Come on Microsoft, Your OS is worth half that still, sell the product at a reasonable price and more people will buy it instead of steal it.

Read this to enlighten yourself...

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.html

Vista is no more of a foward looking OS than XP was. XP was also hated because of it's "slowness" and "resource hogging". Yet now XP is so much loved. Shows how thin minded some humans really are...

hmm, I don't think I'd "upgrade" to vista even if it was free. Maybe if they pay me $300, I'd install it.

I don't understand all the moaning about Vista. I've been running it since day 1 and love it. I installed in on my old Toshiba notebook, a 1.5ghz single core centrino whith 1.25gb memory and Home Basic and Home Premium work just fine, better than XP pro on the same box and this old machine does not even carry a Vista logo on it. This all sounds to me like the same moaning and groaning we went through when XP first came out.

"Finally, an upgrade to Vista Home Premium is now $129, down from $159."

So basically what they're doing is pricing the Retail Upgrade versions very similar to the OEM versions, which is smart.

"If you look at the number of retail boxed copies sold, it's probably much less."

Well it certainly isn't more!....

As with every prior Windows release, the amount of Retail copies sold is in the neighbourhood of 5-10%.

"In fact, many PCs that are labeled "Vista Capable" or have Vista already installed are straining just to run the OS software."

The "Vista Capable" program is done now....and as I stated before time and time again, "Vista Capable" doesn't mean "Premium Ready" - that's a whole other sticker. The vast majority of computers sold now ship with Premium versions of Windows. It's pretty hard to find one that isn't anymore. Let's move on shall we.

i want to updgrade my computer from xp media center to xp professional instead. i want vista so i can play some vista exclusive games. but the worry that some of my other software won't be compatible with vista makes me say no thanks. besides, I only have a 7900 GTX. i dont have a DX10 card to enjoy vistas dx10 capabilities.

TRY A REAL OS: LINUX

You must be stupid or clueless to pay Microsoft for their 1980s Windows Vista OS (Yes, Vista is built on 1980s code). My Linux system never crashes (ever). It never needs to be rebooted (a real time-saver), and everything works like Windows except my favorite games. Did I mention the lack of viruses, spyware, and the creepy Microsoft/US Government connections?

Yeah internal emails surface to show there was in fact a screw customers and cash in campaign.

"The e-mails also illustrate how the company will try to avoid such issues in the next Windows release."

www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36254/144

Windows 7 AKA vienna is the answer to the next great OS.

You open beta purchasers have continued to line up defending this company. While they are sending internal email saying how bad overall that OS is.

Exactly why they are fast at work moving up the date of vieanna. You'll be whisked away into the next OS.

yeah 2 year max lifetime with no substantial improvements worth 199 to 599. I have yet to find anyone capable of naming 10 features of the 'OS' worth that money.

buhahahaha and you suckers that bought a 599 'billy boy' signature addition should be ashamed.

Please get some consumer backbone...

They should give all us "beta testers" our share of that price cut. We're the ones who had to put up with Vista until now...

Narg, I think the point that you miss on this one. Is that it's slower for no real reason.

The OS DOESN'T have substantial upgrades to justify the extra overhead.

So the comparison of 98se to xp. Is not the same as xp to vista.

As I stated to some of you. The fact that you skipped over win ME is the reason that you should skip vista.

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH THERE... THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING !!!! PLEASE STOP !!!

Windows 98 had software written for the processors of the time. It had a minor update called 98SE. This tightened the code up tremendously and fixed many outstanding error/problems.

Windows 98 prior to that was buggy and problematic.

XP came along and rectified many things also adding substantial upgrades. As an example previously gamers had to leave the windows environment "Speed". This was/is no longer the case.

XP had a tremendous amount of coding put into it and direct X so that we no longer needed a port back to DOS to play games.

Windows 98se was a 16/32bit os. XP was a 32bit os.

So having a comparison of a 16 bit app on both wouldn't give xp the advantage.

This differs between current testing of32 bit software tested on 32bit XP and then 32bit vista. This comparison on cpu extensive apps where areo has no bearing shouldn't be substantially worse.

As you can see I can name real reasons why the comparisons aren't the same.

Please show me the technical improvements that cause cpu processing to be slow. Start here

Read these two links, keeping in mind that XP64 is a re-write and was created while they was stripping longhorn down to vista.

www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/top10.mspx
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/benefit.mspx

Now please post 10 new features of the OS that is better in vista than XP64 that you honestly feel make it worth up to $399 to have.

Dulles,

You really need to get over yourself.

"Microsoft for their 1980s Windows Vista OS (Yes, Vista is built on 1980s code)."

Keep digging there. If you really want a history lesson, Lumox is based on Unix - a superior predecessor that was built in the 60's!

"new features of the OS that is better in vista than XP64 "

How about driver support for one. Another is the updated kernel with a much better scheduler and better patching security. Ultimately, software compatibility is still far better in Vista x64 than it is in XP x64. XP x64 is NOT anywhere close to what the original XP is, an anybody that says otherwise is smoking some mean shit.

"Read these two links, keeping in mind that XP64 is a re-write and was created while they was stripping longhorn down to vista."

XP x64 is taken from the Server 2003 SP1 x64 codebase, sorry to say. It isn't a new rewrite in any way.

"Windows 98se was a 16/32bit os. XP was a 32bit os."

Sorry but you're just wrong there. Windows 98 is a 32-bit OS. The fact that it includes a backwards-compatible DOS command prompt doesn't change that. It runs in 32-bit protected mode unless you use DOS drivers for CDROM, etc. or have incompatible hardware, in which it'll run in 16-bit compatibility mode (it requires a 386 or higher, which are all 32-bit processors). If you didn't notice, XP also has a 16-bit command prompt, at least in the 32-bit version, but that also doesn't make it a 16-bit operating system. There are several components that are still 16-bit for backwards compatibility. If you want an operating system that's not 16-bit, get an x64 version - they only support 64-bit and 32-bit software, but you still have that previous generation of compatibility - there's no escaping it.

it's more like a small cut. And it's only for the upgrades, not the full release.

The cheapest way to get Vista is to buy a new machine, which is something you should do every 3 to 5 years anyway. Any machine older than 3 years doesn't need to be running Vista anyway.

I'm amazed at how many so-called techies are scared stupid about Vista. Sad isn't it?

If you're a real tech, run 64-bit Vista. Oh but wait, then you'd end up really liking Vista, and what good would that do? HA!

I'd stay away from nVidia cards and Vista. Most folks that have issues with Vista are running nVidia. Not all do, but most that hate it were running nVidia cards and/or motherboards. I've attempted to build a few nVidia machines with Vista, and it's usually a poor result. Not sure why, but nVidia just can't seem to write a good driver for Vista. Intel and ATI have basically no problems at all that I've seen in about 50 machines I've built over the past year.

I don't need 10 reasons, just 1.

Vista 64-bit just runs better, period.

And there's a good reason too. Microsoft is requiring that all hardware and software makers create their stuff to be 64-bit compliant if they want the "made for Windows" logo on it. So many of them are falling in suit. This has created an extremely stable OS out of 64-bit Vista.

Google for it and you'll start to see a lot of articles stating this and other reasons why the 64-bit flavor of Vista is so much better. Run it for a month on AMD or Intel hardware (stay away from nVidia, there drivers aren't too good yet.) and you'll never switch back. 64-bit Vista just breaths and reacts to much better, but you won't know it unless you try it.

And, there are tricks to getting the 64-bit Vista for less, much less than $400. (almost 1/2 price...) I'll let you figure that one out...

lol, we just had a little 6 man lan at my house and 1 person had vista on their PC and had more problems than the rest of us. Vista just dosnt like to share was the biggest problem. I have a little samba server which we put all the demos we were playing on (yes, we are admitedly cheap, but we still have fun because we dont get to play often) and the only way we could get it to see the server was to type in the URL for the servername and user folder. We could not search the network for the computer, we could not browse the network for the server, we could not even IP the server with vista. with XP we could, and even the nut who had OSX on their PC was showing off that he could.
And besides that vista is still buggy. UT2K4 wouldnt load on his computer because when he got to disc 5 it would force his PC into a reboot. We finally dug up an old version on 2 discs and updated it to get him up and running, but that is just something that shouldnt happen. We wont even begin to mention what happened when he tried serving a game. It just dosnt work.
the rest of us on the other hand are all running computers between an old P4 2.8HT up to a core2duo and all with XP ran everything perfectly with it's relitively low overhead. Vist (or it's likely equally bloated sequel to come out in a year) just are too far ahead of the hardware. It isnt that they are inherantly bad OSs, because they work fine for day to day things (it's the best emulation of XP on a unix core with OSX features that I have ever seen), but they are just jumping the gun and giving us eyecandy that no expierenced computer user really cares about. Sure it could be nice, but that is where they should open it up to 3rd party sources like ObjectDock, 3DNA, and Litestep to do with as they please, and just stick to a good solid base system that simply works, and works well with others.

I use Vista (64bit) on a Intel Quad core and run UT2004 and UT3 with no problems, other than the bugs in the first shocking release of UT3. I'm not saying there are not problems, but with a tighter security model come then need to a deeper understanding of how to set these things up.

"we just had a little 6 man lan at my house..."

loser

You as well as others need to really learn what an OS is and supposed to do. It is for this reason that you have no choice but to buy EVERYTHING microfluff puts under your nose to take a sniff of.

It's like you people have cold and can't smell.

If they plop vista 2 on the roadmap you'd buy it. Why?? Because it's suppose to be the newest latest and greatest. If you don't know what the OS and a features of the OS then you can't evaluate it or make a sound decision on it. PERIOD!!!

DVD burning is many and the other forced purchased apps are the OS in your eyes. Open your eyes fanboys use the force... feel the fluff...

"just runs better, period."

I have an excellent idea because the last time I check the same company made both products. Why don't you ask the question "Why didn't you finish XP before moving on to next OS?"

It is reported to have a better feel. But it doesn't run better. Slower on CPU extensive apps.

Please write Toms hardware and other places and tell them all they are flat out wrong. And how your system and version of vista is different then what they tested. Please!

"Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP."

"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP."

www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.html#conclusion_ko_for_windows_vista

So do I believe Toms hardware testing as well as many other respectable sites or narg? hmmmm that's very tough let me think on it... LOL

oh what is that sound?, it is a tiny violin playing for enlighten's hurt feelings ... big bad Microsoft upset him with Vista wha wha. Go back to playing with your Steve Jobs doll and pounding on your perfectly running Mac with that awesome Leopard OS.. fan boys sheesh.

"Sorry but you're just wrong there. Windows 98 is a 32-bit OS."

"It runs in 32-bit protected mode unless you use DOS drivers for CDROM, etc. or have incompatible hardware, in which it'll run in 16-bit compatibility mode"

32 protected mode doesn't solely define the OS. First of all you're taking my words out of context. win 98 wasn't a true 32bit OS, it had key components remaining in 16 bit code. Just because the lowest level of services (kernal) was written 32 bit, doesn't make the entire OS true 32 bit. There are other services.

There was a win16 subsystem built into win 98. XP has the WOW system. MS gave guidance to 16 bit developers for future compatibility. So all 16 bit code is not handled equally by both OS's. Which is why I said running comparison on all 16 bit software would give the nod solely to XP.

"As shown in Figure 28.13, the lowest-level services provided by the Windows 98 Kernel are implemented as 32-bit code to ensure a high-performance core."

Pay careful attention to the next line young Jedi our you'll miss it:

"Most of the remaining 16-bit code consists of hand-tuned assembly language, delivering performance that rivals some 32-bit code used by other operating systems."

Oh yeah

"Figure 28.13 Windows 98 core services - Much of the window management code in the User components (small, fast functions) remains 16-bit, thus retaining application compatibility."

www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part6/wrkc29.mspx?mfr=true

Windows management code is not dos drivers for cdroms. It can be routines/function small enough where they deemed it not offering a substantial performance boost to be rewritten. This differs from saying all components having nothing to do with compatibility MUST BE WRITTEN IN 32 bit code.

Please learn what management code is, here are some examples of management code

msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa371400(VS.85).aspx

Don't confuse DLL and management code as being one in the same, because some drivers call functions

WinNet16
Winnet16.dll
WinSock.dll - 16 bit code for 16 bit Windows Sockets
Ws2thk.dll - 16 and 32 bit Windows Sockets Thunk
Msdlc.exe - has 16 bit code to handle 16 bit real mode DLC driver

Windows 98 continues to scan the [386Enh] section of System.ini at startup to check for virtualization drivers to ensure that they are loaded. Because 16 bit apps use INI files for their program settings, parameters, device drivers.

XP doesn't scan it's WOW emulation is very different. Which runs older non compliant 16 bit code differently. Which is why you could run a software compatibility check on XP and you couldn't on 98.

That's also why come old programs had to be run specifically in a compatibility mode window to work. And equally windows 98 couldn't handle some NT/2000 based apps.

I hope this helps, so that when you chose to correct someone else. You'll begin with "I think", "I could be wrong, but" or "I had thought", rather than the classic "You're wrong" stance.

And should you feel that both microfluff and I are still wrong then please post all of the non 32 bit code used and how it relates just there to run dos cdrom drivers etc. Should be real easy to pick out that small number out right?

LOL this is too funny... cause you guys are quick to post how negative I am after responding to obvious pure jerk...

Oh well same old routine for me I guess, I try to be civil then someone pisses me off...

A classic case of action re-action...

maclover - "Go back to playing with your Steve Jobs doll and pounding on your perfectly running Mac with that awesome Leopard OS.. fan boys sheesh"

Here just in case you're new here

Enlighten - "WTF - No'F'ingWay Dec 04, 2007 15:10"

"Simply because Vienna the better operating system. Falling in line with what longhorn was intended to be. Currently you ::cough:: ::cough:: OPEN BETA VISTA owners are our guinea pigs because fixes from vista are being duplicated into veinna. Drivers wows will be simpler because it will basically be a port from your open beta testers."


Enlighten - "To All Vista Owners Dec 05, 2007 10:52"

"Vienna AKA windows 7 is released in almost a year now. It will be a much better product, more stable and should offer more real system enhancements."


Enlighten - "Ask Yourself Dec 11, 2007 12:49"

"3) Vienna AKA windows 7 is released in almost a year now. It will be a much better product, more stable and should offer more real system enhancements."

www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35109/140

Enlighten - "To Jimmy Oct 24, 2007 14:58"

"I am a gamer and hope DX10 games as a whole come along as promised. But I can hold out on playing 1 to 2 games in DX10 for a year and a half (typo) until 2009 when I will get vienna that has DX10."

Hmmmmm just 4 of my many responses all clearly stating vienna, windows 7 aka vienna, vienna, vienna... Jerk...

Last time I checked that OS was still being made by microfluff. So unless you can post the link where I stated or suggested a non microfluff OS such as linux or Mac...

The floor is now yours, please take this time to prove who's the real Azz Hole And A HALF here

I'm firmly lead to believe that it's your hat to wear...

Signed
Sincerely Waiting Vienna Fanboy :-?

The reason I give you guys this exercise and the reason that you can't post 10 features of "The OS" that is better. I keep hoping a light or bell goes off in your head as you read the sales pitch that your fellow consumers are hit with from microfluff.

It's us consumers Vs those companies... Period !!!

You all line up and feebly try to defend a company that screws its customers over. You need to create, manufactuer, find or borrow some concumer back bone.

Look at this, you named: "How about driver support for one."

I don't have to use my words... I'll use your budy microfluff "You can move to 64-bit computing while still maintaining your existing investment in 32-bit software and Windows expertise."

www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/top10.mspx

Are you calling your buddies a liar? they clearly stated that I could maintain my 32-bit software through WOW64 emulation.

It seems to me that that WOW64 wasn't finish or needs a service pack... Again what does emulation mean?


Waethorn - "XP x64 is taken from the Server 2003 SP1 x64 codebase, sorry to say."

Ummmm ::: NEWS FLASH ::: Longhorn/vista was built on the same codebase OMG you guys are too funny. Please stop adding sniplets on things you don't understand.

That's why I said "keeping in mind that XP64 is a re-write and was created while they was stripping longhorn down to vista"

Or did you "purchase" longhorn server 2008 over a year ago? hahhahaa
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36247/144

More "Wanna Be Tech Savvy Guy" help
www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/roadmap.mspx#EWE

OMG I think you came to correct me about something... Hell at this point I need to re-read your post. Or NOT !!

Ummm definitely ONE OF THE TWO...

Waethorn - "It isn't a new rewrite in any way."

Ummmm using your logic non of these were written then XP 32 bit nor XP x64 or even longhorn/vista.

Because XP is built on an enhanced windows 2000 code base. And XP x64 and vista was built on the same 2003 server codebase. hahahaha and you said "sorry to say". (as if you didn't know that they released a a service pack SP2).

As if shame on XP x64 for using that poor old server 2003 codebase.

This is why you need to understand WHAT you are posting instead of simply snipping out of articles. Again vista was released and server 2008 clearly didn't proceed it...

(side note: The purchasers of server 2008 just released will have their product eclipsed quickly by windows server 7 the immediate successor)

And while we are on the subject, you need to know the difference between having a shared code base. And as you incorrectly called it "XP x64 is taken from".

That's difference is HUGE!!!

Re-using solid tested and proven modules/code does not mean parts of the application wasn't re-written. As an example if included a 64 bit version of solitaire that doesn't not mean it was taken from 2003 server codebase.

It's like a new game using the UT3 or quake3 engine. Is the game not new because it was built on an older engine?

narg - "XP was also hated because of it's "slowness" and "resource hogging""

I read that article I missed the part where they said XP was a resource hog. Please point that out... My eyes must be bad in my old age...

Secondly, I thought we was talking about home users. Windows 2000 wasn't the norm for home business.

Here is a study for you to compare home user testing comparisons. Pay particular attention to where win ME ranked in each test LOL

www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx


Thirdly, using your article please post the testing numbers. Just as I did up above

"Although differences between Windows XP and Windows 2000 can be measured in seconds, what business can afford to put a 20 percent or greater bite on worker productivity?"

With emphasis on the key word "business"...

Windows has for a long time stopped being a OS and as morphed in to a Application. Theres just way to much bloat and useless things in Windows Vista. The way there all piecemeal together it looks like every one had a little pet project and they were rubber stamped.

OK with that said and out of the way.

Makes you wonder why Microsoft would lower their price. If you were to walk in to a retail store like bestbuy and look for a full version of Windows XP you would pay $299, the same price you paid when Windows XP first came out. If it was any other program it would be selling for $19.99 or less by now.

The reason why in my option Microsoft is lowering the price is because Vista is not selling as well as Microsoft claims.

The reasons I feel that Windows Vista is not selling is because system manufactures are putting Vista in systems that can barely run it. With Windows Vista I would not suggest trying to run it with less then 2GB of RAM. But yet companies will sell systems with 1GB. The next reason why I feel that Windows Vista is not selling as well is because there are just to many different versions, and this confuses some new users. The next reason is that just because something says its "Windows Vista Capable" doesn't really mean a thing. I have heard of people buying printers that are supposed to work with Vista and don't or if they do with very limited functionally. The next is there are just some programs that run in Windows XP that will not run in Vista.

You actually spent the time looking up those past posts... Christ, get a damn hobby.

Also, you might consider proof reading your long and pointless rants... Just a thought.

8.3.13

so now, instead of a 300% margin it ONLY is 225%