So, Vista lasted 2.5 years, I told you it was ME2...

With the release of the new Windows OS next October, and considering that Vista was released in 2007, I ask again as I did back in 2007:
Was Vista a ME2 (Mistake Edition)?

I mean, defenders of Vista initially compared with the release of XP, but XP was released in 2001 and it lasted 6 years without need for replacement.

Comments?

 

I think Vista was a test OS, ideas that were good in it will be included in Windows 7. So Vista was simply a bridge between XP and new WIndows 7

 

A bridge that costs 100$ for every consumer that uses it. Thank you MS.

They should allow free upgrades to Win7 for everyone who uses Vista.

 

Vista had way too much negative publicity to keep around. Hell when Microsoft has to invest in the infamous Mojave campaign it doesn't say good things about the OS.

I'm not the biggest fan of Vista as I was expecting more which was promised in it's early days, WinFS, no Registry, no need to defrag. Vista did some good things but some steps back. From all the W7 feedback it looks like MS listened and fixed some of the negative things in Vista. After all W7 is basically Vista 2.

Hopefully with W8 we'll get a new FS, no registry and some other cool stuff.

If you read the Acer Exec article any PC purchased since 30 days ago, qualifies for a free upgrade, that's if the Acer exec is to be believed.

 

It's all because of the negative hype about Vista when it was released but all those problems are gone now.. But Vista still has this bad name and microsoft wants to get rid of the name by throwing in a new OS because im sure all the things they've done in 7 could easily just be made for Vista in a Service Pack or something.. Vista is fine

 

ms doesn't want the consumers to grow attach to their os like what happened to xp and resist change. i almost forgot, to make money too

 

I'm not one to support MS but every other Windows Release has had a cycle of 2 years or so.

No, otherwise it would be Windows 5.2(XP is 5.1, 2k is 5.0) and Windows 7 would be 6.0.

Vista was a fluke, especially after abandoning the old code base and restarting.

 

really, that's crap. if you start to dig throught the acer forum about the Vista express upgrade you'll see that there were tons of people on this forum who never got there upgrades. I was one of them.

so anyone considering buying an acer now because there is an upgrade consider flipping a coin first. if you get 2 heads in a row you'll get your upgrade... if not... buy another brand.

yes Acer, I didn't forget!

 

You obviously know NOTHING about the typical life cycle of Microsoft Operating systems or the deviations in that schedule that occurred with the XP to Vista transition. With Win 7, Microsoft is back on its normal cycle. Before you start running your mouth decrying Vista, you really ought to do just a little delving into the history and FACTS of the situation. They don't support you hypothesis.

Gary

 

And Vista didn't last 2.5 years - it just got a nip&tuck and new name.

Anyone know if there are any serious plans by game developers to use Linux - surely it can't be the Vista(Seven) way or the highway??

 

I replied too, and then reported the thread, for it to be either merged with other 100 or so threads like this floating around, or to delete it. Then I deleted my post because no action will be taken and I was talking to a wall. :s

EDIT: Wall = OP.

 

Go ask where someone might care. This is a Windows forum, not a Linux one.

Gary

 

The average release cycle is about 2 years. E.g. Windows 95, Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win Me, Win 2000, Win XP, Win Vista Win 7. It has been 14 years and there's exactly 7 OSes, go figure.

 

Yep, Win 7 is right on schedule. The WinXp -> Vista transition was an anomaly in an otherwise fairly regular cycle.

Gary

 

Another pointless Vista-hater flaming thread. Disrespect

 

As others have said, release cycle is around 2-3 years average, Vista just took longer, but I beleive it was initially set for launch within a couple years of XP as well, but it just ran into major delays I assume since it was a code rewrite for the operating system, and what not.

Looking at the releases again kinda makes me think this is more of a Win98 Win98SE thing, where Vista is 98, and SE is 7. I always viewed it more of a Win2K to XP sorta thing too, 5.0->5.1 (Vista to 7::6.0 -> 6.1).
I was one of the few who used Vista before SP1 (came with my laptop). SP1 honestly didn't really do much more me, except increase file copy times and such. To me there wasn't anything bad about it, except the fact that my old scanner doesn't work with Vista (bought in 98, probably time for an upgrade on that).

 

Please, this is just a conversation. Don't get angry about it.

I guess it is a regular cycle, but as a consumer, of course I like better the idea of changing my OS every 5 years rather than every 2 years (overall if it is not necessary). The fact that it has been happening that way doesn't make it right, and as consumers, we have the tools to choose whether we swallow a new OS every 2 years, or THINK that that is only MS BS and consumerism. And just... don't buy the new one...
...And of course, criticize the new one if it's not offering nothing really "new".

 

Are you a mod? - I was under the impression that I didn't need your kind permission to post. Amazing how quickly Vista apologists resort to being unpleasant/abusive, isn't it?

 

There's a few I think and a lot of small projects that have good results.
A lot of games run fairly well in Wine.

 

Like most Windows versions before it, Vista got slammed because of many ID Ten T errors (write out the Ten and you'll get it) when people tried to update their XP systems to Vista, but didn't bother to upgrade little things like RAM. Everyone wants their Volkswagen Beetle notebook to run like a Michael Schumacher Ferrari, and when it doesn't, the new OS gets the rap instead of the dumba$$ in the mirror.

Even I initially bought the BS until I talked to others in the IT industry who were already using it. Based on their advice I made the jump and haven't regretted it once. I actually find XP to be a PITA when I have to use it on my older systems.

BTW, if you're too dense to get it, ID Ten T errors are what we used to tell people years ago that they had for a problem (ID 10 T). We even told them to put it in their config files.

 

Personally, I like having new Windows Versions every 3 years or so. I don't want to buy a laptop 2 years from now and still get Vista.

 

Strange, to me Vista support cycle ends in 2017 not 2.5 years after release. Bizarre, almost like the OP knows next to nothing about what he is talking about. Calling Vista ME2? Scratch that, must be a total fool who knows absolutely nothing about what he is typing about. Anyone want real facts go here:

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=WINDOWS　VISTA&Filter=FilterNO

Anyone want pointless uninformed XP Fanboi nonsense keep listening to the OP. All the anti-XP talk in their precious Vista Hater Club threads really has the XP fanbois riled up here I guess.

 

Again, why the insults...?

(most Vista improvements can be covered by free software, and even with the best RAM, processor, etc, you can't reach XP's speed. ie: on games)

I was there for most OS changes, and from 3.1->95->98 there were a lot of improvements on "real things": stability, security, compatibility.
So when we saw Win ME, of course we noticed MS was only trying to make money. Same with Vista. If you asked around the year 2002, none was using Win98, everyone moved to XP because it worthed the change. Now ask around how many people is using vista.
The thing is, as consumers, we can push MS to give us things to buy that are really worthy. Otherwise they'll just try to make money instead of really improving.
By criticizing new OSs that are not really "new" we are doing exactly that. By buying the "new thing" just because it comes in a different colour, will in time favour MS money machinery, instead of the "improving machinery" (while still making money).

 

Yes, MS waited 6 years to make money! They made 1 OS in this time, rather than 3, just to make money, quite some logic right there!

 

May be XP got to be better than they expected.

And they don't want to do it again.

Again, let's push "XP" switching behaviour on MS, rather than Vista switching behaviour. Improving+money rather than plane money making.

 

You cant say it lasted 2.5 years unless you want to go by off the shelf availability. Until Vista MS put out an OS every 2 years. Vista took 4, there for outside of issues vista's late release extended the sales lifespan of XP.

However on off the shelf availability Vista will probably stop sales when 7 is available unlike what would have been done with a more successful operating system. That said Multics the failure prior to unix was in mainstream use until 2000 that was a 31 year running failure lol.

 

+1. Well said.

Whether or not Windows 7 will be a Vista killer has more to do with the price point Microsoft sets for upgrades and less to do with any perceived problems with Vista.

I am staying with Vista on my machines that currently run Vista. No reason to switch.

The only machines I may upgrade to Windows 7 will be my XP machines...my two netbooks.

Personally, I really like Vista.

 

You guys make me lmao! :laugh:

It sure doesn't take much to get your panties in a bunch!

 

Exactly, and I'm afraid that that will be the permanent policy of MS:
Throw a mediocre OS, they'll buy it anyway.
Two years later, throw another, they'll buy it anyway.

That didn't happened with XP, I liked that policy better. If we just don't buy the new mediocre one, they'll get back to it.

(I mean mediocre, because it does not involve major improvements. Contrary to Win 3.1->Win95->Win98->WinXP)

 

Windows ME only "lasted" 1 year until XP came out... Vista will have lasted 2.5 years -- longer than Win 98, Win 98SE, or ME... and almost as long as Win 95.

OP: What's your point (regarding lasting 2.5 years)?

Good point there about 7... arguably Vista is lasting much longer than 2.5 years, with a bit of a refresh/update. Although I guess Win 95/98/98SE/Me was probably a similar sort of series.

I think Linux market share may have to grow a bit higher than 1% before that happens (much).

 

The release cycle for windows is actually fairly long. OS like Ubuntu gets a new version every 6 month. Consumers are not forced to upgrade or buy new OS, so why would be angry about it?

 

Thank god! who needs that POS useless Vista? if you want a REAL OS go XP or W7, nuff said

Are you surprised why MS kept XP live for 6 years vs. Vista which was supposedly teh next b!g thing, only laster for 2.5 years, out of that, 1.5 years full of bugs up until SP1 came out which *somehow* enhanced things but you can't enhance an OS built with a kernel based on crap! :roll: go figure!

Last question, how come W7 has all teh fancy visual effects that Vista offer you and also add some more enhancements, yet is much more responsive and snappier than Vista? LOL

 

I feel sorry for anyone who is living teh V!$+4 illusion! :roll:

 

really? i remember ME. it was a piece of crap. Vista is no peice of crap. it works awesome. i am not even going to bother with windows 7, im extremely happy with vista.

it runs awesome on my machine, and it ran awesome on my last machine too.

it got off to a very rocky start due to a release that was premature. sp1 fixed that. Vista is sweet. love it, have no plans to even bother with win7



ev

 

I agree.
I have 2 laptops, one xp one vista.
I am planning to sale one with xp, its annoying even after sp3, reformat.

 

Dream on boy, stop lying to yourself! use XP for 5 mins and you'll never go back to the slow resource hog Vista that offers you nothing but ohh some nice transparancy effects and visual effects that you will problably get bored with after 10 mins! :roll:

XP is a REAL OS that utilizes only resources that you would actually use, forget that illusion called PREFETCH, no matter how much prefetch will help you, I bet you any day I would still launch an application in Vista faster than you would with prefetch on Vista! LOL

VISTA = Microsoft's Joke to steal all our money :roll:

 

VISTA = Windows ME = POS

 

Yeah, and some people prefer the color red over the color blue. Just because you may like red doesn't mean blue sucks.

Nobody is going to change anyone else's mind here.

There isn't a trophy at the end of this "debate"

If you prefer XP, then that's best for you.

If ya like Vista, that's best for you.

Same for Mac or Linux.

I have a machine with linux, a machine with XP, and a machine with Vista as soon as W7 is released I'll have that too.

All three machines work perfectly and do exactly what I expect of them.

You guys are taking this piontless debate way too far! And yet these fanatical arguments will continue.

 

sorry

kthxbye

 

Windows xp use prefetch and Vista use super fetch. Super fetch is smarter than prefetch in Vista.

Anyways.. nobody cares.... If you like XP.. then use it. From a technical standpoint, Vista is so much better. It's like moving from Windows 98 to windows 2000. The codes are rewritten...etc and many features are added.

1 thing that I'd like to point out, unused resources is wasted resources. Why wouldn't you let Vista use your otherwise wasted resources to speed up your computer? It seems like you want your OS to be slower.

BTW...almost all the newer windows OS are slower than previous version. E.g. Windows xp is slower than windows 2000. When Xp was introduced, it was such a resource hog just like windows Vista. Windows XP uses more than 100MB of ram when idle. WOW.. Compared to 50MB in windows 2000, that's 100% incease in resource ussage when switching from 2000 to XP. In the end, XP will be faster than 2000 because the hardware will be better.

Here's a nice comparison. A single core P4 with 512MB of ram running windows xp vs a core2duo with 2GB of ram with Vista. Which one's better. They both cost about the same price at the time when it's bought. I'd rather use Vista than XP since XP is definelty slower with its older hardware.

When you get to more modern PC, e.g. quadcore with 8GB of ram, 1000GB hdd..etc Vista will be a lot faster than XP. System responsiveness of Vista will be so much better than XP that once you've used it, you'll never look at Xp again.

 

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

A major issue with Windows ME was stability and "bugginess", and XP was a huge improvement over it (and 2k for that matter). Vista has made the same improvement over XP - now that it has had a long time to mature Vista >>> XP

Upon running Vista (yes, I have run it on machines that used to run XP), I have not had a single BSOD, and have only had a tiny number of application freezing (as compared to XP). In general, everything felt much "snappier" than XP, after Vista had about 1 week to optimize itself. True, it was a bit laggy on first boot and for the first few days, but it is now much more stable than XP.

People have a misconception of Vista as a huge resource hog, but what is the point of having 4GB+ RAM that is sitting at 30% usage? Why not cache files into the RAM for faster access?

Also, if you do not like the visual effects of Vista, turn them off. Nothing's preventing you from doing so.

Vista also trumps XP in terms of general features and support of hardware.

 

Very true. XP on my two 2003-vintage dual core Sony Vaio desktop PCV-RX861 brought me frequent BSODs which I have not experienced using Vista on my 2008-vintaqe HP M9150 desktop.

There is no contest.

 

Hey Midnightsun, has jacklou923 changed your mind yet?

How about you jacklou923, has MidnightSun changed your mind yet?

No? What a surprise!

I'll bet if you keep stating your cases long enough, the other will relent and declare you the winner!

Don't stop now. You're almost there.

 

They're just having a debate. Each will end up using what is most beneficial, or comfortable, for them.

Personally, I enjoy the point-counterpoint.

 

Yeah, it might have some entertainment value if it wasn't the same debate made hundreds of times before.

XP vs Vista, yeah that's fresh.

 

Let's keep this civilized, just pointing points of view...

I don't know. It's just how WE teach MS to do things. Get out good but not so good OS, or, get good ones once every 5 years.

Again about XP vs Vista, can anyone explain me then:
Why games work much better on XP? Seriously, no sarcastic, true question.
Games are supposed to be among the few things that really squeeze the machine. With the highest specs, still XP works better than Vista, doesn't it?
On the other hand, games on XP works much better than on Win98. Sure, out of compatibility, but that IS and important issue to introduce a new OS. Esthetic is not.

About timespan: Win98 lasted 4 years, until XP SP1. Nobody got ME. Let's see if next year vista is still selling.

 

We always have the freedom to skip over those posts and threads that rehash the same old debates, though.

 

I agree vista started terrible I will be honest I hated on vista when it came out and it was because the many bugs it had and so many compatibility problems. A lot of people still hate it, but they should consider trying it again since its changed a lot. The fact that it had problems in the past made people get away of vista and be scared. I tested it out had so many problems went back to xp give it one last try when sp1 came out and I am happy with vista now. When sp1 came out it got very fixed and stable (still some minor issues). I suppose vista was a just a beta a test, and windows 7 seems very promising. I still consider xp to be the best in the market and the very friendly using I yet to see if windows 7 is so good as everyone says

 

I was not a Vista early adopter. I stayed with XP until March 2008, at which point, IMHO, Vista had already become a stable platform.