There are thousands of people who switched to WinMe and found out it could be made to work quite well. I know because I switched and found it was a much more intelligent. Many of the improvements in WinMe were ported to XP. I also predict that if Windows 7 takes more than five years to come to fruition, the vast majority of Windows users will move to Vista because they will buy a new system and it will come with Vista. At first they will complain because nobody likes change, but after awhile they will settle in with it and then surprise, they will find out it works just fine. Also, when MS drops support for XP, business will say "I guess it's time we switched". Again, surprise, they will find it works just fine. Of course because of all the bad press, nobody will admit it works just fine. When Windows 7 comes out they will move to it and make statements like "what a disaster Vista was", unaware that Windows 7 is based on Vista. It's also very obvious when you talk to security experts, that Vista is a much more secure system, probably the most secure OS out there, even more so than Linux or Leopard (or whatever they call it now), XP isn't even close.
Most of the problems with registry bloat isn't a problem with the OS, it's poorly written apps not uninstalling itself completely. If Linux or Apple had the huge volume of apps that Windows has, I'm sure there would be more problems for them as well. It's the same story with spyware, virus and other infections, if these other OS were even marginally acceptable to the average user, they would attract some attention from the idiots who like to screw things up, and then they would have the same problems. Also, if you are going to mess with your OS, you should know how to fix it, or leave it alone and it will work just fine.
They were also obsoleted by Apple within 3 years of manufacture. Apple has screwed their customer base over and over, and their customer base has such a short memory. I have seen 8 year old PCs still running and doing what was expected of them and still useful. PC users expect their 8 year old software to run on any Windows OS (horrible handicap for any OS). I have some customers who are still running their Lotus 123 for DOS on XP. I also hear more and more complaints from Apple users about quality control and buggy software so I think that Apple users wear rose colored glasses.
Fire torpedoes!
I can't sir!
Why!
The computer will only let me draw them, and color them red! We don't have any software to calculate the trajectory. They tell me it's coming soon when more Starships get Macs. But... by then the Klingons will have a virus to attack our computers.
Linux not catching on is the reason that there is so much momentum to put Windows on this neat little device. People aren't thrilled with Linux and sales of the EeePC would improve when Windows is made to run better on it. I have one of ASUS's wireless router/NAS/Print server with a version of Linux on it and it's a terrible OS, all kinds of quirky problems as well as a poor add-on to my Windows network. Print server on it has problems dealing with the sleep mode of my printer. Network shares disappear until I ping the device acouple of times. I really wish it had a compact version of Windows running on it.
It's not reasonable to compare how many people are upgrading to Vista from XP. XP is a far better OS than say ME was, so not as many people would want or need to upgrade to Vista. It kinda funny listening to all the yahoos whining about Vista (same as when XP first came out, same as when ME first came out, etc, etc). It's also interesting to hear Apple nuts carrying on about Vista security, when it's been proven that Vista is more secure than Apple. It's especially interesting now that Apple is actually managing to get 10% of the market and the morons who write virus/malware are starting to target Apple. If people would start to understand that a more secure, more sophisticated OS needs better hardware to run as fast as an older less secure system, then it makes sense that Vista will run slower. Yes, Vista will bug you to OK changes (just like most add-on firewall programs do if they are really any good), so what do you want, less security or more speed? You aren't going to get everything and speed, unless of couse you use a more powerful computer to run it. I've seen many, many customers runnung Vista with no problems (so long as they didn't buy an underpowered system), and yes, Microsoft needs to have a few years to tweak Vista (read fix stuff), but what system doesn't need fixes in the first year. I've heard about Leopard having problems losing files, security flaws showing up, etc. Firefox said they didn't have any bugs and techies were running around telling everybody they should use it, now they have fixed 300 hundred memory leaks with the new beta. Get real people, nothing is perfect! But I'll bet that in a couple years Microsoft will still be the top selling Desktop operating system and it'll be Vista.
Don't blame Vista for lack of install disk, that's the crap that companies like HP have been dumping on it's users for years, besides the fact that they tinker with the OS and then you can't run a standard repair on it. That's why I won't buy computers, or printers for that matter, from HP. Bloated code, non-standard stuff etc. But to get back to the downgrade to XP, maybe if you bought a computer that can handle Vista you would have had better success. I'm running a top of the line Dell laptop that runs Vista without a single problem and I'm flogging it with some heavy duty stuff. Maybe you should downgrade to Windows 95, then it would really fly.
Why would anyone expect that a more complicated and considerably more secure operating system would be faster! It's pretty foolish to equate speed with better. It will require a better computer to run it at the same speed as an older simpler OS. If you could have loaded XP on a P1 with 64 meg of ram and compared it with Windows 95, obviously Win95 would have blown the doors off of XP. But nobody today is so stupid to say that Win95 was a better OS. Get real people, you want a better OS, more secure and you want it to run faster....sheeesh, maybe you want the government to drop income tax too!
Slashdot Mirror
There are thousands of people who switched to WinMe and found out it could be made to work quite well. I know because I switched and found it was a much more intelligent. Many of the improvements in WinMe were ported to XP. I also predict that if Windows 7 takes more than five years to come to fruition, the vast majority of Windows users will move to Vista because they will buy a new system and it will come with Vista. At first they will complain because nobody likes change, but after awhile they will settle in with it and then surprise, they will find out it works just fine. Also, when MS drops support for XP, business will say "I guess it's time we switched". Again, surprise, they will find it works just fine. Of course because of all the bad press, nobody will admit it works just fine. When Windows 7 comes out they will move to it and make statements like "what a disaster Vista was", unaware that Windows 7 is based on Vista. It's also very obvious when you talk to security experts, that Vista is a much more secure system, probably the most secure OS out there, even more so than Linux or Leopard (or whatever they call it now), XP isn't even close.
Most of the problems with registry bloat isn't a problem with the OS, it's poorly written apps not uninstalling itself completely. If Linux or Apple had the huge volume of apps that Windows has, I'm sure there would be more problems for them as well. It's the same story with spyware, virus and other infections, if these other OS were even marginally acceptable to the average user, they would attract some attention from the idiots who like to screw things up, and then they would have the same problems. Also, if you are going to mess with your OS, you should know how to fix it, or leave it alone and it will work just fine.
They were also obsoleted by Apple within 3 years of manufacture. Apple has screwed their customer base over and over, and their customer base has such a short memory. I have seen 8 year old PCs still running and doing what was expected of them and still useful. PC users expect their 8 year old software to run on any Windows OS (horrible handicap for any OS). I have some customers who are still running their Lotus 123 for DOS on XP. I also hear more and more complaints from Apple users about quality control and buggy software so I think that Apple users wear rose colored glasses.
Fire torpedoes! I can't sir! Why! The computer will only let me draw them, and color them red! We don't have any software to calculate the trajectory. They tell me it's coming soon when more Starships get Macs. But... by then the Klingons will have a virus to attack our computers.
Linux not catching on is the reason that there is so much momentum to put Windows on this neat little device. People aren't thrilled with Linux and sales of the EeePC would improve when Windows is made to run better on it. I have one of ASUS's wireless router/NAS/Print server with a version of Linux on it and it's a terrible OS, all kinds of quirky problems as well as a poor add-on to my Windows network. Print server on it has problems dealing with the sleep mode of my printer. Network shares disappear until I ping the device acouple of times. I really wish it had a compact version of Windows running on it.
It's not reasonable to compare how many people are upgrading to Vista from XP. XP is a far better OS than say ME was, so not as many people would want or need to upgrade to Vista. It kinda funny listening to all the yahoos whining about Vista (same as when XP first came out, same as when ME first came out, etc, etc). It's also interesting to hear Apple nuts carrying on about Vista security, when it's been proven that Vista is more secure than Apple. It's especially interesting now that Apple is actually managing to get 10% of the market and the morons who write virus/malware are starting to target Apple. If people would start to understand that a more secure, more sophisticated OS needs better hardware to run as fast as an older less secure system, then it makes sense that Vista will run slower. Yes, Vista will bug you to OK changes (just like most add-on firewall programs do if they are really any good), so what do you want, less security or more speed? You aren't going to get everything and speed, unless of couse you use a more powerful computer to run it. I've seen many, many customers runnung Vista with no problems (so long as they didn't buy an underpowered system), and yes, Microsoft needs to have a few years to tweak Vista (read fix stuff), but what system doesn't need fixes in the first year. I've heard about Leopard having problems losing files, security flaws showing up, etc. Firefox said they didn't have any bugs and techies were running around telling everybody they should use it, now they have fixed 300 hundred memory leaks with the new beta. Get real people, nothing is perfect! But I'll bet that in a couple years Microsoft will still be the top selling Desktop operating system and it'll be Vista.
Don't blame Vista for lack of install disk, that's the crap that companies like HP have been dumping on it's users for years, besides the fact that they tinker with the OS and then you can't run a standard repair on it. That's why I won't buy computers, or printers for that matter, from HP. Bloated code, non-standard stuff etc. But to get back to the downgrade to XP, maybe if you bought a computer that can handle Vista you would have had better success. I'm running a top of the line Dell laptop that runs Vista without a single problem and I'm flogging it with some heavy duty stuff. Maybe you should downgrade to Windows 95, then it would really fly.
Why would anyone expect that a more complicated and considerably more secure operating system would be faster! It's pretty foolish to equate speed with better. It will require a better computer to run it at the same speed as an older simpler OS. If you could have loaded XP on a P1 with 64 meg of ram and compared it with Windows 95, obviously Win95 would have blown the doors off of XP. But nobody today is so stupid to say that Win95 was a better OS. Get real people, you want a better OS, more secure and you want it to run faster....sheeesh, maybe you want the government to drop income tax too!