I'm not really clear. English is not my native language. But I mean Vista have been tested pretty much, and windows 7 won't differ that much from Windows Vista. So most hardware will be able to run on it without any problem. (They have been fixed already in Vista.)
Actually, yes, that's one of the few things Vista impressed me with; every system (granted, only three) I've put Vista on, it recognized all hardware 100%, even the wireless on my laptop. That doesn't excuse it from being bloated and slow and clunky, though.
I remember when XP first came out everyone said that it sucked, but now everyone says it's the best Windows. I wonder if people will say the same about Vista in the future when Windows 7 is released.
I remember when XP first came out everyone said that it sucked, but now everyone says it's the best Windows. I wonder if people will say the same about Vista in the future when Windows 7 is released.
It might have been because of the kick-ass enhancements added with SP1, and it only got better with SP2 (after that botched initial release in August '04 required many a computer, including mine, to reinstall Windows).
IMO the "XP is the best" meme formed between 2002 and 2004, after SP1 was released and after most people figured out how to turn off those Godawful Luna and Royale themes; meanwhile, I can only see Vista overtaking it if SP2 turns out to be kickass...
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
nfq wrote:
I remember when XP first came out everyone said that it sucked, but now everyone says it's the best Windows.
That's because the've fixed it since it was released. (largely)
I wonder if people will say the same about Vista in the future when Windows 7 is released.
It seems to me like Windows 7 should be released in a too short amount of time for them to fix Vista in the meantime.
Just forget about Windows Vista or Windows 7. Use something else.
I remember when XP first came out everyone said that it sucked, but now everyone says it's the best Windows. I wonder if people will say the same about Vista in the future when Windows 7 is released.
Most who said that compared it to Windows 2000, which some still feel was the best Windows released. XP was an incredible upgrade over 98 despite the steep increase in RAM and disk requirements, and almost everyone recognized that in 2001. Those in disagreement primarily were Quake FPS tweakers and the bizarre few that somehow successfully ran within Windows DOS programs that required DMA. Over time the Windows 2000 crowd has mostly acquiesced, partly due to the extra ~32 MB RAM requirement not being such a big deal anymore and partly due to all the tweaks and tools (e.g. nLite) that allow XP to compress to 2000 size or smaller.
As was mentioned, the two XP service packs were probably the most substantial in Windows' history, and SP2 was enough to move me back from Linux after a 6+ year hiatus.
I wonder if people will say the same about Vista in the future when Windows 7 is released.
It seems to me like Windows 7 should be released in a too short amount of time for them to fix Vista in the meantime.
The idea seems to be "work on something better" over "work on fixing this disaster". See also Windows 2000/Me.
Rather than work on fixing Me, they just released 2000 to the general public.
I also love your completely dismissive remarks. Bravo.
it might have been because of the kick-ass enhancements added with sp1, and it only got better with sp2
Really? What did those two service packs do? I just installed them because they're supposed to be good, but i never understood what they did. The only difference I saw was that the start up became a little slower and when i try to install a program there's some kind of warning.
I've heard that there's a SP3, but i haven't installed it because the two previous ones didn't seem to do much.
after most people figured out how to turn off those godawful luna and royale themes;
Hm... I turned off the XP theme instantly when i bought my computer. I don't know why it would take long for people to figure it out. you say that the XP theme is godawful, but isn't it a matter of taste? I think the vista theme looks pretty cool.
Blublu wrote:
just forget about windows vista or windows 7. Use something else.
But then i have to keep using my 5 year old computer (xp), because all new computers have vista in them. Xp is also getting pretty old, so shouldn't it start to suck soon? and nothing will be compatible with it. Why would i use a 5 year old OS when I can use vista? it would be like using win95 when there's win 2000. I don't know much about computers, but i've never understood what's so bad about vista.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
nfq wrote:
all new computers have vista in them.
Then you're not buying your computer in the right place. You should at least be able to buy a computer without an OS and then set up whatever you choose. When I got my laptop, I could choose any version of Windows, or any version of GNU/Linux to be pre-set up for me. Hopefully there is such a nice shop near you.
Xp is also getting pretty old, so shouldn't it start to suck soon? and nothing will be compatible with it.
Maybe, but hopefully by the time XP becomes unusable, Vista or Windows 7 will be at a use-able stage of development. Or you could easily switch to GNU/Linux.
Why would i use a 5 year old OS when I can use vista? it would be like using win95 when there's win 2000. I don't know much about computers, but i've never understood what's so bad about vista.
No one is stopping you from using anything you want. If you like Vista, hey, don't let me or ayone else spoil it for you.
I've heard that there's a SP3, but i haven't installed it because the two previous ones didn't seem to do much.
It's mostly a security rollup of previous patches, but supposedly there's new functionality, too. I don't know what it is off hand.
nfq wrote:
it would be like using win95 when there's win 2000. I don't know much about computers, but i've never understood what's so bad about vista.
The problem with this argument are the diminishing returns involved with system replacement. Everyone put up with it in the 80s and 90s because the new systems offered that much more stability and/or functionality. Now that even fringe systems are practically feature complete, replacing a working environment becomes an exercise of spending money and training resources for its own sake.
Even ignoring Vista's obvious downsides (e.g. RAM, video, storage requirements), it just doesn't provide an incrementally better experience over XP or other competing environments--what exactly does Vista do that can't be found anywhere else? For the price Microsoft charges, it better do something impressive...but it doesn't.
This isn't not to say OS development is dead, but, at this point, incremental gains become developmentally expensive and time consuming. The model of system swapping every 2-3 years is long gone.
In short, if you're happy with the OS you have, why should you upgrade? Until you see a feature that makes you go "Oh, hey, I want that" enough to be worth the cost of a) buying the new system, and b) undergoing the effort of upgrading (with the concommittant risk of breaking things), there is quite literally no reason to upgrade.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
It's mostly a security rollup of previous patches, but supposedly there's new functionality, too. I don't know what it is off hand.
The Remote Desktop dialog looks cooler...also
Turns black hole router detection on by default
Network Access Protection client
Windows Imaging Component
I wasn't aware they shipped the updated Remote Desktop client with SP3; it was previously available as an optional download. In addition to looking cooler, it has more credentials handling.
