Thread: Dislike Vista? Then you will love Mojave

Originally Posted by seraphim

As far as software is concerned, abso****inglutely. Software, MS or not, is based solely on the idea that you need the new version.

Very true, but that's what those companies are saying. They have to convince objective users. They basically said: You need new Vista, because it looks cool. Not good enough for me, because I even run XP as the old system.

Don't believe me, check which version of IE/Safari/Firefox you are running, when Netscape surfed the web perfectly fine.

I'm running Firefox 2, I don't intend to switch to Firefox 3 in the near future. I'll let other people test the thing for me.

What about that office application you are running? Are you telling me that Office '97 couldn't have written that book report? Emails were never sent with Outlook 2000?

I use Office 2003. Here's the story. When the Office 2007 came out (and there was possibility to use it for my work) I simply tested all versions. I've done those test myself.
Access 2000: 12 seconds
Access 2003: 5 seconds
Access 2007: 41 seconds

I've asked some of my co-workers to test the same thing and the results were the same. I told my boss about it and as a result we now use Access 2003. If you ask Microsoft, which Office they recommend, what do you think their answer would be?

IT departments have huge budgets that they MUST use up each year lest they wont be funded the next year. These budgets go to software and hardware that doesn't necessarily *work* as well as the old one, but it's the new one. It's more obvious with computer technology because next year your **** is obsolete, EVEN your software.

Again, I understand THEIR philosophy. But I don't need to care about what they want. They'll have to put out a better product for me to buy it. Hardware can get obsolete fast, but you can use software for a long time. DirectX10, for example. Microsoft intentionally puts out new versions which require new operating systems. But when a PC game guru like John Carmack says "I don't care about this DX10. My game might be compatible with it or it might not be compatible with it. I don't know yet." - then you see that real users just don't think that way. If Microsoft wants Vista to be successful, they'll have to offer more. The numbers are not lying, it is being sold far under their expectations.

There were retarded ****ers showing the benchmarks about how Windows 3.11 was faster and better than Windows 95 doing their menial task. These people probably understood the benefits of Betamax or HD-DVD. It doesn't matter, switch to Vista or fall behind. In 4 years they'll be bitching how Vista is a better operating system than MS's new OS 2012, and how smart they are for keeping their home laptop using obsolete technology.

You can do the benchmarks for yourself, just as I did with the office. Access 2008 being 8 times slower at doing a particular task (which I use a LOT) tells me everything I need to know about it. Also type "Office 2007 slow" in Google and see what you get. Vista is special case and my prediction is, that Microsoft will get out a new system much faster then they planned before. That's why I can't agree with your post - in 4 years we will all be on new OS. The only thing I know about that OS is, that it will have no mentioning of Vista in its name. As I said there has been one similar case in Windows history and it's called Windows ME.

Originally Posted by seraphim

Haha, if you only knew...

There are two reasons you aren't on Vista. If you've got the money, well, then it must be the other reason.

-_Sf (via Vista)

I am on vista. I've been on vista on 3 different laptops now and they're all ****ty. Like I said before, I was forced to upgrade because of a Microsoft program that was initiated by managers that didn't foresee the issues of migrating our whole company to Vista. Now that we've had so many issues, they are regretting it and want to change back to XP.

I'm not one of those stubborn IT admins that want to stick with old technology. I am willing to upgrade to the latest and greatest as long as it actually works. I was using XP a year before it became retail and didn't have any issues. I also used ME before it was released and rejected that. But whatever, you can call me stupid but I know and understand first hand from an enterprise perspective why Vista will not last and hope that MS will come out with the new Windows 7 as soon as humanly possible. And yes I will be one of the first on that OS too and will give it a chance just like I did Vista.

Originally Posted by trdi

Very true, but that's what those companies are saying. They have to convince objective users. They basically said: You need new Vista, because it looks cool. Not good enough for me, because I even run XP as the old system.

I'm running Firefox 2, I don't intend to switch to Firefox 3 in the near future. I'll let other people test the thing for me.

I use Office 2003. Here's the story. When the Office 2007 came out (and there was possibility to use it for my work) I simply tested all versions. I've done those test myself.
Access 2000: 12 seconds
Access 2003: 5 seconds
Access 2007: 41 seconds

I've asked some of my co-workers to test the same thing and the results were the same. I told my boss about it and as a result we now use Access 2003. If you ask Microsoft, which Office they recommend, what do you think their answer would be?

Again, I understand THEIR philosophy. But I don't need to care about what they want. They'll have to put out a better product for me to buy it. Hardware can get obsolete fast, but you can use software for a long time. DirectX10, for example. Microsoft intentionally puts out new versions which require new operating systems. But when a PC game guru like John Carmack says "I don't care about this DX10. My game might be compatible with it or it might not be compatible with it. I don't know yet." - then you see that real users just don't think that way. If Microsoft wants Vista to be successful, they'll have to offer more. The numbers are not lying, it is being sold far under their expectations.


You can do the benchmarks for yourself, just as I did with the office. Access 2008 being 8 times slower at doing a particular task (which I use a LOT) tells me everything I need to know about it. Also type "Office 2007 slow" in Google and see what you get. Vista is special case and my prediction is, that Microsoft will get out a new system much faster then they planned before. That's why I can't agree with your post - in 4 years we will all be on new OS. The only thing I know about that OS is, that it will have no mentioning of Vista in its name. As I said there has been one similar case in Windows history and it's called Windows ME.

Thank you. Someone else who actually uses an OS for more than browsing the web and checking email.

Originally Posted by Zavesa

And here is the heart of the problem. Ppl opt for flashy and sparkly view instead of functionality.

Hence the look of Vista look while running XP, exactly what I spelled out in my post. You do get that just because it looks like Vista doesn't mean it runs like it, right?

Originally Posted by yipperzz

I am on vista. I've been on vista on 3 different laptops now and they're all ****ty. Like I said before, I was forced to upgrade because of a Microsoft program that was initiated by managers that didn't foresee the issues of migrating our whole company to Vista.

I'm not one of those stubborn IT admins that want to stick with old technology. I am willing to upgrade to the latest and greatest as long as it actually works.

I don't want anyone to construe my position as unbiased*. I am VERY biased towards Microsoft Products. For every laptop that *doesn't work* there are at least ten that do.

As an IT admin, you should realize that Vista isn't the future, but rather the present. You are doing your user base a disservice by not adopting Vista as quickly as possible because they'll eventually be using it(delaying the pain shouldn't be considered a positive action). Hardware refreshes are 3 year cycles(if you're poor) so XP is on it's last legs.

The benefits of Vista go beyond Aero, and they are legitimate and worthwhile. Some companies and IT shops are not bleeding edge, nor cutting edge. Delayed adoption hurts me because I know all the benefits for living on the edge, and they always outweigh the *risks.* We're IT, we're clever enough to find a solution.

-_Sf

*there was a point in my life where I collected a check in Redmond, WA.

Originally Posted by seraphim

I don't want anyone to construe my position as unbiased*. I am VERY biased towards Microsoft Products. For every laptop that *doesn't work* there are at least ten that do.

As an IT admin, you should realize that Vista isn't the future, but rather the present. You are doing your user base a disservice by not adopting Vista as quickly as possible because they'll eventually be using it(delaying the pain shouldn't be considered a positive action). Hardware refreshes are 3 year cycles(if you're poor) so XP is on it's last legs.

The benefits of Vista go beyond Aero, and they are legitimate and worthwhile. Some companies and IT shops are not bleeding edge, nor cutting edge. Delayed adoption hurts me because I know all the benefits for living on the edge, and they always outweigh the *risks.* We're IT, we're clever enough to find a solution.

-_Sf

*there was a point in my life where I collected a check in Redmond, WA.

I'm not biased for or against MS. I use and support their products daily. However, even assuming all of the "legitimate and worthwhile" benefits of Vista actually work (which is still being debated), how can you defend the horrendous EULA and DRM they've introduced?

Originally Posted by seraphim

As an IT admin, you should realize that Vista isn't the future, but rather the present. You are doing your user base a disservice by not adopting Vista as quickly as possible because they'll eventually be using it(delaying the pain shouldn't be considered a positive action). Hardware refreshes are 3 year cycles(if you're poor) so XP is on it's last legs.

I can't agree with that. Friends are asking me for advice for as long as I remember. Lately I've been suggesting to anyone NOT to buy Vista, they should get XP instead. I think that's a very good advice.

Service Pack 3 for XP was released a couple of months ago, it has many Vista compatibility fixes, it makes XP work even faster and is, as I said, Vista killer. IMO Vista is part of the present, but so is XP. But I am absolutely sure that for Microsoft Vista is already the past, they just want to cut the damage the best they can until they are ready to launch a new OS. They are already aware that Vista is a miss. Vista will be remember as "the OS that everybody skipped".

Originally Posted by seraphim

I don't want anyone to construe my position as unbiased*. I am VERY biased towards Microsoft Products. For every laptop that *doesn't work* there are at least ten that do.

As an IT admin, you should realize that Vista isn't the future, but rather the present. You are doing your user base a disservice by not adopting Vista as quickly as possible because they'll eventually be using it(delaying the pain shouldn't be considered a positive action). Hardware refreshes are 3 year cycles(if you're poor) so XP is on it's last legs.

The benefits of Vista go beyond Aero, and they are legitimate and worthwhile. Some companies and IT shops are not bleeding edge, nor cutting edge. Delayed adoption hurts me because I know all the benefits for living on the edge, and they always outweigh the *risks.* We're IT, we're clever enough to find a solution.

-_Sf

*there was a point in my life where I collected a check in Redmond, WA.

I don't disagree that there are benefits of Vista such as the UAC. As annoying as it is, I can see how it can benefit the normal user, but most likely they'll turn it off. Security on Vista seems to be better (since A LOT of folders are locked down) too. But I just wished that they worked on the hardware compatibility. A lot of hardware that I had when I was in 98 SE or 2000 worked fine in XP. Yes I eventually replaced it for newer hardware later, but the point is that it worked. A lot of my newer XP hardware won't work with Vista and cause random BSOD's. Even some software that I use for work cause BSOD's. SP1 has helped tremendously, but I hope that the next version of Windows will be better. And I'm pretty sure they can bounce back from it as they've done it before.

I don't think staying on XP will hurt users as companies are still selling XP and MS extended their support on it since they see that everyone still wants to use XP. But I agree they will eventually have to move on to something newer. For myself, I would prefer to wait or even use Server 2008 instead of Vista at home.

Originally Posted by seraphim

The benefits of Vista go beyond Aero, and they are legitimate and worthwhile. Some companies and IT shops are not bleeding edge, nor cutting edge. Delayed adoption hurts me because I know all the benefits for living on the edge, and they always outweigh the *risks.* We're IT, we're clever enough to find a solution.

This got any legs SF?
Windows Vista security 'rendered useless' by researchers

That article...

Top 10 Benefits of Windows Vista Business | Nor-Tech

...is a joke. There is nothing new there that you couldn't already do in XP.