Well should we be suprised? I wanted to say something about Microsoft, but it doesnt suprise me that they would do something like this. I think its a stupid move and its just gonna add addtional costs to the end user, but hey, thats MS's favorite thing to do

I wonder why.. it was a pretty cool idea I guess.

Most likely because no one was using it.

KreijMost likely because no one was using it.

thats true, but its not like it was costing them much to keep it available for those that have or will use it

Well, they would have to make sure that the downloadable upgrades were up to date.
I am sure there was some measure of support they had to do to keep it current.

I think Vista in general is not gonna be around for too much longer... there's a large consensus that its inferior in many ways to XP, and MS is already talking about Windows 7 - it just seems like theyr redistributing resources from vista to 7.

Wishful thinking Xp will be gone before Vista does how much more older is xp its getting towards its use by date.

windows 95, 98, me, 98se, 2000.

People are forgetting we used to have 2-3 years between OS's, XP was abnormal.
Windows 7 coming out means nothing, its just MS getting back on track.

98 (se) was similar to XP in the way that it had a good long run as the flagship consumer OS and was only really replaced by XP. ME was basically a re-dressed and bloated version of 98 SE, at the risk of beating a dead horse, this is similar to Vista. I think windows 7 is the true XP/XP64 replacement.

vista > xp, people just need to stop bitching about hdd space and ram used by vista.

department76vista > xp, people just need to stop bitching about hdd space and ram used by vista.

i agree, but it will never happen.

Everybody said the same thing about XP for the first 2 years.

What!?!? XP was actually faster than 98 SE... where as ME was not... the comparison isnt about the ram space or hdd space, I got my quad running at 3.66 GHz and 4GB of ram under vista 64... trust me its not about ram. Its the actual design of the software (DRM, random hard drive thrashing, much slower hard drive access, larger hard drive latency, slower network performance, huge amounts of background software that runs even though no one ever uses them)... what people need to stop is bitching about other people bitching. Why do you think windows 7 (modular, and light-weight) software design is absolutely the opposite of the vista one?

phanbueyWhat!?!? XP was actually faster than 98 SE... where as ME was not... the comparison isnt about the ram space or hdd space, I got my quad running at 3.66 GHz and 4GB of ram under vista 64... trust me its not about ram. Its the actual design of the software (DRM, random hard drive thrashing, much slower hard drive access, larger hard drive latency, slower network performance, huge amounts of background software that runs even though no one ever uses them)... what people need to stop is bitching about other people bitching. Why do you think windows 7 (modular, and light-weight) software design is absolutely the opposite of the vista one?

some people just need to complain. I have used it for a year on a very very similar system to yours, and I have not had one of the issues that you complain about. Yes they are documented problems,but only experienced by a fraction of people. This isnt the forum to debate this, theres plenty of others out there for that so lets take this there

phanbuey98 (se) was similar to XP in the way that it had a good long run as the flagship consumer OS and was only really replaced by XP. ME was basically a re-dressed and bloated version of 98 SE, at the risk of beating a dead horse, this is similar to Vista. I think windows 7 is the true XP/XP64 replacement.

me came out before 98se - 98se was released because no one was going to ME. It was essentially 98 with me's driver model.

asb2106some people just need to complain. I have used it for a year on a very very similar system to yours, and I have not had one of the issues that you complain about. Yes they are documented problems,but only experienced by a fraction of people. This isnt the forum to debate this, theres plenty of others out there for that so lets take this there

I too have none of those problems. I turn off UAC and the sidebar, and thats about it.

phanbueyWhat!?!? XP was actually faster than 98 SE... where as ME was not... the comparison isnt about the ram space or hdd space, I got my quad running at 3.66 GHz and 4GB of ram under vista 64... trust me its not about ram. Its the actual design of the software (DRM, random hard drive thrashing, much slower hard drive access, larger hard drive latency, slower network performance, huge amounts of background software that runs even though no one ever uses them)... what people need to stop is bitching about other people bitching. Why do you think windows 7 (modular, and light-weight) software design is absolutely the opposite of the vista one?

Mate - you should really take some time to find out more on how Vista actually works before you continue the debate. Im quite happy to bitch about uninformed and inaccurate bitching.

bundyrum&cokeMate - you should really take some time to find out more on how Vista actually works before you continue the debate. Im quite happy to bitch about uninformed and inaccurate bitching.

Hey... benchmarks don't lie is all im saying... also the development of windows 7 in such rapid succession says something too (who heard of Longhorn one year after Whistler was released?). Now their big "update to a new/different version" through our "Anytime Upgrade" is getting dumped.

www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html - here ya go mate (this is so overquoted).
gizmodo.com/337768/battlemodo-windows-vista-service-pack-1-rc1-vs-shipping-vista

ok ok... im done whining.

Musselsme came out before 98se - 98se was released because no one was going to ME. It was essentially 98 with me's driver model.



I too have none of those problems. I turn off UAC and the sidebar, and thats about it.

98se was launched in 1999, ME was launched in May 2000. 98se was launched to fix some 98gold issues and add some new features.

phanbueyI think Vista in general is not gonna be around for too much longer... there's a large consensus that its inferior in many ways to XP, and MS is already talking about Windows 7 - it just seems like theyr redistributing resources from vista to 7.

I think your ridiculous. Windows 7??? They may be talking about it, but I can assure you that 98 percent of Microsoft's efforts are into getting Vista to work great.

Vista is here to stay. People need to stop bashing Vista.

All operating systems have issues. As they age, they become more and more stable.

Hmm...you really think Microsoft will say, "Oh lets just stop making Vista because some people hate it."???

Do you know how long they have been working on Vista? Do you know how much money they have spent to make Vista?

Don't just post nonsense.

phanbueyHey... benchmarks don't lie is all im saying... also the development of windows 7 in such rapid succession says something too (who heard of Longhorn one year after Whistler was released?). Now their big "update to a new/different version" through our "Anytime Upgrade" is getting dumped.

www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html - here ya go mate (this is so overquoted).
gizmodo.com/337768/battlemodo-windows-vista-service-pack-1-rc1-vs-shipping-vista

ok ok... im done whining.

99% of your argument resides on an article written over a year ago. Most of the performance penalties from using Vista have been resolved through updated drivers. I've been using both Vista and XP, and between them I don't notice any differences in performance. I for one don't sit there with a stop watch whenever I'm working on my computer, I care about how well the OS works for me. That's why I've gradually ended up ditching XP and going to Vista and Ubuntu. If you like whining about change so much, I'm not really sure why you enjoy computers.

FatForester99% of your argument resides on an article written over a year ago. Most of the performance penalties from using Vista have been resolved through updated drivers. I've been using both Vista and XP, and between them I don't notice any differences in performance. I for one don't sit there with a stop watch whenever I'm working on my computer, I care about how well the OS works for me. That's why I've gradually ended up ditching XP and going to Vista and Ubuntu.

AND AND

All those programs were made for XP, most of them run fine on Vista but they were not optimized for Vista. None of those benches suprised me, infact I would say Vista did better than I thought it would.

FatForesterIf you like whining about change so much, I'm not really sure why you enjoy computers.

So true

Thats one thing that annoys me is ppl goin on about vista makin it out as its supa slower than xp. It was at the start of its life but through windows update theres no difference to anyone but xp fanbois.

TripriftThats one thing that annoys me is ppl goin on about vista makin it out as its supa slower than xp. It was at the start of its life but through windows update theres no difference to anyone but xp fanbois.

thats right, and its funny, we could go defend vista over and over but it will never change. Vista has fixed just about every documented problem and people still disregard it because of the problems it had. I say whatever, I love vista and I have grown to not like XP. If you have enough hardware, which isnt hard these days, Vista runs great. On all 3 of my laptops and both of my desktops and my server, I use Vista. My second desktop and server used to run XP but last month I upgraded, I really like the FTP access that I could merge really easily with my home network. All in all - no complaints. And even though I never used the Anytime Online Upgrade I wish they were leaving it up, just incase I ever did need to use it. whether it be for myself or for a customer

"Do you know how long they have been working on Vista? Do you know how much money they have spent to make Vista?"
-this is called a "sunk cost":wtf:... It doesnt matter how much money they spent on it, if its not selling, the amount of money they spent will not influence their decision for the future at all. Guaranteed.

For the record: I did NOT mean to BASH vista. If thats what you got out of it than im terribly sorry...I install vista x64 in all my current builds, it performs fine, but there is always a feeling that it is not as good as i would hoped it would be, especially after all the hype - that is an "OPINION" not a "BASH". Product performance is based on how the product performs VS the expectations held for that product. In which case, i think even MS would say that they had hoped for a better reception. Its NOT a personal attack against you. If i am wrong, then post some reasoning as to why - hell, im still learning.

You can be hostile, and you can cuddle with your copy of vista tonight, and give it a little kiss for me, and apologize for me for making it and you so upset... and maybe microsoft listens to all the bitching people and issues service packs with fixes based on all the bitching. In which case you need to be thankful to all the bitchy "target consumer" people who express the need for change. Yeah its gotten better, and yes i use it... but I still want more speed, and i complain that its too slow. If that upsets you, then you're too sensitive and thats a portrait of you in my avatar.

phanbuey"Do you know how long they have been working on Vista? Do you know how much money they have spent to make Vista?"
-this is called a "sunk cost":wtf:... It doesnt matter how much money they spent on it, if its not selling, the amount of money they spent will not influence their decision for the future at all. Guaranteed.

For the record: I did NOT mean to BASH vista. If thats what you got out of it than im terribly sorry...I install vista x64 in all my current builds, it performs fine, but there is always a feeling that it is not as good as i would hoped it would be, especially after all the hype - that is an "OPINION" not a "BASH". Product performance is based on how the product performs VS the expectations held for that product. In which case, i think even MS would say that they had hoped for a better reception. Its NOT a personal attack against you. If i am wrong, then post some reasoning as to why - hell, im still learning.

You can be hostile, and you can cuddle with your copy of vista tonight, and give it a little kiss for me, and apologize for me for making it and you so upset... and maybe microsoft listens to all the bitching people and issues service packs with fixes based on all the bitching. In which case you need to be thankful to all the bitchy "target consumer" people who express the need for change. Yeah its gotten better, and yes i use it... but I still want more speed, and i complain that its too slow. If that upsets you, then you're too sensitive and thats a portrait of you in my avatar.

Microsoft brought this problem on themselves, they worked on Vista for so long and they hyped it at that it would be this amazing OS that will be the best ever. Well they hyped it way to much.

Now I thought I heard that they had started from scratch with Vista, and if thats the case Im quite disapointed. To me it does look like a "upgrade to XP" just some visual upgrades and some better placement of commonly used apps.

But that was the reason I liked it, I really liked XP and I felt it deserved a makeover to bring it up to style. We Vista fit the bill perfectly, and with the small performance caviats I have learned to live with, I really like Vista. Yes, I would like it to use the proc better, perfect example is 3dmark. But with all the other nice additions, and fast boot and shutdown, and the awesome sleep(my computers go down in 2 seconds at most) Vista is an improvement. And Vista does a great job not needing a restart, with the sleep I havent done a shutdown on my laptop in 42 days! And its still running great, with an XP machine I would have to restart it atleast 2 times a day!

And I have heard that the next version of windows will be approaching fast, and I dont mind that. I think it will be based off Vista code and just changing graphical style and some of the problems and complaints from Vista.

I think they are doing this in response to Apple and the OS's they have released, Tiger and Leopard have been released during Vista's life.

phanbuey"Do you know how long they have been working on Vista? Do you know how much money they have spent to make Vista?"
-this is called a "sunk cost":wtf:... It doesnt matter how much money they spent on it, if its not selling, the amount of money they spent will not influence their decision for the future at all. Guaranteed.

For the record: I did NOT mean to BASH vista. If thats what you got out of it than im terribly sorry...I install vista x64 in all my current builds, it performs fine, but there is always a feeling that it is not as good as i would hoped it would be, especially after all the hype - that is an "OPINION" not a "BASH". Product performance is based on how the product performs VS the expectations held for that product. In which case, i think even MS would say that they had hoped for a better reception. Its NOT a personal attack against you. If i am wrong, then post some reasoning as to why - hell, im still learning.

You can be hostile, and you can cuddle with your copy of vista tonight, and give it a little kiss for me, and apologize for me for making it and you so upset... and maybe microsoft listens to all the bitching people and issues service packs with fixes based on all the bitching. In which case you need to be thankful to all the bitchy "target consumer" people who express the need for change. Yeah its gotten better, and yes i use it... but I still want more speed, and i complain that its too slow. If that upsets you, then you're too sensitive and thats a portrait of you in my avatar.

Thats all cool, I'm sure everyone is taking all this in good spirit.

Possibly you might have elaborated a little more on this....quote " Its the actual design of the software (DRM, random hard drive thrashing, much slower hard drive access, larger hard drive latency, slower network performance, huge amounts of background software that runs even though no one ever uses them)..."

I'm slow to understand and the more detail the better.:D