Friday, July 25th 2008

Microsoft Spins Over a 'Mojave' Approach to Grow Vista User-base

Choice is a wonderful thing. Informed Choice is even better, where you choose something after knowing its inside-outs. The very opposite of informed choice is dogma, where you rigidly oppose something and stick to your beliefs. Incidentally, dogma seems to be one of the significant factors keeping users away from embracing Windows Vista OS, of what can be inferred from an experiment by Microsoft in San Fransisco, United States. A group of Windows XP users having negative impressions on Windows Vista were introduced to a "new" operating system they referred to as "Mojave". User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken. A surprising 90 percent of these users gave positive feedback on this new OS. They were later told that the new OS was nothing else but Windows Vista.

Despite Microsoft releasing numerous updates and fixes to the Vista OS making it a fairly stable, reliable OS close to expectations if not exactly on par, it seems to be mass dogma that's keeping users away from adopting this new OS. Going back to that experiment, a user is reported to have exclaimed "Oh wow", something Microsoft expected users to do with the new OS originally, as portrayed in those numerous television and print commercials going with the tag line "wow". Following the recent announcement of a huge budget allocation towards propagating Vista (covered here) for home and enterprise segments, the message being sent out is that Microsoft is not only being aggressive but also proactive.Source: CNET
Add your own comment

231 Comments on Microsoft Spins Over a 'Mojave' Approach to Grow Vista User-base

#1
hat
Enthusiast
all I know is I found vista on a certian bay in the interwebz... I tried it out and went back to xp. there's no reason for me to be using vista yet anyway. DX10 doesn't do much, it's just a performance killer.
Posted on Reply
#2
Mussels
Moderprator
TheGuruStud said:
Load up fear and tell me how that goes, ok. The game can't even play smooth b/c to go around a corner it has to pause to load more data. And yeah, a lot was still in ram, but since vista's so bloated it still took forever to become functional. If it has actually offloaded the ram then games would be as smooth as they are in XP, but that's not the case.

And how can anyone justify it taking such a tremendous amount of time to alt-tab or exit a game to get back to windows. It's so freaking asinine. If I had to use that shit every day I wouldn't be able to see straight with fury. It's bad enough with XP.
whats wrong with fear? i was playing perseus mandate on my lan rig (2GB, only just went 4GB) and it had no problems. you sure that wasnt just unique to your PC?

XP lags just as much as vista alt tabbing in these games imo, with the exception that adding more ram to vista makes it faster than adding more ram to XP. with 6GB i can swap between supreme commander and CoD4 without any real lag (yeah its strange, but i was playing both at once for some reason). in XP, it lags no matter what i'm changing to. XP is an all or nothing approach, whereas vista can share.

stay with XP all you want, but every month faster and faster hardware comes out, cheaper - and vista is benefitting more and more while XP is staying just the same.
Posted on Reply
#3
AsRock
TPU addict
Guru Janitor said:
+1 I previously ran Xp, but since my computer died, I've been on vista. Currently I have 2 gigs of ram, and, when I'm just browsing around, its at 50% ram usage, If I load a game, that drops and Whatever the game uses takes over, so I can actually be running at less usage then what I was running before, its a beautiful thing.
Well uses 1.35GB on my system and total ram is 6GB.
Posted on Reply
#4
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
Why is everyone so up in arms about it being a resource hog it. If its taking up to much ram buy more, its about £10 for a cheap stick of ddr2 these days. If you try run a new os on an old pc it obviously wont work as well and this applies to all os' for example my neighbour has a p3 64mb of ram and it hardly runs windows 98 well and if I was to try xp it would run slowly so does that mean I can say xp is a resource hog ... no it means that old hardware will not run vista as well as new hardware.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mussels
Moderprator
in fact, heres a screenie.

The systems freshly formatted due to me screwing up something i shouldnt have (kids: do not acicdentally bind LNK files to an assocation such as a media player. you cant restore it)

its vista 64 bit ultimate (rig in specs) with 6GB of ram. running apps are vista (full aero) kaspersky 8, and folding at home GPU




now you tell me... where is this ram hog? i'm using 1GB, but thats with AV and folding, and as mentioned it dumps the rest when you run a game.
Posted on Reply
#6
TheGuruStud
Mussels said:
in fact, heres a screenie.

The systems freshly formatted due to me screwing up something i shouldnt have (kids: do not acicdentally bind LNK files to an assocation such as a media player. you cant restore it)

its vista 64 bit ultimate (rig in specs) with 6GB of ram. running apps are vista (full aero) kaspersky 8, and folding at home GPU




now you tell me... where is this ram hog? i'm using 1GB, but thats with AV and folding, and as mentioned it dumps the rest when you run a game.
That's not 1 or 2 gigs and I can't even see the screenie (and it's x64). I can look at that on any vista comp (x86) with 1 or 2 gigs of ram and it says 0 free (or maybe a couple MBs free if you're lucky).
Posted on Reply
#7
Mussels
Moderprator
TheGuruStud said:
That's not 1 or 2 gigs and I can't even see the screenie (and it's x64). I can look at that on any vista comp (x86) with 1 or 2 gigs of ram and it says 0 free (or maybe a couple MBs free if you're lucky).
i never said it was 2GB.

what screenie? its just showing my ram usage/desktop. x64 uses a little more ram than normal in the 32 bit OS, so it'd be lower in x86 anyway.

The reason it says 0 free is superfetch - its unrelated to free/used ram. (mine also normally says 0 free in that field, as i recently added another 2GB of ram superfetch just hasnt been filling it to the brim yet)
Posted on Reply
#8
TheGuruStud
Mussels said:
i never said it was 2GB.

what screenie? its just showing my ram usage/desktop. x64 uses a little more ram than normal in the 32 bit OS, so it'd be lower in x86 anyway.

The reason it says 0 free is superfetch - its unrelated to free/used ram. (mine also normally says 0 free in that field, as i recently added another 2GB of ram superfetch just hasnt been filling it to the brim yet)
and it would be nice if superfetch was purged nice and fast, but it seems to love to page it when you have 1-2 gigs of ram = abysmal perf
Posted on Reply
#9
magibeg
TheGuruStud said:
Load up fear and tell me how that goes, ok. The game can't even play smooth b/c to go around a corner it has to pause to load more data. And yeah, a lot was still in ram, but since vista's so bloated it still took forever to become functional. If it has actually offloaded the ram then games would be as smooth as they are in XP, but that's not the case.

And how can anyone justify it taking such a tremendous amount of time to alt-tab or exit a game to get back to windows. It's so freaking asinine. If I had to use that shit every day I wouldn't be able to see straight with fury. It's bad enough with XP.
Well i loaded up fear and everything was going great. Why not ask me to load a game thats actually resource intensive? Crysis and what not seems to run fine. I've never had any stuttering issues in games. I'm just wondering what resource intensive things you are doing that vista can't handle.
Posted on Reply
#10
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
TheGuruStud said:
and it would be nice if superfetch was purged nice and fast, but it seems to love to page it when you have 1-2 gigs of ram = abysmal perf
Well it runs on my laptop with 512 so you must have done it wrong, maybe you tweaked some settings and broked it. What have you got against superfetch, xp has a rudimentry version of it and vista has a perfected version that works extremely well.

Mussels how did you get 6gb of ram :p 3 x 2gb's ?
Posted on Reply
#11
merkk
Well i have a all AMD rig and i'am using vista-64 home basic it cost me all $87 dollars
at new egg. What can vista do that xp can not ? Tell how i'am going to run my 3 video
cards in XP i realy like to know that . If you had a all AMD rig you could see how AMD/ATI
is moving way form XP and VISTA is becoming there OS of choice. I'am using a 9850BE
4 core cpu ,3 video card and 4 gigs ram in my vista build and i love the way this thing runs .
Now if you got old hard ware staying with XP is more than likely the best choice. But if you
have put a new PC together in the last year or so there no reason to not change over to vista .With AMD/ATI you can see that the new hard ware their making is gear to vista and not to old school XP. I use windows 95,98,2000,xp-64 and now vista-64 i like vista -64 the best .I did wait till SP1 for vista came out before i made the change so the move over to vista was trouble free for me. I didn't let people talking trash about vista stop me form trying it . I'am glad i did.
Posted on Reply
#12
Mussels
Moderprator
DrPepper said:
Well it runs on my laptop with 512 so you must have done it wrong, maybe you tweaked some settings and broked it. What have you got against superfetch, xp has a rudimentry version of it and vista has a perfected version that works extremely well.

Mussels how did you get 6gb of ram :p 3 x 2gb's ?
2x1 + 2x2. my mobo somehow supports that in dual channel.

my media PC is on 1GB, and apart from lagging with too many firefox tabs open (and thats FF using 500+MB of ram) i've not had any problems. it doesnt game, but it runs HD media, chat programs and web stuff without ever missing a beat. (this is not the download PC in sig, its a 939 4200+ with 1GB (single channel) DDR400 and a 3450, running vista x64)

i can get 4GB of DDR2 for arond $140 (after shipping) - that drops down to about $35 per GB.
If you cant afford ~$40 to upgrade your ram, you really shouldnt have bought vista!
Posted on Reply
#13
TheGuruStud
DrPepper said:
Well it runs on my laptop with 512 so you must have done it wrong, maybe you tweaked some settings and broked it. What have you got against superfetch, xp has a rudimentry version of it and vista has a perfected version that works extremely well.

Mussels how did you get 6gb of ram :p 3 x 2gb's ?
512 ROFL! Have fun getting a drink and going to the bathroom while waiting for anything to load. When I'm trying to fix a laptop with 1 GB I want to throw it through the window.
Posted on Reply
#14
HAL7000
MS is just doing what it does best....f**k the consumer with over pricing with multiple versions of a OS. I am happy that we have MS to supply the gaming world with a platform that works and is supported by game publishers. The sad thing is MS has Vista, a good OS in multiple versions, and they way I change MB's and if I buy oem OS's, well I can't change my MB without a hassle. I pay to use the dam OS, who the hell are they to tell me I can't change my system MB if I buy oem? If I buy retail, about one hundred $ more they say go ahead, do what you want. So in XP or vista...they are both good, I hope they can get it right next time without having to blind test the blind user. Isn't it great they now can rape our wallets and now call average users stupid in a blind sort of way????
Posted on Reply
#15
Megasty
TheGuruStud said:
512 ROFL! Have fun getting a drink and going to the bathroom while waiting for anything to load. When I'm trying to fix a laptop with 1 GB I want to throw it through the window.
Bah, I already threw my old Armada 110 out the window 4 times while trying to get vista on it. It finally worked after the 4th toss. They don't make 'em like that anymore :roll:
Posted on Reply
#16
TheGuruStud
magibeg said:
Well i loaded up fear and everything was going great. Why not ask me to load a game thats actually resource intensive? Crysis and what not seems to run fine. I've never had any stuttering issues in games. I'm just wondering what resource intensive things you are doing that vista can't handle.
I meant fear on 1 GB, I've done it and it makes you want to hurt someone, but it works just dandy on XP :)

Anything loading a lot into ram, that's the problem (gaming would definitely be one haha). It wants to thrash the damn HDD all day and not get anything done. That's completely unacceptable.

I think everyone here has low expectations on speed. When I click the icon, I expect it to open immediately instantaneously, or if it's a game, to load in a few secs. I am not waiting 5 sec to open basic things and a min for a game.
Posted on Reply
#17
Mussels
Moderprator
TheGuruStud said:
I meant fear on 1 GB, I've done it and it makes you want to hurt someone, but it works just dandy on XP :)

Anything loading a lot into ram, that's the problem (gaming would definitely be one haha). It wants to thrash the damn HDD all day and not get anything done. That's completely unacceptable.

I think everyone here has low expectations on speed. When I click the icon, I expect it to open immediately instantaneously, or if it's a game, to load in a few secs. I am not waiting 5 sec to open basic things and a min for a game.
and thats why i use vista. with superfetch and large amounts of cheap ram, my games all insta load, no matter what i was doing beforehand.
Posted on Reply
#18
farlex85
TheGuruStud said:
I meant fear on 1 GB, I've done it and it makes you want to hurt someone, but it works just dandy on XP :)

Anything loading a lot into ram, that's the problem (gaming would definitely be one haha). It wants to thrash the damn HDD all day and not get anything done. That's completely unacceptable.

I think everyone here has low expectations on speed. When I click the icon, I expect it to open immediately or if it's a game to load in a few secs. I am not waiting 5 sec to open basic things and a min for a game.
So that's your argument, you can't run f.e.a.r on 1gb of ram on vista but you can on xp, so there you go, vista sucks. That doesn't make any sense for various reasons many of us have pointed out extensively. Yes, it does not require as strong of a system to run xp as vista, and that's how it should be. I don't wait at all for things to open in vista, it's pretty much instant, things in general are much quicker than xp actually. I hate using xp on my gf's laptop actually, b/c it gets bogged down and xp will lock up sometimes and takes forever to load comparatively speaking (of course, a 2 year old laptop can't compete anyway, but you catch my drift), only one time have I had to do a hard reboot in vista, and that was my own fault for installing faulty software.
Posted on Reply
#19
magibeg
TheGuruStud said:
I meant fear on 1 GB, I've done it and it makes you want to hurt someone, but it works just dandy on XP :)

Anything loading a lot into ram, that's the problem (gaming would definitely be one haha). It wants to thrash the damn HDD all day and not get anything done. That's completely unacceptable.

I think everyone here has low expectations on speed. When I click the icon, I expect it to open immediately instantaneously, or if it's a game, to load in a few secs. I am not waiting 5 sec to open basic things and a min for a game.
Well you probably shouldn't be loading a high end OS onto a lower end pc with 1gb of ram. Maybe later i'll try running on 1gb. I still have to maintain though that the whole super fetch system seems to work great on vista. Given that my system isn't exactly a low end system everything does open pretty instantly with minimal delay, however isn't your harddrive the larger bottleneck when opening big programs?
Posted on Reply
#20
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
TheGuruStud said:
512 ROFL! Have fun getting a drink and going to the bathroom while waiting for anything to load. When I'm trying to fix a laptop with 1 GB I want to throw it through the window.
:D Best bit is its a single core celeron at 1.73 ghz I think and having a discussion on tpu while chatting on msn and playing defcon is pretty good. No skipping waiting or such :toast: Also I wish my stopwatch did nanoseconds as well because then I could measure how long it takes my main rig to open a program.
Posted on Reply
#21
DaMulta
My stars went supernova
I bet they had the dang pop up turned off for this if they did it.

Would you like to do this, and would you like to do that. Are you sure about that lol.


Two things that bug me about vista. They removed the backup button in a download folder. I now have to expand all the folders to back up just one.....

The other thing is the start menu, why is there not a option to turn the way program files are viewed back to the way XP was. Clicking and dragging things back to the most used programs was soooo easy.
Posted on Reply
#22
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
[quote="DaMulta, post: 904199"]I bet they had the dang pop up turned off for this if they did it.

Would you like to do this, and would you like to do that. Are you sure about that lol.QUOTE]

That was annoying :laugh:
are you sure you would like to rename this file ( click yes )
are you sure you would like to click yes (click yes again)
are you really sure you want to click yes (click yes again)
Well windows isn't sure you would like to undoing rename :)
Posted on Reply
#23
skellattarr
far as peaple saying vista sucks there was one time when everybody thot the world was flat to
Posted on Reply
#24
Mussels
Moderprator
to the last three posts:

UAC is easy to disable. takes one reboot.

Backup stuff: ok, i dont know about that. fair call if they hid the option.
start menu DOES have another mode... its called classic mode. i use it, and love it!
Posted on Reply
#25
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
Mussels said:
to the last three posts:

UAC is easy to disable. takes one reboot.

Backup stuff: ok, i dont know about that. fair call if they hid the option.
start menu DOES have another mode... its called classic mode. i use it, and love it!
I know you can disable it :p just I love how complicated they made it at times.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment