Are they also doing this demonstration at events at Apple Stores? If they were really serious about their message, and not just trying for a pissing contest with Microsoft, you would likely hear more about their efforts against Apple. My bet is that they have confused themselves in their fight against paid software, and made it a fight against Microsoft.
Are we really going to get upset about this? Where is the rage from Mac owners that Safari is tied to the Apple OSX? Why is this only directed at Microsoft?
Yeah except they seem not to remember the flood of 1947 that wiped out the Portland/Vancouver suburb of Vanport. Plus, right there next to active volcanoes... Make you wonder why they didn't build it inn the crated or Mt. St Helens. Or at least up next to Timberline Lodge on Mt. Hood. At least there you'd get the Lodge from The Shining to look at as you wander the dark corridors of the creepy volcano-dwelling data center.
Hmm, did anyone read the last line of that?
"'There is not another WinHEC planned before Windows 7 is released,'"
This seems to me to contradict what they have been saying that it will be released "...3 years after the general availability of Windows Vista." Which was released on Jan 30, 2007. That _should_ make Windows 7 available around the same time in 2010. And doesn't WinHEC always happen in November? Seems to me, if they were still playing that track, they would still get 1 WinHEC to at least chide developers about the lack of support.
It mostly comes down to the aforementioned instability of XP. For instance, the majority of users felt WinME was unstable and Win2k was stable. On my hardware, WinME and WinVista are stable. Win2k and WinXP are not. Thus, I had to reinstall WinXP quite often. Even fresh copies of WinXP SP2 on Virtual Machines are inherently unstable. I have never known an XP installation that, under regular everyday use, did not need at least 1 reboot per day. With Vista, under heavy load and use, I am able to go weeks between needing to reboot. Vista is the only version of Windows I have ever experienced this with.
Remember when you used to have to re-install Windows about once every 18 months? That pretty much stopped when Win2k came out. Well, it appears to be back. Yeah, it came back with Windows XP. During my years with WinXP, I had to literally reinstall the OS every 6 months. I purposefully skipped Win2k because it was the most unstable piece of crap Microsoft ever made. I've had this same Vista install running for over a year now with no problems.
Windows Vista: Saying Goodbye to OS reinstalls.:D
This is absolutely ridiculous. I honestly do not understand why people are so in love with an old crap OS like XP. I've had more stable installations of Windows ME. Actually, I never had a bad Windows ME installation. I felt it was more stable than XP. I also feel the same way about Vista. I love Vista. Sure, there were some annoying issues... 14 months ago! But I have 0 issues now. Don't get me wrong, I like XP better than any Linux distro I have ever tried (including the newly released Ubuntu 8.04, which I installed on a machine earlier today), and I've been using them off and on for years. And don't even get me started on Macs (though I somewhat like OSX). Hardware issues have never been an issue with my getting Vista to run on a machine. That includes on P3s and a 6 year old P4 I have at home. I only keep XP around for development testing as I know too many people are afraid to upgrade because of all the negative hype. My take is that all the Vista haters were/are probably Windows 2000 lovers, which is, in my honest opinion, the worst, absolutely most unstable, operating system the world has ever seen... but I digress. Windows XP is well past its prime, and I see nothing in SP3 worth delaying an upgrade. Vista has been OEM'd for 1 1/2 years now. I find it inexcusable that any company would not have updated their software by now. And I no longer feel that hardware issues are a viable complaint anymore (well, at least not by the end of this year), either. Especially for those buying new machines. Most any current machine is plenty powerful for Vista. And, when you buy a new machine, you should really consider future proofing yourself, by purchasing a better machine than is "necessary". And realize, that computers should be routinely updated. Every 3 years is more than long enough. Even if that means only more RAM or a better video card, that could easily push out most machines to the 5 year mark. Anything older than that and you have no right to complain. And this is coming from someone who has a machine that old that I still use for everyday computing. My laptop is 2 years old and only a "Vista Capable," but I still make it work. I have that machine dual booting XP & Vista with Vista as my primary. Many of the complaints about Vista are that it requires "too new hardware." Well, I'm sorry, but if you are saying that you expect an OS to not take advantage of current graphics technology, then I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for your obvious mental deficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Really. Interesting that I haven't heard about those events on /. but do when it's against Microsoft.
Are they also doing this demonstration at events at Apple Stores? If they were really serious about their message, and not just trying for a pissing contest with Microsoft, you would likely hear more about their efforts against Apple. My bet is that they have confused themselves in their fight against paid software, and made it a fight against Microsoft.
Are we really going to get upset about this? Where is the rage from Mac owners that Safari is tied to the Apple OSX? Why is this only directed at Microsoft?
Yeah except they seem not to remember the flood of 1947 that wiped out the Portland/Vancouver suburb of Vanport. Plus, right there next to active volcanoes... Make you wonder why they didn't build it inn the crated or Mt. St Helens. Or at least up next to Timberline Lodge on Mt. Hood. At least there you'd get the Lodge from The Shining to look at as you wander the dark corridors of the creepy volcano-dwelling data center.
Not all that hard to understand, considering how much they charge for a video game.
Nah, more like not all that hard considering they're all on Bittorent right now downloading the latest Garbage.
Hmm, did anyone read the last line of that? "'There is not another WinHEC planned before Windows 7 is released,'" This seems to me to contradict what they have been saying that it will be released "...3 years after the general availability of Windows Vista." Which was released on Jan 30, 2007. That _should_ make Windows 7 available around the same time in 2010. And doesn't WinHEC always happen in November? Seems to me, if they were still playing that track, they would still get 1 WinHEC to at least chide developers about the lack of support.
Of all the times to waste a great opportunity for a headline. "Senators OK $1 Billion for Online Child Porn"
It mostly comes down to the aforementioned instability of XP. For instance, the majority of users felt WinME was unstable and Win2k was stable. On my hardware, WinME and WinVista are stable. Win2k and WinXP are not. Thus, I had to reinstall WinXP quite often. Even fresh copies of WinXP SP2 on Virtual Machines are inherently unstable. I have never known an XP installation that, under regular everyday use, did not need at least 1 reboot per day. With Vista, under heavy load and use, I am able to go weeks between needing to reboot. Vista is the only version of Windows I have ever experienced this with.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I honestly do not understand why people are so in love with an old crap OS like XP. I've had more stable installations of Windows ME. Actually, I never had a bad Windows ME installation. I felt it was more stable than XP. I also feel the same way about Vista. I love Vista. Sure, there were some annoying issues... 14 months ago! But I have 0 issues now. Don't get me wrong, I like XP better than any Linux distro I have ever tried (including the newly released Ubuntu 8.04, which I installed on a machine earlier today), and I've been using them off and on for years. And don't even get me started on Macs (though I somewhat like OSX). Hardware issues have never been an issue with my getting Vista to run on a machine. That includes on P3s and a 6 year old P4 I have at home. I only keep XP around for development testing as I know too many people are afraid to upgrade because of all the negative hype. My take is that all the Vista haters were/are probably Windows 2000 lovers, which is, in my honest opinion, the worst, absolutely most unstable, operating system the world has ever seen... but I digress. Windows XP is well past its prime, and I see nothing in SP3 worth delaying an upgrade. Vista has been OEM'd for 1 1/2 years now. I find it inexcusable that any company would not have updated their software by now. And I no longer feel that hardware issues are a viable complaint anymore (well, at least not by the end of this year), either. Especially for those buying new machines. Most any current machine is plenty powerful for Vista. And, when you buy a new machine, you should really consider future proofing yourself, by purchasing a better machine than is "necessary". And realize, that computers should be routinely updated. Every 3 years is more than long enough. Even if that means only more RAM or a better video card, that could easily push out most machines to the 5 year mark. Anything older than that and you have no right to complain. And this is coming from someone who has a machine that old that I still use for everyday computing. My laptop is 2 years old and only a "Vista Capable," but I still make it work. I have that machine dual booting XP & Vista with Vista as my primary. Many of the complaints about Vista are that it requires "too new hardware." Well, I'm sorry, but if you are saying that you expect an OS to not take advantage of current graphics technology, then I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for your obvious mental deficiency.