Will you use Vista or Switch to Linux?

[Asher]

If it is no longer manufactured and has been superseceded by newer, better technologies, it is obsolete.

It is more prone to failure because things such as harddrives are far more likely to crash when they're older than when they're newer.

Originally posted by laurentius
Is it just not possible to make a better OS than Win XP to run on my P-M 2.17 Ghz 1536 MB. Is every software engineer in MS as ****ed up as Asher to refer their to-be customers as "clowns"

I don't refer to my would-be customers as clowns unless they demonstrate such baffling behavior as you have.

You were stupid enough to buy a Dell Inspiron behemoth with a Pentium 4, and that didn't even last you a year IIRC. And now you're all upset that if you want the new OS you need new hardware.

Around the exact same time I made my purchase of a ThinkPad T40 and I still use it constantly to this day with no complaints.

Instead of being all up in arms that you can't install a state-of-the-art operating system on obsolete, deprecated hardware; perhaps you should use your time to make more sound purchasing decisions in the future to waste less of your money.

Am I ****ing supposed to take up 3000 eur loan every 3 years to buy a new laptop just to ****ing run the newest ****ty Windows. Thats just pathetic and insulting..

Windows XP is still supported, feel free to use that. I don't want MS wasting resources on making a far more restricted OS so everyone could theoretically switch (though most won't).

The idea is to take advantage of the new technologies and phase in the new operating system on new PCs. It is not meant to be something you'd put on your mom's Pentium III 800 or your older laptop.

FWIW, it would likely run absolutely fine on your laptop with the specs you've listed. Just don't expect to play lots of intense media applications on it (which is what MS is assuming with their specs).

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Asher

If it is no longer manufactured and has been superseceded by newer, better technologies, it is obsolete.

It is more prone to failure because things such as harddrives are far more likely to crash when they're older than when they're newer.

Bah, the current hardware is good enough to run for 10+ years on normal use without physically dying out. Some people still run C-64 without any problems. Todays hardware is just as good as tomorrow in this aspect.

Why is it pathetic and insulting? You were stupid enough to buy a Dell Inspiron behemoth, and that didn't even last you a year IIRC. And now you're all upset that if you want the new OS you need new hardware.

Whoa Mr. wiseass talking out from his ass again. I killed my laptop on my own thank you. There was no MS upgrade-fairy to spill that cognac on it, it was just me, drunk. Anyway this new "behemot" has been working splendidly and still pwns anything IBM/Lenovo can come up with in the same price segment.

Windows XP is still supported, feel free to use that. I don't want MS wasting resources on making a far more restricted OS so everyone could theoretically switch (though most won't).

The idea is to take advantage of the new technologies and phase in the new operating system on new PCs. It is not meant to be something you'd put on your mom's Pentium III 800 or your older laptop.


FWIW, it would likely run absolutely fine on your laptop with the specs you've listed. Just don't expect to play lots of intense media applications on it (which is what MS is assuming with their specs).

You and me both know that the idea is to keep the economy running by forcing consumers to buy newer hardware as to "run and take full advantage" of the latest crappy, unoptimized code MS comes up with. I can alredy play 1080 HD without any problems and play BF2 on a kilo-resolution while running WCG on backround. The software I cant run better be giving me orgasms before I see any need to switch. I just dont like that attitude you and MS represent. Its arrogant, self sufficient and categorically flawed.

[chequita guevara]

Who said it's an either or question? Why can't I use both LINUX and Windows, like I do now? I have a LAMP setup for practicing PHP and MySQL and a Windows box for everything else.

[Asher]

Originally posted by laurentius
Bah, the current hardware is good enough to run for 10+ years on normal use without physically dying out. Some people still run C-64 without any problems. Todays hardware is just as good as tomorrow in this aspect.

Older hardware is more prone to dying, just like old cars are more prone to dying. Please don't even try to argue this point.

Whoa Mr. wiseass talking out from his ass again. I killed my laptop on my own thank you. There was no MS upgrade-fairy to spill that cognac on it, it was just me, drunk. Anyway this new "behemot" has been working splendidly and still pwns anything IBM/Lenovo can come up with in the same price segment.

If I spilled cognac on my ThinkPad it'd likely be okay. It's designed to be resistant to spills -- the water actually funnels out through the vent and doesn't touch the electronics on the insides.

It's little things like that which is why ThinkPads are where it's at for laptops. They're the industry standard for quality, and after you go through a few more Dells, maybe you'll see the light.

You and me both know that the idea is to keep the economy running by forcing consumers to buy newer hardware as to "run and take full advantage" of the latest crappy, unoptimized code MS comes up with. I can alredy play 1080 HD without any problems and play BF2 on a kilo-resolution while running WCG on backround.

Then you don't need to upgrade your OS or hardware, do you?

Problem solved.

I just dont like that attitude you and MS represent. Its arrogant, self sufficient and categorically flawed.

If we had things your way, we'd design Windows Vista to work on 386s as well. I know people who use those still.

Since old hardware stops being produced, the market for that hardware's software continually shrinks. You're advocating MS cut corners and spend billions of dollars in additional R&D, service, and support costs to support a userbase who are less likely to buy the software in the first place (people with old hardware are not "early adopters" usually) and a userbase that will only continue to shrink.

That makes no sense from a business perspective (not cost effective) nor from a technology geek perspective (why should the current hardware users sacrifice standardized feature because some kid from Finland wants to run the newest OS on his old plastic Dell laptop that will die soon anyway?

[Asher]

Paul Thurrot has been running Windows Vista builds on a Pentium M 1.87GHz with 512MB RAM without issue...



I think some drama queens here should look at the real world before posting more.

[laurentius]

You know we two have different approach to these things. I believe that that the average 3.5 year update cycle of consumer PC and 3 year cycle on corporation level respectively is just too damn short. You dont see people changing cars every 3 years do you? In mobile phones 2.5 years might be okay but they cost about one third of average PC(1500 eur).

I do understand that the industrys got to keep running but are they so short of innovations that they got to keep innovating the wheel all over again every time just more heavier than the last time. Have the geniouses really been unable to come up with truely scalable system?

It seems like theres something wrong in the profounding philosophy of the OS developing industry. Instead of adding new features whenever the hardware allows them to be added from an economic point of view it would be more constructive to optimize the code(ala consoles) and design the new code to be run on todays more than sufficient hardware.

Nowadays the only rational reason for a hardware upgrade is a release of a new Game, MS Word, or a new version of Windows. Its really dead end from my point of view.

Oh and the amount of cognac spilled was a "huge" I doubt even your thinkpad would have survived such a flood of booze.

[Asher]

The problem here is you don't understand that there are two supported products: Windows XP and Windows Vista.

If MS were to stop supporting XP when Vista came out, you would be totally right.

But since they'll continue to support both, your argument simply holds no water. If you want the new state-of-the-art OS, you get new start-of-the-art hardware. Don't want to upgrade every "3 years"? Don't have to. Use XP for a while, and then whenever you get a new PC, you can upgrade to Vista.

Nobody is putting a gun to your head saying you gotta buy Vista for your existing computers the day it's released.

[laurentius]

I wasent aware of the fact they'll support the two. I really hope you are right about this . The point is that we've all seen what happened to Win98. Were on MS' mercy on when that same fate awaits XP.

Surely you agree that bloating software is in nobodys interest.

[Asher]

Originally posted by laurentius
I really hope you are right. The point is that we've all seen what happened to Win98. Were on MS' mercy on when that same fate awaits XP.

Windows 98 is still supported up through June 30, 2006 for all security issues and for phone support...

MS didn't even stop distributing Windows 98SE until sometime in 2003/2004.

Surely you agree that bloating software is in nobodys interest.

If the additions are useless, I agree.

[ixnay]

http://winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp

Here's a good site that breaks down all the different features in all the different versions.

Starter edition is third-world only

[Kaak]

What asher fails to mention is the version paul is running is a scaled down version. Also asher, Dell computers are sold over the phone and on the internet. 7 versions of windows presents a problem for both.

From the phone side, logistics are a huge concern at dell. How long does each call last, what percentage of inbound calls result in sales, etc etc.

This presents a problem in two ways. Firstly, calls are going to take longer. Right now, there are two windows choices, and it takes long enough to explain the differences between them to a customer who doesn't really listen and is going to be bitter later about not having all the features they want, which gives rise to the second problem. Returns.

Over the internet, the same thing happens. People are dumb and don't take the time to inform themselves about the different options, often just going for what costs the least, costs the most, or is in the middle, with out actually familiarizing themselves with the differences. Can you guess what happens then? Customer service calls, which cost Dell $, and returns, which cost dell more money.

So yeah, when dell is only paying a few bucks for windows now, home or pro, I think a cost benefit analysis would show that 7 versions of windows isn't worth it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kaak
What asher fails to mention is the version paul is running is a scaled down version. Also asher, Dell computers are sold over the phone and on the internet. 7 versions of windows presents a problem for both.

Dell doesn't have to sell all 7 if they don't want to...

And he's not running a "scaled down version", he's running the full thing. Windows Vista has 3 graphical modes, and he is running the most basic. The full-out avalon builds don't even have video hardware that can run it yet.

This presents a problem in two ways. Firstly, calls are going to take longer.

You need to think a bit more.

Dell doesn't have to sell all of the versions of Windows.

If they want to keep it simple, they can offer Home and Professional edition...or just Professional if they want...

[loinburger]

I'm trying to decide if I'm enough of a "technology influencer" to warrant shelling out the extra cash for the Ultimate edition. On the one hand, I'm a researcher. But on the other hand, I'm a very lazy and/or miserly researcher.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Will you use Vista or Switch to Linux?

Originally posted by Asher
Versus Linux with infinite different versions and zero standardizations?

Tee hee.

Is this FUD or an outright lie?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
If it is no longer manufactured and has been superseceded by newer, better technologies, it is obsolete.

By this definition anything you can buy from a retailer is obsolete.