must have.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> That's been one of my pet peeves, too... anyone figure out to how bypass it?


http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Thanks, Sir Shagg! I will give that one a try!


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Hansen said:


> .. I tried it out and then realized that XP was way outdated as an OS). ..


I sent Microsoft three dollars for the pre-release VISTA. I bought a new hard drive to test it; not risking my XP installation.

It didn't install on my 1.5 Ghz desktop until I went out to the local office supply store to buy more memory. When I finally got it working, my wireless mouse wouldn't work. My VISTA experience index was one out of ten. So I gave up on upgrading, put my XP hard drive back in and am still using XP today.

So, for my current usage, mostly Web Browsing and E-Mail it's really not miles ahead of (XP) or (Win2K) or (Win98).

Microsoft has the dumbest advertising. Take that 'Majave Experiment' nonsense for example. Those dumb computer illiterate people aren't who Microsoft has to convince. They're going to Best Buy when they think it's time for a new computer to buy one with VISTA installed and will be perfectly satisfied with it because the machine is configured at the factory to work.

Microsoft needs to convince those knowledgeable users who have untold time, effort and money invested in custom configured and smoothly operating XP systems/networks that spending hundreds of dollars per 'seat' (hate that term) for upgrades will return multiples of those expenditures in increased productivity.

When I build my next computer after the XP machine breaks, I'll certainly install VISTA or more probably Windows 7 but if Microsoft is arrogant enough to force me to subscribe or lock me out of support, I'll go Linux.

--- CHAS


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

There's the thing. Right now I have 20 computers that work adequately and no overriding reason to fuss with them. If I have to go to Vista on new hardware I will but I certainly won't upgrade the old stuff.


----------



## Jimmy 440 (Nov 17, 2007)

I got Vista on my new PC.I kind of like it.It seems to run much smoother than the XP.So far so good for me.I guess it takes some use to get familar with.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> That's been one of my pet peeves, too... anyone figure out to how bypass it?


That's one of the first things I needed to do to evaluate VISTA. Like adding annoying tasks to get your mission accomplished. Like your more secure if VISTA saves you from yourself. Like the 'Proverbial boy crying wolf.

How many 'Mojave' people will just live with this nonsense thinking that's the way it is?

--- CHAS


----------



## kocuba (Dec 29, 2006)

I'm currently running Vista on my work/development PC. I needed to switch to Vista because our application is run on laptops out in the field(1400+) and our vendor was going exclusively to Vista for the OS and we need to make sure that it didn't "break" anything. 

While I had a heck of a time getting my SW installed, VB6 SP3, .Net among others, and working, once User Account Control was turned off things have seemed alot easier. I've settled in and gotten used to the GUI and don't see any more or less problems then I had with XP. I'm quite happy with the performance I've got. But then again I can have 6-10 applications open at one time.

I agree with Hansen as to why this OS is failing. Not enough working with 3rd party vendors, rocky start, terrible PR is just killing this. While I don't know about "light years ahead of XP", it would be my OS of choice for my next home PC with out hesitation.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Good article. I wouldn't call Vista a failure. It just didn't meet marketplace expectations.

I must admit that Vista was one of the reasons why I switched to Mac. I kept having to throw hardware at my Vista machine to keep it running at a decent speed. 

It will be interested to see what Microsoft comes up with next. In the meantime my iMac and my Macbook are staying at least until Apple screws up.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

One of the big benefits for my company was the inclusion of Bitlocker. Needless to say we no longer needed to purchase a 3rd party program for encrypting our laptops and thus saved a lot of money. 

Personally, I found several reasons to upgrade and wouldn't go back to XP. I will say that all of my OS upgrades are also done with hardware updates at the same time. To me, it just seems like the way to go.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

There are many small things about Vista that I really like, many of which are small tweaks in Windows Explorer that make managing files much easier. Maybe I’m just lucky, but I also find it to be much more stable. I have a desktop where I run some fairly intensive programs, like Photoshop, Pinnacle Studio, Web Expression and the usual Office, Quicken, iTunes, etc. It hardly ever gets rebooted, as in less often than once a month, and mostly due to an update. My laptop is the same way. Although it’s mostly used for Office apps and Internet browsing, I sometimes use it for programming Pronto remotes, cell phone and OBDII automotive diagnostic software. I have Vista on both my daughter and granddaughter’s PC’s and they never have any issues. Probably my worst Vista experience was getting it to run on my desktop, but I had a bunch of the latest-greatest hardware (video card, video capture, RAID, etc.) and that was in the pre-release days.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Steve said:


> Can you please elaborate on this? I consider myself a "bleeding edge" guy and I wrestle with the idea of upgrading from XP SP3 every now and then, but still can't find a compelling reason to do so. What can I do with Vista that I can't do with XP as quickly... if not faster? /steve


Sure, of course, this is just my personal opinion based upon my experiences. Admittedly, an important thing for running Vista and having a good experience with it is having a system that is up to the task. The fact that Vista likes to run on newer hardware, higher memory, etc is perhaps one of the significant reasons public perception of Vista was negative. I suspect the same issues occured when folks tried to put XP on systems designed for the requirements of Windows 95 or 98...the systems just didn't run XP as well as XP could perform on new systems. (I have an older laptop that I wouldn't dare put Vista on and use XP on that laptop; I don't enjoy using that laptop as much as my other system). SP1 for Vista has also been a significant milestone to making Vista a better overall OS. In any event, here are some quicks thoughts (in no particular order) on the things that, in my opinon, make Vista (out of the box) better than XP (out of the box):

- better security
- 64 bit OS significantly more stable than 64 bit XP OS
- 64 bit OS is very fast (and can run 32 bit programs with no problem)
- Ability to run in prior Window versions compatability modes (XP, 2000, 98, 95) in an effort to utilize older software
- Aero interface put the graphics load on the GPU rather than taking away from the CPU
- bit locker encryption
- Adminstrative tools iimproved and administrative interface more logical
- Superfetch for memory
- Indexing for fast HD access
- Side bar
- Auto backup
- Automatically synchronizes files with same files on other computers on network
- Remote desktop
- Graphic user interface more appealing
- Stability

Those are some quick thoughts.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

I juat bought two laptops that run Vista, one runs 32 and the other runs 64.
My dektops is running XP.
I really like Vista over XP except for one issue; my three computers are networked and the two Vista laptops can see all three computers but my XP desktop doesn't see the two laptops. I talked with several people and they have all said that that is a problem with vista. For some reason Vista won't allow XP so see Vista computers.
If anyone has a solution I would appreciate the help.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Hansen said:


> - better security
> - 64 bit OS significantly more stable than 64 bit XP OS
> - 64 bit OS is very fast (and can run 32 bit programs with no problem)
> - Ability to run in prior Window versions compatability modes (XP, 2000, 98, 95) in an effort to utilize older software
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to list those features! Unfortunately for me, there's still no "killer app" in that list that will compel me to upgrade, even on my 2 dual core machines with 2 and 3 GB memory respectively and AGP video cards.

Looking at your list, security has never been an issue on my network, courtesy of Avira and Windows Defender doing their jobs so well. Search 4.0 takes care of my indexing (I understand it's identical to what's available in Vista). I believe I enjoy similar memory prefetch performance, courtesy of XP SP3... apps now appear to open instantaneously since that update, and stability is hardly an issue. My reboots are typically the result of Microsoft patches.

I run third-party auto-backup, sychronization and encryption utilities now, and I admit it would be nice to have them be part of the OS, but on their own, still not a compelling reason for me to switch.

I'm not a 64 bit user, so I can't comment performance of one OS vs. the other on those boxes, and backwards compatibility probably not an issue for XP users. 

As far as a sexier GUI, the first thing I do after an XP install is switch to "Classic" view. :lol:

So unless I need to run an app that only works in Vista, I guess I'll still wait for Windows 7, like many others who plan to do the same. But again, thanks for the thoughtful reply. /steve


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> Thanks for taking the time to list those features! Unfortunately for me, there's still no "killer app" in that list that will compel me to upgrade, even on my 2 dual core machines with 2 and 3 GB memory respectively and AGP video cards.
> 
> Looking at your list, security has never been an issue on my network, courtesy of Avira and Windows Defender doing their jobs so well. Search 4.0 takes care of my indexing (I understand it's identical to what's available in Vista). I believe I enjoy similar memory prefetch performance, courtesy of XP SP3... apps now appear to open instantaneously since that update, and stability is hardly an issue. My reboots are typically the result of Microsoft patches.
> 
> ...


For many of us hardware support by far makes Vista more attractive then any "killer" app. The fact it was all but impossible to utilize more then 3GB of memory on XP was really becoming a big problem for me. Yes, XP had a 64bit version, but it was so poorly supported it was almost impossible to use. With Vista, this is no longer a problem. As much as people complain about the lack of support, I have not seen it with newer hardware.

I guess for me a supported 64bit OS is the new "killer" feature.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I have gotten into so many very in depth battles about Vista and dont feel like going in depth here. All I will say is that I very much like Vista and think it is a MUCH better OS than XP. I use it on almost all my machines and once I got used to it, I absolutely love it and would not consider going back to XP for my full time machines.

Most of the reasons corporations are not switching are Lazy IT departments, bad coding practices, and custom implementations that were not done to industry standards. Going from XP to Vista is no big deal, even in a corporation. It is a big deal with all the custom apps and tweaks companies have done on XP that do not carry over cleanly to Vista. The same was true for companies upgrading from 95/98/2000, but the lifespans were so much shorter then (around 2 years) that no companies got totally involved as much and were more open to change. XPs long lifespan caused much of the industry to stall on XP IMO.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I am in no way a power computer user, but it seems that MS made UI changes just for the sake of making changes. The first time I used Vista it took me 15 minutes to figure out how to shut down. It took a while to find that little tick mark next to the padlock, or whatever it is called, to get to shut off. In the long run, and how I use a computers, Vista is confusing after using XP for years, and does not add anything for me.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> I juat bought two laptops that run Vista, one runs 32 and the other runs 64.
> My dektops is running XP.
> I really like Vista over XP except for one issue; my three computers are networked and the two Vista laptops can see all three computers but my XP desktop doesn't see the two laptops. I talked with several people and they have all said that that is a problem with vista. For some reason Vista won't allow XP so see Vista computers.
> If anyone has a solution I would appreciate the help.


Here are a few things to try. First, are you using any firewall or Internet security software on the Vista PC's? If so, you may need to go in and put your internal network IP addresses into the "safe" zone. Make sure your network is selected as "private" on the Vista machines. Also, try opening a Windows Explorer window and put two backslashes ( \\ ) followed the hostname or IP address of one of the Vista machines.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Oh, and our company (160+ users) has mostly switched to Vista. We converted our entire technical staff (IT and programmers) to it last year and now, all new PC’s are being configured with Vista. We do have one application (our accounting software) that’s not Vista-friendly, but it could be run on a terminal server or in a virtual machine and it only affects about 15 users. I still have XP on my office desktop, but only because my PC was the last of the upgrades before we switched.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> I juat bought two laptops that run Vista, one runs 32 and the other runs 64.
> My dektops is running XP.
> I really like Vista over XP except for one issue; my three computers are networked and the two Vista laptops can see all three computers but my XP desktop doesn't see the two laptops. I talked with several people and they have all said that that is a problem with vista. For some reason Vista won't allow XP so see Vista computers.
> If anyone has a solution I would appreciate the help.


Not sure if this will help but I recall reading something similar; I think but can't recall exactly that the solution involved making sure the XP and Vista boxes all had the same "workgroup" name in System Properties.

You might puruse some of the Vista support sites such as www.thevistaforums.com

EDIT: Here's another resource to help you. http://www.windvis.com/how-to-create-a-network-in-windows-vista


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

There is one feature that I love on Vista that is not in XP. The Volume Mixer. What it does is give you a read out of everything that is playing sounds and lets you choose the level for each application or mute a certain app if you so choose. With all the sounds coming from websites and advertisements, I use it almost daily. Its nice to silence everything but the TV or Music app you have running.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> There is one feature that I love on Vista that is not in XP. The Volume Mixer. What it does is give you a read out of everything that is playing sounds and lets you choose the level for each application or mute a certain app if you so choose. With all the sounds coming from websites and advertisements, I use it almost daily. Its nice to silence everything but the TV or Music app you have running.


IndieVolume is a similar application for XP, but it's not free. $25. /steve


----------



## Shardin (Nov 26, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> That's been one of my pet peeves, too... anyone figure out to how bypass it?


You can shut off UAC from the control panel

What is User Account Control?
In this articleWindows needs your permission to continue 
A program needs your permission to continue 
An unidentified program wants access to your computer 
This program has been blocked

User Account Control (UAC) is a feature in Windows that can help prevent unauthorized changes to your computer. UAC does this by asking you for permission or an administrator‌ password before performing actions that could potentially affect your computer's operation or that change settings that affect other users. When you see a UAC message, read it carefully, and then make sure the name of the action or program that's about to start is one that you intended to start.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmmm. Well, our (my wife's and mine) primary computers are Vista as is our laptop. Had to buy my wife a new computer and it had Vista. Same with the laptop. I feared the upgrade on mine (a DIY build). But I'd reached the point with XP on my machine that I would have had to reinstall the operating system anyway (or spend two solid weeks editing the regsitry). So I did a dual boot OS for awhile and then eliminated XP.

Once you get used to the idea that some gamer designed the menu system, as soon as you get to "level 12" you can make Vista run well and it's easy to live with. Of course, we have the hardware to make it work.

Oddly enough, I had one old favorite Win'98 piece of software that runs better under emulation in Vista then in XP and one that wouldn't run.

It's a good article though and I do have several other computers in the house still running on XP. And family members have jumped to Apple. Fortunately for me and them, I don't have to be remote customer support for their computer systems any more!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HIPAR said:


> Microsoft needs to convince those knowledgeable users who have untold time, effort and money invested in custom configured and smoothly operating XP systems/networks that spending hundreds of dollars per 'seat' (hate that term) for upgrades will return multiples of those expenditures in increased productivity.


It is abundantly clear that Microsoft views Windows users as backsides.

It is all about supporting the business partners as they are the ones that spend wads of money to keep porting their applications to the Windows development platform du jour.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm





Shardin said:


> You can shut off UAC from the control panel
> 
> What is User Account Control?
> In this articleWindows needs your permission to continue
> ...


Thanks to you both. I ended up using the msconfig method. Now I need to get rid of the darn Window Security Alert popup balloon telling me UAC is off in the system tray. :nono2: :lol:


----------



## Norm (Jul 18, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> Thanks to you both. I ended up using the msconfig method. Now I need to get rid of the darn Window Security Alert popup balloon telling me UAC is off in the system tray. :nono2: :lol:


In control panel/windows security center there is a option to turn off notifications."change the way security center alerts me"

BTW Put me in the group that prefers Vista over XP. I remember when XP came out alot of people were that same way to it vs 2000. I have not had any real issue with Vista and I have been using it since Nov of 2006 when the RTM came out, I will say this not having the right Hardware ie RAM, CPU etc can male Vista seem lile a piece of crap. My rule of thumb with MS products is whatever they say your need to run it double that at a minimum.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> I juat bought two laptops that run Vista, one runs 32 and the other runs 64.
> My dektops is running XP.
> I really like Vista over XP except for one issue; my three computers are networked and the two Vista laptops can see all three computers but my XP desktop doesn't see the two laptops. I talked with several people and they have all said that that is a problem with vista. For some reason Vista won't allow XP so see Vista computers.
> If anyone has a solution I would appreciate the help.


www.networkmagic.com


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Norm said:


> My rule of thumb with MS products is whatever they say your need to run it double that at a minimum.


Remember when Bill Gates told us that 640k of ram was more than anyone needed? :lol: /steve


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I have a couple of machines running Vista now and can't say I'm overly impressed or upset. It's a bit nicer in some ways than XP...and certainly a must if you want to run more than 2GB or RAM (64 bit version).

As for hardware requirements compared to a Mac...that's kind of a joke. I can build a nice machine that easily scores over 5 on the Vista scale (which is very solid performance) for well under $900. Not many Macs in that price range. No, I don't hate Macs...I've used them, but also find them as frustrating at times as any Microsoft product.

I think Microsoft knew they were going to have a very hard time selling Vista into corporate America...they had a hard time with XP and that was a major upgrade over Windows 3.1/95 that most were running (most corps skipped 98). Where Microsoft has problems is with Office. That package is the bulk of their revenue and it's getting very, very hard for corp IT departments to justify the cost and time.

One thing Microsoft should have fixed about Vista is the versions...There are too many and they don't always make sense. For instance Home Premium doesn't have fax capabilities? Do people not fax from home?

Should have been three versions.

Basic - stripped down package
Pro - All features except Media Center and Games
Ultimate - Everything.

Ahh well, in the end they've still sold close to 200 million copies of Vista...that's hardly a failure by any means.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Steve said:


> Remember when Bill Gates told us that 640k of ram was more than anyone needed? :lol: /steve


Here's a quote from a Newsweek interview with Bill. I've met him many times...he's a geek...no way he would say that. Ballmer maybe...but not Gates.

Gates talks

In his office on the Microsoft corporate campus in Redmond, Wash., Bill Gates took a few moments to reflect on the impact of the IBM PC. Here's the complete interview:

advertisement
Q. Did you ever say, as has been widely circulated on the Internet, "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody?"
No! That makes me so mad I can't believe it! Do you realize the pain the industry went through while the IBM PC was limited to 640K? The machine was going to be 512K at one point, and we kept pushing it up. I never said that statement-I said the opposite of that.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I'm an MCSE and I agree with Reason #5... 

When Vista came out it seems like people we really comfortable with XP. Lets face it after Windows 95 and 98 it was the best thing EVER, it was fast, stable and compatible (for the most part) with all of the hardware that people had. Sure you had to upgrade some software so when Vista came out XP was even more stable and more compatible with pretty much everything out there why would someone want to go through it all over again?

On the other hand companies are Very Slow to adopt new operating systems for many reasons but mostly the cost. It was said that Microsoft was practically giving away licenses to companies to encourage upgrading / adoption but even that wasn't enough motivation. The problem is that upgrading to Vista would almost certainly involve an upgrade in hardware and software and not to mention the man hours it would take to test and probably rewrite all of their a homegrown applications

The scary thing is that I might know one or maybe 2 people that have vista running on something. I know I don't and I have barely touched it in the whole time its been out. 

So the bottom line is that Windows XP was Microsoft's biggest enemy.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

:eek2:


Ken S said:


> Here's a quote from a Newsweek interview with Bill. I've met him many times...he's a geek...no way he would say that. Ballmer maybe...but not Gates.
> 
> Gates talks
> 
> ...


It's very possible he never said it, but if he did, it wouldn't surprise me if he denied saying it to US News. 

For those who never used DOS, just go to Start, Run, "command" and type "mem" at the c:\ prompt, to see what the designers were thinking at the time. Ahhh, the good old days of extended and expanded memory! :nono2:

/steve


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Here's a quote from a Newsweek interview with Bill. I've met him many times...he's a geek...no way he would say that. Ballmer maybe...but not Gates.
> 
> Gates talks
> 
> ...


The issue with this was in the chip architecture and not the O/S. The Intel processor used in the original IBM PC could not address any more than 1024K unless you used tricks like bank-swapping (a.k.a. expanded memory). When the 80286 came out, it could address 16MB. At that time, the O/S should have been rewritten to handle it, but if that was done, every software maker would have had to rewrite their code for the longer memory addresses. Unfortunately, the half-dozen major players in the PC software world at the time were not willing to do that.

MS and IBM were stuck with the "extended memory" model where programs had to switch the CPU into "protected mode" to use the longer addresses. The reality is that the CPU should have always been running in protected mode and all programs should have used the longer addresses. It wasn't until Windows 98 came along with a true protected mode, multi-threaded O/S that the problem was solved. Now, we have the whole 64-bit vs. 32-bit issue. It's deja-vu all over again.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Steve said:


> :eek2: It's very possible he never said it, but if he did, it wouldn't surprise me if he denied saying it to US News.
> 
> For those who never used DOS, just go to Start, Run, "command" and type "mem" at the c:\ prompt, to see what the designers were thinking at the time. Ahhh, the good old days of extended and expanded memory! :nono2:
> 
> /steve


Steve,

Honestly Gates saying that would be like someone in the CE program here saying...I can't see anyone ever needing more than 10 hours of DVR space. It's just not him...not even close.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Steve,
> 
> Honestly Gates saying that would be like someone in the CE program here saying...I can't see anyone ever needing more than 10 hours of DVR space. It's just not him...not even close.


Probably so. As Yogi said, "I really didn't say everything I said." It makes a great story, tho.  /steve


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

I tried Vista when it first came out and didn't care for it. I tried it again just before SP1 and found it to be fine on my newer hardware. It's a good OS. Is it perfect? No. But Apples aren't perfect either. It does what I want and so it is successful for me.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Capmeister said:


> But Apples aren't perfect either.


No.. But they sure are closer... :lol:

Sorry... Had to spam the thread...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> No.. But they sure are closer... :lol:


Ya. IMO, any of the good Linux/Unix distributions are superior alternative to Windows, but unfortunately the learning curve appears to be insurmountable for the average Joe. Kudos to Apple for making Unix "comprehensible" for the masses. /steve


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> Ya. IMO, any of the good Linux/Unix distributions are superior alternative to Windows, but unfortunately the learning curve appears to be insurmountable for the average Joe. Kudos to Apple for making Unix "comprehensible" for the masses. /steve


Unless you want to stream items around the house(speaking of majority of streaming boxes), install some popular apps(games more specifically), or upgrade to the latest and greates hardware....


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Have vista on a new laptop and xp on an older desktop. The confirmation screens popping up is quite an annoyance. It even comes up when you try to do something as simple as run defrag. What's up with that? I don't find it any more stable than XP ITRW. My kids manage to lock up the laptop about as often as the desktop (about once a week or so), so go figure. 

What I really hate is the latest version of office. The stupid toolbar does not even have all of the commands anymore. I have to spend time hunting for the particular command, then adding it to the ribbon or whatever. Also, when you move from menu to menu, it sticks at the last menu, so you have to click on the menu you want first -- I hate extra keystrokes. I'd much rather go back to the "classic" version of office.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> Unless you want to stream items around the house(speaking of majority of streaming boxes), install some popular apps(games more specifically), or upgrade to the latest and greates hardware....


But as you know, this is only the case because the Microsoft snowball was already halfway down the hill and already massive when those "other" OS's came about.  E.g., had John Sculley, then the Apple CEO after Jobs left the first time, licensed the MAC graphical OS to other hardware manufacturers around the same time that Microsoft introduced Windows 3.0, the world might look a little different right now. Of course then, we might be bashing Apple instead. :lol:

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> But as you know, this is only the case because the Microsoft snowball was already halfway down the hill and already massive when those "other" OS's came about.  E.g., had John Sculley, then the Apple CEO after Jobs left the first time, licensed the MAC graphical OS to other hardware manufacturers around the same time that Microsoft introduced Windows 3.0, the world might look a little different right now. Of course then, we might be bashing Apple instead. :lol:
> 
> Just my .02. /steve


Agreed. I'm a toy person in general so I don't really have a side...just whatever is new.


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

I like Vista but I think that Microsoft erred badly on how much computer was needed to run it. My old computer ran XP just fine but Vista was a real PIG! My new computer runs fine with Vista. Now I reccomend to anyone that asks. Do not install Vista on anything with less than a 2.4 GHz Dual Core processor with 2 GB of memory. If you run it on single core processors, you had better be pepared to look at that circular thingy for all eternity. I did have some compatibility problems but they were resolved by visiting the websites of the offending applications and receiving updates.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Funny how cheap the 2x2GB upgrade kits are now. Of course, you need a 64-bit operating system to take advantage of it.

The system I have is no slouch. Dual core 6600 (2x2.4GHz), 2GB of ram, a NVidia 8800GTS 320MB, and swappable drive bays. I installed XP Professional on one drive, and Vista Ultimate 64-Bit on the other. Guess which drive is good at collecting dust? Besides, where are the compelling applications that run in 64-bit mode? 

Please tell me, mister IT person, what compelling reason I should upgrade from XP to Vista? From what I can see, the XP has lower hardware requirements, and can run all the applications that I need to keep my enterprise running. If we switch over to Vista, that means retraining, plus possible application breakage, plus possible hardware incompatibilities which render perfectly good equipment useless. Oh, and BTW, my upper management has INSISTED that I keep my department costs lower this budget year. (Dunno why. In the grand scheme of things, I am considered an expense, not a revenue generator.) And, oh yeah, Windows 7 is coming out in 2009 or 2010. That might shake things up a bit. So, why should my company switch from a known good that keeps my productivity up to a possible situation with migraines?

I still find it amusing that the new computers from both AMD and Intel are perfectly capable of running 64-bit Windows. However, Windows 7 will be released in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. Why?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> No.. But they sure are closer... :lol:
> 
> Sorry... Had to spam the thread...


Spammer! :lol:


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Mark Holtz said:


> Funny how cheap the 2x2GB upgrade kits are now. Of course, you need a 64-bit operating system to take advantage of it.
> 
> The system I have is no slouch. Dual core 6600 (2x2.4GHz), 2GB of ram, a NVidia 8800GTS 320MB, and swappable drive bays. I installed XP Professional on one drive, and Vista Ultimate 64-Bit on the other. Guess which drive is good at collecting dust? Besides, where are the compelling applications that run in 64-bit mode?


I don't know of any...are there even any 64-bit applications out there for Windows?



Mark Holtz said:


> Please tell me, mister IT person, what compelling reason I should upgrade from XP to Vista? From what I can see, the XP has lower hardware requirements, and can run all the applications that I need to keep my enterprise running. If we switch over to Vista, that means retraining, plus possible application breakage, plus possible hardware incompatibilities which render perfectly good equipment useless. Oh, and BTW, my upper management has INSISTED that I keep my department costs lower this budget year. (Dunno why. In the grand scheme of things, I am considered an expense, not a revenue generator.) And, oh yeah, Windows 7 is coming out in 2009 or 2010. That might shake things up a bit. So, why should my company switch from a known good that keeps my productivity up to a possible situation with migraines?
> 
> I still find it amusing that the new computers from both AMD and Intel are perfectly capable of running 64-bit Windows. However, Windows 7 will be released in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. Why?


What is the current installed base? I know my company will not be swapping over anytime soon. And as you say, IT is overhead, not directly tied to profits, it is a draining tool to get the job done. Not like a wrench, you buy it once and you own it, no, like a lease of sorts, there's always some new hook to get the consumer to buy the next new feature. Blah!


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

smiddy said:


> I don't know of any...are there even any 64-bit applications out there for Windows?


I know that there is a 64-bit port of PrimoPDF, a forked build of Mozilla for 640bits, IE7 comes on both 32-bit and 64-bit versions on Vista, and there is a 64-bit port of MAME. But, no Office 2007 64 bit.


smiddy said:


> What is the current installed base? I know my company will not be swapping over anytime soon. And as you say, IT is overhead, not directly tied to profits, it is a draining tool to get the job done. Not like a wrench, you buy it once and you own it, no, like a lease of sorts, there's always some new hook to get the consumer to buy the next new feature. Blah!


The last "really really" big reason to upgrade your company's computers was for Y2K compliance. Then, the companies had no reason to upgrade because you amortize your computer expense over 3-5 years, and then make it last longer.

I worked for 14.5 years in a small machine shop. Our first drafting system ran AutoCAD on a 386-20, which worked fine for quite a while. There were faster solutions out that, but the boss resisted upgrading for YEARS. I was finally able to build a Pentium-166 box. You can do the calculations as to the amount of time between the new 386-20 and the new Pentium-166.


----------

