Ulysses Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 God knows how many other programmes wont work when this service pack comes out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Well, when XP SP2 first arrived, there were many incompatible programs too. It's usually the fault of the program dev's who didn't stick to proper MS application guidelines, either because they were too lazy, wanted to make their prog more efficient and less compatible, needed to show of something really l33t their prog could do only in this 'incompatible' way, ... Usually, not always the dev's fault though. Anyway, generally all SP's are good news for most consumers/users (in the long run even for the admins :D ). I'm always relatively conservative when upgrading from a known working solution to a 'new and improved' version, even when it's a relatively minor upgrade. Being conservative, means you'll never risk running into unknown problems (being too conservative can be a bad thing though :D ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I'll be sticking with XP until these problems are resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Microsoft are taking the p**s now... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7334123.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vystral Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I installed Vista SP1 a couple of weeks ago and the experience has been very positive. I have had absolutely no driver issues and all of my programs still work. I would say that reports of SP1 breaking Windows are largely exaggerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 Is it fast though? It has to be for many people to make the jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayden Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 I think this situation is exactly the same as the 98SE - Xp crossover.. People kept knocking it until finally, they ironed out the bulk of the problems.. I'd then hypothesise the same would occur in this situation. Unless the new OS windows intends to release comes out as early as they anticipate and is just totally amazing.. Then Vista would be a gigantic flop like ME. Nice paint job, nothing under the hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Wow, you're making some very strange statements there. From what you say, I conclude that the length of time between operating system releases is directly proportional to the success of the OS. I'd strongly beg to differ on that one. As with a few other things you mentioned (take win 2k for example). XP was a better OS right from the start compared to 98SE, XP was better at everything except one thing: speed. Since XP was more complex (I'm talking the difference between a house and skyscraper here), it was a bit slower. What I would agree with, is if you had said, people kept knocking on XP compared to win 2k. At least then they'd have a reason to complain about, since XP is basically to win2k what Vista is to XP. For any pc enthousiast on windows, there never really was a 98SE -> XP crossover, since we all had switched to win2k by that time (at least all the ones I personally know ^^). As for Vista, it really isn't that much more complex than XP. (neither is XP that much more complex than win2k) In terms of "the old skool os'es", Vista is to XP, more like ME was to 98SE, but much more extensive and properly done. And in terms of housing, you could say: 98: small house 98SE: normal house ME: largish house with a leaking roof 2K: 300ft skyscraper XP: 350ft skyscraper XP SP2: 400ft skyscraper Vista: 450ft skyscraper with elevators that occasionally jam Vista SP1: 450ft skyscraper with working elevators ^^ I think MS has come to see that releasing SP's with major new features is bad for their business (less OS'es sold over time). So they'll probably reduce the amount of major new features in SP's from now on and focus on smaller features and integration of fixes. While at the same time getting 'new' OS'es out more quickly. A major step, like from 98 to 2k, is unlikely to happen again in the near future of MS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Wow, you're making some very strange statements there. From what you say, I conclude that the length of time between operating system releases is directly proportional to the success of the OS. I'd strongly beg to differ on that one. As with a few other things you mentioned (take win 2k for example). XP was a better OS right from the start compared to 98SE, XP was better at everything except one thing: speed. Since XP was more complex (I'm talking the difference between a house and skyscraper here), it was a bit slower. What I would agree with, is if you had said, people kept knocking on XP compared to win 2k. At least then they'd have a reason to complain about, since XP is basically to win2k what Vista is to XP. For any pc enthousiast on windows, there never really was a 98SE -> XP crossover, since we all had switched to win2k by that time (at least all the ones I personally know ^^). As for Vista, it really isn't that much more complex than XP. (neither is XP that much more complex than win2k) In terms of "the old skool os'es", Vista is to XP, more like ME was to 98SE, but much more extensive and properly done. And in terms of housing, you could say: 98: small house 98SE: normal house ME: largish house with a leaking roof 2K: 300ft skyscraper XP: 350ft skyscraper XP SP2: 400ft skyscraper Vista: 450ft skyscraper with elevators that occasionally jam Vista SP1: 450ft skyscraper with working elevators ^^ I think MS has come to see that releasing SP's with major new features is bad for their business (less OS'es sold over time). So they'll probably reduce the amount of major new features in SP's from now on and focus on smaller features and integration of fixes. While at the same time getting 'new' OS'es out more quickly. A major step, like from 98 to 2k, is unlikely to happen again in the near future of MS. I loved your interpretation of Windows OS's. :P I personally havn't seen SP1 for vista yet, but for Vista.. If you wish to have it looking nice its a enormous eyesore in RAM consumption. However you did mention that one of the biggest complaints people had with the 98SE --> Xp was the speed difference.. You can only expect the same thing i suppose, all new computers will have 4gb ram pretty soon and that wont be so much of a problem. What annoys me most is the excess security settings for vista and the fact that someone with little knowhow on a computer would find this very frustrating to get around.. (I get this from my limited use of Vista, so don't hold me to it.) ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 The right OS allows me to do what I want on it without constant interruptions "are you sure you want to do that?" or worse "security, cancel or allow?" or on XP the infamous popup blocker when I click on the link myself. The popup blocker is supposed to protect against popups, not windows I open! If Vista takes the XP "security" features to the extreme than it will be sometime before I get it. I liked win98 because it was fast. XP has always bothered me because of its speed issues. That's what MS should have been doing these past 6 years or so, making computers faster and less resource-consuming while keeping the good stuff. As Q said, "Instead of using the past 7 years to learn and to grow, you have squandered them." Q, TNG season 7, "All Good Things..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now