StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Isn't Vista just a stop gap for the next Windows OS that is due to come out next year? Or is my info out of date? If it is true I'll probably wait out until next year.

Question. Is Vista an all new OS or just an upgraded OS like ME was to 98?

In a sense, it's just an upgraded OS from NT 3. They have significantly reworked the kernel and driver model to increase stability and reduce security problems. Windows 7 (currently scheduled to come out next year (hah!)) is merely going to be an upgraded version of Vista.

Enigma wrote:Isn't Vista just a stop gap for the next Windows OS that is due to come out next year? Or is my info out of date? If it is true I'll probably wait out until next year.

People are thinking that MS is aiming for a 2010 release. So going by past release dates of their consumer O/S products, you can expect to have the next version of Windows on your desktop sometime around 2011-2012.


EDIT: Although looks like Tom's Hardware is mentioning an RTM date of somewhere in late 2009.

General Zod wrote:

Lazarus wrote:What annoys me, as a happy Vista user who has experienced no problems whatsoever, is that I hear people going on about how 'Vista sux!' etc, when they're not really sure why it sucks, just that lots of people are saying it does. Just today, I had someone look at me aghast for being a happy Vista user; apparently they weren't aware that if you have a high-end computer you can in fact experience no problems whatsoever.

Ahem.

Then there’s Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring “Windows Vista Capable” logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favorite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: “I personally got burned.” His new laptop — logo or no logo — lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favorite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. “I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine,” he says.

Remind me again what kind of low-end laptop goes for $2,100? Unless you're seriously suggesting that people should have to have top of the line hardware to run programs the last generation OS could do with ease on the exact same hardware.

It had a big fat sticker on it saying "Designed for Windows XP." Like I said before, my computer meets the min specs to run Crysis. In fact, my computer meets the recommended specs for Crysis. That doesn't change the fact that no judge in the world would allow a class action lawsuit against Crytek because "I can't turn the Shinies up all the way." No one needs to have the Shinies up all the way to use it, so my computer does meet the minimum specs for it. But since the lawsuit was against Microsoft, the entire internet is going to bend over backwards to make shit up about what's wrong with Vista.

I also question the intelligence of anyone who wants to use Windows Movie Maker.

Dominus Atheos wrote: It had a big fat sticker on it saying "Designed for Windows XP." Like I said before, my computer meets the min specs to run Crysis. In fact, my computer meets the recommended specs for Crysis. That doesn't change the fact that no judge in the world would allow a class action lawsuit against Crytek because "I can't turn the Shinies up all the way." No one needs to have the Shinies up all the way to use it, so my computer does meet the minimum specs for it. But since the lawsuit was against Microsoft, the entire internet is going to bend over backwards to make shit up about what's wrong with Vista.

Thanks for missing my point. Moron boy above was claiming anything sufficiently high end could run Vista just fine. A laptop that costs $2,100 isn't exactly low-end hardware.

Dominus Atheos wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Lazarus wrote:What annoys me, as a happy Vista user who has experienced no problems whatsoever, is that I hear people going on about how 'Vista sux!' etc, when they're not really sure why it sucks, just that lots of people are saying it does. Just today, I had someone look at me aghast for being a happy Vista user; apparently they weren't aware that if you have a high-end computer you can in fact experience no problems whatsoever.

Ahem.

Then there’s Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring “Windows Vista Capable” logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favorite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: “I personally got burned.” His new laptop — logo or no logo — lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favorite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. “I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine,” he says.

Remind me again what kind of low-end laptop goes for $2,100? Unless you're seriously suggesting that people should have to have top of the line hardware to run programs the last generation OS could do with ease on the exact same hardware.

It had a big fat sticker on it saying "Designed for Windows XP." Like I said before, my computer meets the min specs to run Crysis. In fact, my computer meets the recommended specs for Crysis. That doesn't change the fact that no judge in the world would allow a class action lawsuit against Crytek because "I can't turn the Shinies up all the way." No one needs to have the Shinies up all the way to use it, so my computer does meet the minimum specs for it. But since the lawsuit was against Microsoft, the entire internet is going to bend over backwards to make shit up about what's wrong with Vista.

I also question the intelligence of anyone who wants to use Windows Movie Maker.

I think it's pretty damn obvious that you don't expect enough from your hardware/software.

If you're not supposed to be able to "turn the shinies up all the way", how the fuck high are you, if you have the "recommended specs"?

Molyneux wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote:

General Zod wrote: Ahem.
Remind me again what kind of low-end laptop goes for $2,100? Unless you're seriously suggesting that people should have to have top of the line hardware to run programs the last generation OS could do with ease on the exact same hardware.

It had a big fat sticker on it saying "Designed for Windows XP." Like I said before, my computer meets the min specs to run Crysis. In fact, my computer meets the recommended specs for Crysis. That doesn't change the fact that no judge in the world would allow a class action lawsuit against Crytek because "I can't turn the Shinies up all the way." No one needs to have the Shinies up all the way to use it, so my computer does meet the minimum specs for it. But since the lawsuit was against Microsoft, the entire internet is going to bend over backwards to make shit up about what's wrong with Vista.

I also question the intelligence of anyone who wants to use Windows Movie Maker.

I think it's pretty damn obvious that you don't expect enough from your hardware/software.

If you're not supposed to be able to "turn the shinies up all the way", how the fuck high are you, if you have the "recommended specs"?

Then clearly what we should do is launch a class action lawsuit against Crytek. Because I payed them $50 for a piece of software only because the box said my computer would be able to run the thing. Except when I got home and tried to play it, my computer wouldn't run all the super advanced features that Crysis could do. I don't know about you but I'm super ticked that I'm not getting the "full Crysis experience" that I was promised. What Crytek should have done is better advertise that the more advanced features would only work on better computers. (hint: they did)

So will you join me in my class action lawsuit?

Dominus Atheos wrote: Then clearly what we should do is launch a class action lawsuit against Crytek. Because I payed them $50 for a piece of software only because the box said my computer would be able to run the thing. Except when I got home and tried to play it, my computer wouldn't run all the super advanced features that Crysis could do. I don't know about you but I'm super ticked that I'm not getting the "full Crysis experience" that I was promised. What Crytek should have done is better advertise that the more advanced features would only work on better computers. (hint: they did)

So will you join me in my class action lawsuit?

Stop being a fucking moron. My post had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Since when did 'recommended' mean 'maximum settings'? Sure, it's lame that MS 'certified' systems with Vista that couldn't use all the crazy animation etc, but that's quite separate from the difference between 'recommended' and 'zomg wtf max settings 60fps'.

For what it's worth, I've seen plenty of not-US$2000 laptops run Vista just fine, and it had enough of the shiny crap to look like my desktop. I'm not sure it had the awful 'transparent window headers' thing, but I'd say that's actually a benefit.

General Zod wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote: Then clearly what we should do is launch a class action lawsuit against Crytek. Because I payed them $50 for a piece of software only because the box said my computer would be able to run the thing. Except when I got home and tried to play it, my computer wouldn't run all the super advanced features that Crysis could do. I don't know about you but I'm super ticked that I'm not getting the "full Crysis experience" that I was promised. What Crytek should have done is better advertise that the more advanced features would only work on better computers. (hint: they did)

So will you join me in my class action lawsuit?

Stop being a fucking moron. My post had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Just a guess, but that could be the reason why I wasn't responding to you. Because you're right, I did misunderstand your point. I thought that was a criticism of Windows Vista, not just a minor nitpick against one members post.

Dominus Atheos wrote:
Just a guess, but that could be the reason why I wasn't responding to you. Because you're right, I did misunderstand your point. I thought that was a criticism of Windows Vista, not just a minor nitpick against one members post.

His entire point was that Vista worked good as long as you had high-end hardware. Wanking about his own 'awesome machine' was stupid when this clearly isn't the case at all, so it's hardly a minor nitpick.

General Zod wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote:
Just a guess, but that could be the reason why I wasn't responding to you. Because you're right, I did misunderstand your point. I thought that was a criticism of Windows Vista, not just a minor nitpick against one members post.

His entire point was that Vista worked good as long as you had high-end hardware. Wanking about his own 'awesome machine' was stupid when this clearly isn't the case at all, so it's hardly a minor nitpick.

Whatever. Do you support the idea of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft over minimum specs for Aeroglass or not? Because I'll gladly debate you on whether or not Mike Nash is an idiot or not, but if not, shut the fuck up and stop replying to me like you want to debate.

Dominus Atheos wrote: Whatever. Do you support the idea of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft over minimum specs for Aeroglass or not? Because I'll gladly debate you on whether or not Mike Nash is an idiot or not, but if not, shut the fuck up and stop replying to me like you want to debate.

I don't really give a shit about the lawsuit, but don't try pretending I'm the one who started this. You responded to my point against someone else, dumbass.

Also, just why are there so many people who are unhappy about not being able to use Vista when it's the worst OS in the history of the world, and works worse then a piece of dog shit I scrape off my shoe and slop on my motherboard? I mean, I keep hearing about how it's so riddled with DRM that it actually affects system performance, and how it's too secure. When a program tries to install, Vista stops it and asks you if you want t continue![/url] How dare an operating system not let things install without my permission.

I would assume all these people would be thrilled that their computers are designed for Windows XP.

General Zod wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote: Whatever. Do you support the idea of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft over minimum specs for Aeroglass or not? Because I'll gladly debate you on whether or not Mike Nash is an idiot or not, but if not, shut the fuck up and stop replying to me like you want to debate.

I don't really give a shit about the lawsuit, but don't try pretending I'm the one who started this. You responded to my point against someone else, dumbass.

Yes I did, because I assumed you were making the same criticism against Vista the the retards in the OP are suing over.

Stark wrote:Since when did 'recommended' mean 'maximum settings'? Sure, it's lame that MS 'certified' systems with Vista that couldn't use all the crazy animation etc, but that's quite separate from the difference between 'recommended' and 'zomg wtf max settings 60fps'.

For what it's worth, I've seen plenty of not-US$2000 laptops run Vista just fine, and it had enough of the shiny crap to look like my desktop. I'm not sure it had the awful 'transparent window headers' thing, but I'd say that's actually a benefit.

I remember a lot of games used to have three specifications settings, the Minimum, Recommended and setting for max detail, so it's not unreasonable for Vista to have the same.

I'm running Vista on my £400 laptop fine and my Dell Inspiron desktop and on both machines it runs great. I must admit I was a bit wary of Vista as I'd heard so many scare stories about it, and while it may not be perfect I find nothing wrong with it, at least for what I use my machines for.