What is Digg?260 Comments
- Gizza, on 12/02/2008, -14/+220Buying an outdated used PC is cheaper than buying a new one? Holy *****! Stop the presses!
- mythicflux, on 12/02/2008, -15/+83Perhaps the people who have skipped Vista have a valid reason for doing so?
For example my company currently has a software program that may or may not work on Vista. And I say that not because of any hardware issues, the software is designed for 500 mhz computers running 128mb of RAM. It runs on pretty much any version of Window (as in all the way back to Win 98). The reason this software does not work on Vista though is two fold: Vista Universal Access Control/DEP and Microsoft abandoning .NET Framework 1.1.
UAC blocks our software ability to install correctly. The .NET Framework is not backwards compatible. So people on Vista running version 2.0 or 3.0 assume that the software will work. Not so because they must download 1.1 specifically. 1.1 For Vista 32-bit it works. 1.1 For Vista 64-bit not at all, Microsoft completely abandoned it (there is no version of .NET 1.1 for 64-bit Vista). Because of this my company cannot reliably offer Vista support to all users. And if we cannot do that we won't offer it to anyone (until we can cheaply solve the problem, which is going to be hard if we will need to rewrite our software again for Windows 7).
The point is that not all the costs are hardware based. Some of the these big companies have invested lots of time and money creating custom software that just will not work correctly on Vista. For them upgrading to Vista is more than the cost of a new machine. It may be the cost of developers, QA testing, new development licenses, etc.
For these companies, Vista is just not a cost effective option for upgrading right now. Especially if you consider that Windows 7 is right around the corner. I mean would you want to upgrade now and then be asked to do it in a year and a half and risk the exact same problems? - notepaddotexe, on 12/02/2008, -8/+51Well, if they're too cheap to buy Vista PCs and downgrade them, they sure as hell won't be buying macs any time soon. :|
- mgrest, on 12/02/2008, -2/+38It certainly was before SP2 was released.
The initial release of XP was slow and very buggy. - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -3/+38*****. There's nothing "cheap and stupid" about being resourceful in obtaining what you want. You'd profess to love being ripped off by a car dealer for a replacement taillight assembly when a perfectly good one can be had at 1/10th the price at a junkyard (and possibly painted the right color, which a new one wouldn't be).
You snipe at others who have the brains to do what you wouldn't think of. Take your sniveling elsewhere. - JoeB4ever, on 12/02/2008, -8/+43I remember 5 years ago when people told me windows 2000 was superior to XP.
- DarkShroud, on 12/02/2008, -46/+78This is stupid. I'm able to run Vista fine on a 5 year old PC and I installed Vista 2 years ago when it came out, not a problem. The people who have tried to skip Vista will probably complain when Se7en tells them it requires them to upgrade POS computer just as Vista did.
- luckless, on 12/02/2008, -9/+40At least 70% of the businesses out there don't even need to get XP, they'd be fine running 98SE for their word processing and spreadsheet needs. Or maybe upgrade to a version of linux, like suse or ubuntu, and OpenOffice if they want a really stable system that can run on older machines and do everything they need.
Not only does this reduce waste at the dumps and helps the environment, it is also even cheaper than getting an old XP machine. - noxcovenant, on 12/02/2008, -5/+27LOL. I don't think I've ever heard that joke before.
- benologist, on 12/02/2008, -0/+21The real article:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com ... - incandescent, on 12/02/2008, -11/+32jerrycurly: Yes, it is Microsoft's fault. They are selling a consumer product to millions of people who shouldn't have to go out of their way to set it up. That is why other OS's are making so much headway against Windows now.
Incidentally, I have a BSc and MSc in computer science and over 15 years experience in software development. If I can't get Vista working satisfactorily what chance do ordinary user's have? - mehan, on 12/02/2008, -3/+24"According to ... computer repair outfit Rescuecom, it's cheaper for businesses to pick up a used PC with Windows XP, than it is to buy a brand new computer with Vista and downgrade it."
And being that Rescuecom is in the business of selling said used PCs doesn't make them biased at all. - ArthurBrazil, on 12/02/2008, -10/+29I bet you grinned to yourself and thought you were so ***** clever.
- madpuppy, on 12/02/2008, -7/+26it is cheaper to buy an old computer with Windows XP and a legal license then it is to buy a new License from MS to install over a copy of Vista on a new PC.
That is the point of the article. they only want the License off the old PC. - maximilen, on 12/02/2008, -13/+31Un-needed proof that newer is not always better.
- Lucas123, on 12/01/2008, -69/+87Says everything you need to know about Vista.
- skeletorcares, on 12/02/2008, -30/+48get over it, vista works great with not-***** computers. try to put OSX on a g3 see what happens.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -26/+41What's appalling is the sudden appearance of a legion of Vista apologists, ready to bury the truth. That's right, we have here a bunch of Microsoft shills.
If you actually use Vista with an open mind, you'll find that hating it isn't just a fad: It's totally justified. Vista is a disgracefully cumbersome and defective product, with regressions in usability, performance, and design. Instead of building a lean and professional OS from the ground up, Microsoft has floundered for years and turned out a bloated mess.
Microsoft made some of the best OS, development, and application software ever. The Windows UI still shows more innovation than the Mac ever has, with good decisions made early and usability enhancements added over the years (Alt-Tab being just one example). But Vista is a piece of *****. The Mojave campaign was good marketing, but utter ***** in terms of validity. They targeted novice users of no particular OS, with no tests of XP against Vista.
Stop defending garbage, or garbage will be the only thing you can buy. - incandescent, on 12/02/2008, -7/+22Jerrycurley, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and are needlessly offensive. What are you, 15 years old?
- tnoy, on 12/02/2008, -6/+20Service packs: Giving Windows users an excuse to say Microsoft made a good OS after spending months talking about how crappy it is.
- tomis, on 12/02/2008, -9/+23While you didn't specify a version number, 10.4 runs fine on my G3. And 10.5's minimum is a G4. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
- InfernoX, on 12/02/2008, -0/+14His point is that running a brand new OS on outdated hardware is not going to work as intended.
- dotorg, on 12/02/2008, -1/+13Anyone who is doing this is an idiot for two reasons:
1) OEM Windows XP licenses are not transferable off the specific machine that it was sold with, so you are still illegally running XP.
2) Software Assurance gives companies the right to run any prior Windows OS currently supported under SA on a machine with a Vista OEM license... so any corporation of more than a dozen or two people who are buying MS support can legally install XP on any hardware they buy today anyway. You can buy your Dell or HP boxes with Vista, image XP onto them and re-image them back to Vista in a year. - Exekutor, on 12/02/2008, -2/+14Those are OEM licences, you're not supposed to install those on different computers, I've read technically is attached to the motherboard, so you can upgrade ram, CPU, but basically to the same computer.
Is almost the same as pirating - cquinnd, on 12/02/2008, -1/+12imho, no business that shares data between computers is better off using 98SE or any of the Windows 9x/ME variants, simply for the lack of security in managing company information and customer data.
Linux and OSS apps can be an option, depending on what kind of client-server setup they may need, and what other apps/hardware they have to support - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -10/+21Vista:
3 hours and lots of reboots to install. Another two hours to install the applications. Connected it to the 'net to register it and download the "security" updates - infected with crapware within 5 minutes. First total crash five minutes later. Time wasted - almost one working day. Machine unusable. Wiped off!
Ubuntu:
Installed to same machine in just under 20 minutes. Already comes with a comprehensive suite of productivity software. Connected to the 'net - downloaded patches and updates. Works like a charm. No crashes, No malware. No viruses. No cost.
Game Over, Microsoft - SammyJr, on 12/02/2008, -1/+12Tell your IT department that and they'll laugh you out of the room. 98/ME and even NT are positively awful for policy based administration. Things just work better on 2000/XP and Vista.
- YouAreDead, on 12/02/2008, -6/+16wtf
old pc's will always be cheaper - Barackalypse, on 12/02/2008, -9/+19Am I an apologist because I'm willing to say that Vista works just fine for me, just like XP did, and for that matter just like Windows 2000 did?
- iletumi, on 12/02/2008, -0/+10I would be happy to take your key off your hands.
- designet, on 12/02/2008, -2/+12er...yes....
"it's cheaper for businesses to pick up a used PC with Windows XP, than it is to buy a brand new computer with Vista and downgrade it. "
see? Its cheaper to buy an old pc with an XP licence, than a vista licence and downgrade to XP - incandescent, on 12/02/2008, -4/+14techdever, I've spent the last several months complaining about Apple and its brain dead fanboys on Digg. I can't stand the way Apple treats its customers. Which just makes your own brain-dead Microsoft fanboy-ism and childish accusations all the more ridiculous and ironic. Grow up.
As for speeding up Vista - I HAVE done the googling and Vista is STILL slow. I work for a large IT company and my co-workers have been telling me how crap Vista is ever since it came out. I thought maybe SP1 would solve the problems and was open minded enough to splash out my own cash to buy it and give it a chance. Sadly the large number of fellow developers, infrastructure people and we reviews were correct. Vista is dross. - techdever, on 12/02/2008, -5/+151995 called, they want their high end pc back
- TrancePhreak, on 12/02/2008, -6/+15Mojave......
- enantiodromia, on 12/02/2008, -5/+14There are very few things XP is "better" than Vista for.
Vista is not any more of a flawed product than any other OS.
After using Vista for a few years, XP seems like Windows 95 to me.
I've been a sysadmin for over a decade now, so you can keep the BS to yourself. - incandescent, on 12/02/2008, -8/+17Well said.
- SammyJr, on 12/02/2008, -2/+11Just because you know how to play Call of Duty doesn't mean you know ***** about computers. I have Vista installed on a wide range of machines that are all 2 years old or newer. They run fine. No worse than XP.
Make sure you have enough memory and uninstall manufacturer bloatware, if applicable. - SammyJr, on 12/02/2008, -7/+16Its not Microsoft's problem that your programmers didn't write a product to Microsoft's standards. Just because it worked on XP doesn't mean that it was written the right way.
- enantiodromia, on 12/02/2008, -2/+11i've made a good deal of money selling old busted laptops that have that magic license sticker on the bottom.
- Murdats, on 12/02/2008, -14/+23"UAC blocks our software ability to install correctly. "
so what your saying is you have a problem with microsoft trying to force programmers to stop writing programs that are swiss cheese.
if the designer of your software had simply followed published good practices then there would be no problem.
"Microsoft abandoning .NET Framework 1.1."
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa ...
odd that site says 1.1 works on vista x64.
and while I see your point microsoft has returned to their usual release cycle of ever 1.5-2.5 years apart which means most business will skip every second version, however microsoft will be even stricter on not allowing crappy code on windows 7 as they are sick of the negative PR that microsoft gets from allowing third party developers too much freedom to create dangerous or badly written software. - mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -2/+10@madpuppy : unlike Gizza, at least you actually read the article.
- incandescent, on 12/02/2008, -14/+22I recently "upgraded" my machine to Vista and I've been regretting it ever since. Windows XP booted and was fully ready for work in around 30 seconds while Vista takes a few minutes to boot then spends the next ten minutes thrashing my disk with various "background" tasks I can' disable (and yes I have switched off ReadyBoost and SuperCache).
Once it's finally started it drives me crazy with its continual "are you sure you wanted to do that?" type messages.
Major disappointment. - selfprodigy, on 12/02/2008, -4/+12We buy from CDW they'll give us an xp machine with a vista upgrade option at a decent price. We only have 1 vista machine in the building and it's just for testing.
- incandescent, on 12/02/2008, -6/+14Murdats, with SuperFetch switched on my disk thrashes continually as soon as I boot and the system crawls along. That persists for up to an hour. Switching it off was one of the first things suggested by the many websites discussing how to speed Vista up. I already have SP1 installed. My machine is a 2.1 GHz Core 2 Duo Dell with a GeForce 8800 GTS graphics card and I have never had any performance problems until I installed Vista.
If it was just me I might accept that there was something dodgy about the installation or the hardware but everyone I know that has used Vista has had the same experience - unacceptable performance on good hardware. Even now our infrastructure department won't allow anyone to use Vista on internal pcs because of it.
As for my "misinformed tweaking" - why do you think I was doing it? Clue: because my machine was spending all its energy thrashing my disk. If it worked properly there would be no *need* to tweak it. - tomis, on 12/02/2008, -7/+14** Pssst. Microsoft. Hey. It's the rest of the computer industry. Try basing your OS on Unix and then get back to us. **
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -5/+12No. It's slow, unstable, virus-prone and expensive.
Just upgrade to a PROPER operating system.
Vista is just an expensive mess. - boobsbr, on 12/02/2008, -3/+10FFS just pirate it.
- dent42, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7You actually used "your" correctly, I don't know why you're preemptively bitching.
- mrBitch, on 12/02/2008, -6/+13@mictester RE: " Vista:
3 hours and lots of reboots to install. Another two hours to install the applications. Connected it to the 'net to register it and download the "security" updates - infected with crapware within 5 minutes. First total crash five minutes later. Time wasted - almost one working day. Machine unusable. Wiped off!
Ubuntu:
Installed to same machine in just under 20 minutes. Already comes with a comprehensive suite of productivity software. Connected to the 'net - downloaded patches and updates. Works like a charm. No crashes, No malware. No viruses. No cost.
Game Over, Microsoft "
Your experience is very similar to my experiences a few weeks ago when my Wife's Dad bought a new Toshiba laptop with Vista "pre-installed".
What a joke :
If Vista is "pre-installed" why did it take 8 reboots and 45 minutes to boot up for the first time ? - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -4/+11Why would I pay $100-200 for an operating system that runs virtually everything less efficiently. Why would I buy an OS that uses hardware inefficiently? I have good hardware, easily able to run Vista, but I choose not to because of numerous software compatibility issues and because of the grossly inefficient nature of Vista. Seriously, if you have a huge collection of games from the 1990s, a lot of them will not run on Vista, or if they do, you have to waste 30 minutes trying to get them to work.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 261 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is