Why is it that the entire internet is covered with opinions mirroring this, dismissing everyone who doesn't like Vista as "having not tried it", but whenever I actually ask people in real life, the universal conclusion of everyone who has tried it is that it was terrible?
These people who think Vista was a great step forward seem to only exist on the internet and nowhere else.
> seem to only exist on the internet and nowhere else.
Is this a metaphysics question? I exist outside of the internet.
> dismissing everyone who doesn't like Vista
I wasn't dismissing every argument against Vista. Just this guy's.
There are several valid arguments against Vista. Namely, it has heftier memory requirements (at least 2 gigs) and needs a decent video card ($150+). These are real concerns, and problems XP didn't have.
However, this guy made the blanket statement "Vista bad, 7 good". There's no subtlety or analysis.
"Existing on the internet and nowhere else" is a typical way to categorize people, given the existence of global communication. Having never met either of you (as far as I know), you only exist on the internet to me, and to each other. The rest is opaque.
As for Vista, we're not dealing with it as it is, but as it is reputed to be. And it has a terrible reputation. The technical merits versus XP can be argued, but its poor image is hard to contest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista.
We take that as a premise, because the technical bits don't matter any more, in the presence of Windows 7. The meat is the use of price as a tool to drive better initial reception of 7 than Vista. There's no need to analyze "Vista bad", because it is already widely believed to be bad.
I don't think Vista needs a $150 video card, but your right on the memory. (When Vista came out, it might have needed a $150 video card- but prices have since come down.)
Not even close. This is what programmers (and Microsoft) don't get. Vista didn't work because the experience and interface were terrible. It didn't matter how good the underlying OS was. Windows 7 fixes the user experience of the OS, even if it is the same technically.
You're requesting information from people you talk to in real life. People are volunteering it on the internet. You're naturally going to get different biases.
I know my experience in real life was colored by a few people trying Vista Business early on (on new hardware) and deciding that the new features were not worth the performance penalty. Everyone I know who's done this, including myself, has "downgraded" to XP (as Microsoft allows).
People I know in real life who are considering Vista now are somewhat disinclined to do so, in favor of just waiting for Windows 7.
Vista might not be good but for actual users it is better than XP. But Vista is not revolutionary and it is actually not aging that well (my quick launch items on 64-bit, 8GB ram just stopped working or work randomly). Windows 7 is the same system so really it is just Vista with fixes.
After more people get a whiff of OSX it is all over. OSX is really the dream. Once they went nix and intel based (Apple) OSX is the power of nix with the best OS gui to date. Microsoft will be in a world of hurt if they dont' redo their OS from the ground up (it is a pile of legacy pain), they'd be smart to base it on *nix but never will.
I don't care for OSX at all. I hate the way the window manager works, for one, and I don't like the model where I make changes and close instead of saving or applying, giving me the chance to stop the change. Maybe because I'm used to the way Windows works, but, nonetheless, at least for me, your statement is false.
> Vista is a good operating system. Much better than XP.
Depends. I occasionally run Vista for testing, and I do it in a VM with 1.2 GB memory. It is not pleasant.
You may say that's my own damn fault, and you may be right, but it still feels offensive to me to need 2GB of RAM just to run the OS at an acceptable speed.
The cheap 'two week sale' upgrade option is only available for certain regions which notably excludes the EU (apart from the UK). Due to the action against Microsoft concerning browser bundling, EU users will need to preform a wipe and clean install to get Win7.
It suggests that $120 is an outlandish price to pay for an operating system, but it doesn't seem so outlandish to me, if it's a good piece of software. People will spend that price, per month, on a cable or satellite bill (even in our current economy), so why wouldn't they spend that much for an upgrade to the software that all of their computer software runs on.
And with so many free alternatives especially Ubuntu, its going to be a bit tough for Microsoft. We might see a considerable amount of people willing to try Ubuntu or other alternatives.
You people really do live in your own little world, don't you? The average person hasn't a friggin' clue what Ubuntu is, never mind thoughts of installing it on their computer. LMAO.
Buy a $5 mouse and an OEM copy of Win 7 Ultimate from newegg for $89 (or whatever it turns out to be), like anyone with a brain did for Vista Ultimate.
I imagine they'll be charging less for Windows 7 preinstalled on netbooks, just as airlines charge less for round-trips with a Saturday-night stayover.
If you live in China, maybe they'll give it to everybody for half price during the week of National Day (Oct. 1st) as they did with Office last year to celebrate the "liberation" of the country by communism.
Why don't they offer the same deal for July 4th in the US?
24 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 72.8 ms ] threadThis article is just another in a long line of "I heard Vista sucks (but never tried it) and 7 is good (but never tried it)" articles.
It's a cliché argument with a predictable conclusion. There's not a single interesting, unique, or insightful thought in this article.
These people who think Vista was a great step forward seem to only exist on the internet and nowhere else.
Is this a metaphysics question? I exist outside of the internet.
> dismissing everyone who doesn't like Vista
I wasn't dismissing every argument against Vista. Just this guy's.
There are several valid arguments against Vista. Namely, it has heftier memory requirements (at least 2 gigs) and needs a decent video card ($150+). These are real concerns, and problems XP didn't have.
However, this guy made the blanket statement "Vista bad, 7 good". There's no subtlety or analysis.
As for Vista, we're not dealing with it as it is, but as it is reputed to be. And it has a terrible reputation. The technical merits versus XP can be argued, but its poor image is hard to contest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista.
We take that as a premise, because the technical bits don't matter any more, in the presence of Windows 7. The meat is the use of price as a tool to drive better initial reception of 7 than Vista. There's no need to analyze "Vista bad", because it is already widely believed to be bad.
I know my experience in real life was colored by a few people trying Vista Business early on (on new hardware) and deciding that the new features were not worth the performance penalty. Everyone I know who's done this, including myself, has "downgraded" to XP (as Microsoft allows).
People I know in real life who are considering Vista now are somewhat disinclined to do so, in favor of just waiting for Windows 7.
After more people get a whiff of OSX it is all over. OSX is really the dream. Once they went nix and intel based (Apple) OSX is the power of nix with the best OS gui to date. Microsoft will be in a world of hurt if they dont' redo their OS from the ground up (it is a pile of legacy pain), they'd be smart to base it on *nix but never will.
Depends. I occasionally run Vista for testing, and I do it in a VM with 1.2 GB memory. It is not pleasant.
You may say that's my own damn fault, and you may be right, but it still feels offensive to me to need 2GB of RAM just to run the OS at an acceptable speed.
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/1552-windows-7-cheap-prices-bu...
Fire glints his glasses. Anger sparked heat burns a hole in his pumped fist. He squeezes and breathes fire: "You'll pay for our mistakes."
Nowadays, with netbooks around $250 it is not such a good idea.
Much worse during a recession.
Why don't they offer the same deal for July 4th in the US?