So you think you want to go Windows Vista huh? (part 2, Angry's rant)

[shadrack]

A federal lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft, claiming it falsely advertised various computers by calling them "Vista Capable" when their system specs didn’t really meet the qualifications.

 

Full story at tomshardware.com

 

 

I hope this will teach them money grubers some manners!

[BlueOval]

Take a look at the long list of FAILS now from MS:

 

Vista

WHS

Xbox360

Xbox Live (now with even MORE disconnects, DRM issues, etc!!!)

 

I'm probably missing a few MS fails here but it's early and I'm still quite sick with the flu.

Well let's see.. I recall WindowsME being a colossal flop and Windows95 was pretty much a pile of s*it.. Altho I recall working with WFWG 3.11, I can't recall what was thought of it at the time. I don't remember having any personal issues with it.. MS-DOS wasn't the only version of DOS back in the day and it wasn't the best version, but it was the version that sold the most. I wonder what ever happened to the other makers of DOS programs..

[red930]

A link to the actual story would be nice.

 

A federal lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft, claiming it falsely advertised various computers by calling them "Vista Capable" when their system specs didn’t really meet the qualifications.

 

Full story at tomshardware.com

 

 

I hope this will teach them money grubers some manners!

[red930]

I wonder what ever happened to the other makers of DOS programs..

 

Some of them are still around. Most of it has turned into the public domain or been offered as freeware.

[red930]

In reference to the lawsuit against Microsoft over the Vista Capable logo.

 

Here's the actual wording that accompanied the label and logo...

 

"Through the Windows Vista Capable program, Windows XP-based PCs that are powerful enough to run Windows Vista are now available from leading PC manufacturers worldwide, including Acer Inc., Dell Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Gateway Inc., HP, Lenovo, NEC Corp., Sony Corp., Toshiba and more. The Windows Vista Capable logo is designed to assure customers that the PCs they buy today will be ready for an upgrade to Windows Vista and can run the core experiences of Windows Vista."

 

So the customer screws up and doesn't read and understand the logo and label so Microsoft is at fault.

 

Once again people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

Maroons

[BlueOval]

Once again people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

Maroons

Not to change the subject, but I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement and would go further by saying that that is the #1 thing that is wrong with our country today - from the Clintons on down to your average Joe in the street.

 

Bed-wetters!

[GutBuster]

jesus roadie that list for WHS corruption IS a clusterxxxx. Well, as of right now, my opinion about Vista and anything MS releases is still very negative.

 

While there will be a few fans of Vista who will complain about our hating, they should always keep in mind the majority of us have customers or businesses or business customers (the most important of all!) and when you break something in the OS, you literally break the company's ability to function properly, and can even cause the business to lose money.

 

It's always funny how MS keeps pushing their new . on everyone, ESPECIALLY business/enterprise, but when the backlash is huge like it always is with a new OS that doesn't function properly, they turn a deaf ear and act like they don't hear the negative backlash, they only hear the three companies (probably owned in some way by MS or someone who works for MS or owns a lot of stock in MS) who tout it as the next best thing since oral ..

 

Take a look at the long list of FAILS now from MS:

 

Vista

WHS

Xbox360

Xbox Live (now with even MORE disconnects, DRM issues, etc!!!)

 

I'm probably missing a few MS fails here but it's early and I'm still quite sick with the flu.

 

My biggest complaint is that there is simply zero competition, so we are all forced to eat Microsoft's feces if we want to game or run a business. Which is about 95% of computer use...

 

XBox Live is a "fail" in your eyes? LMAO, wow!

 

XBL is far from a failure.

[Angry_Games]

Well let's see.. I recall WindowsME being a colossal flop and Windows95 was pretty much a pile of s*it.. Altho I recall working with WFWG 3.11, I can't recall what was thought of it at the time. I don't remember having any personal issues with it.. MS-DOS wasn't the only version of DOS back in the day and it wasn't the best version, but it was the version that sold the most. I wonder what ever happened to the other makers of DOS programs..

 

thing is, Win95 was NOT a flop. It started the Windows revolution more than any other OS (yes, even more than Mac's crap). It maybe have been crappy for you in hindsight, but at the time, Win95 was the supreme OS because of the things it could do (keep in mind that it was released before there was an "internet" for everyone to use because no one had any real connections to the that "internet thing" other than a few of us, and there was no USB, no AGP, no nothing almost lol).

 

WinME...was a pretty good OS as I installed it thousands of times while working at Cheap Guys Computers in Orlando and rarely had an issue. I think most that had problems were "noobs" or "hacks" that couldn't figure it out (people who are near-experts now that were NOT even close to being anything but a noob back then but they don't remember how green they were back then...)

[Angry_Games]

XBox Live is a "fail" in your eyes? LMAO, wow!

 

XBL is far from a failure.

 

is it? $50 a year to continuously get disconnected repeatedly if you can even log in for long stretches?

 

Is it a wonder retards have filed a class-action lawsuit against MS over it?

 

More importantly (because we hate retards who file stupid lawsuits because their mommies didn't touch their privates enough while growing up apparently), MS themselves can't figure out wtf is wrong with Live and they are going to offer everyone a free Live Arcade game over the whole fiasco (800 point value).

 

We are talking 10,000,000 subscribers who will be getting this....this is how bad Live is xxxxed up. Now you look at that and tell me if it isn't an Epic Fail?

 

That's just part of the equation of what makes it a fail in my eyes...I don't even have to go into it.

 

But we aren't talking about Live here. We are talking about Vista.

[HITandRUN]

Vista yeah! In my eyes Vista is not any worse than XP was when it came out! I have been running Vista for a while now without any problems and just installed the SP1 as well. Yes, it is a bit slower that XP and a memory hog etc. but it is nothing you should spent sleepless nights over it. Games run on it just as they run on my XP install! Crysis on Vista looks much better!

[BlueOval]

thing is, Win95 was NOT a flop. It started the Windows revolution more than any other OS

 

WinME...was a pretty good OS as I installed it thousands of times while working at Cheap Guys Computers in Orlando and rarely had an issue

umm.. Not to dispute you Angry, but there were a couple of versions of Windows out before Win95. If you wanted to run an IBM-compatible as opposed to a Mac you ran Windows, it was that simple. So why Win95 'started the Windows revolution' any more than preceding versions did I'm not sure. Do you say that because it sold in record numbers for the time? Did it outsell any previous version? I'm willing to concede that it may have be an OK OS and that I'm looking at it negatively in hindsight; but I don't believe that it was so good that it sold the general public on the idea of having Windows as their OS of choice as opposed to buying a Mac instead.

 

You are the only person I have ever heard say that WinME was a pretty good OS. Every other person I have ever heard - be it online, in print or in person - has said that WinME was a piece of crap - in fact they said it was the worst OS MS had yet come out with. Now I never had WinME, so I'm not saying this from personal experience and I'm not saying I wasn't a noob back then, but I had been tinkering with PCs for about 10 years when ME came out.

 

One other thing I'd like to comment on is

there was no USB, no AGP, no nothing almost lol

Now who is using hindsight? I remember when they first came out with 65MB HDDs and everyone thought they were HUGE; having 16MB of RAM made your rig killer or having a Voodoo card was the shiznit as a gamer. Yes, we had almost nothing compared to what we have today; but for back then everything we did have was hardware to drool over just like today.

 

Now I know you're going to rip me a new one over this post, lol, and I know I'm not the techhead that you are and probably never will be; but I call 'em as I see 'em and that's how I view it. Getting back to Vista I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Angry_Games]

umm.. Not to dispute you Angry, but there were a couple of versions of Windows out before Win95. If you wanted to run an IBM-compatible as opposed to a Mac you ran Windows, it was that simple. So why Win95 'started the Windows revolution' any more than preceding versions did I'm not sure. Do you say that because it sold in record numbers for the time? Did it outsell any previous version? I'm willing to concede that it may have be an OK OS and that I'm looking at it negatively in hindsight; but I don't believe that it was so good that it sold the general public on the idea of having Windows as their OS of choice as opposed to buying a Mac instead.

 

Does it matter that there were iterations of windows out before Win95?

 

no, it does not. Win95 is what started the us down the revolutionary road of Windows as a primary OS. It doesn't matter that there was an OS from Xerox that preceded even Mac's window-based OS. It doesn't matter that Win3.1 preceded Win95. It doesn't matter that Mac's OS preceded it. None of those did diddly-squat to revolutionize computing for business first, then home users, like Windows 95 did.

 

If they did, we'd be using Mac or Xerox or Novell or who knows what other OS, but we aren't...we are all using (majority...OVERWHELMING majority) Windows from Microsoft. While I liked Win 3.11, it was a major pile of . and did nothing to move us into the computing world that we are now in like Windows 95 did.

 

I personally can't say I loved it all that much, but you can't look at it from your own personal view...lest you be a Chicago Cubs fan and refuse to admit that the Yankees are the best team in baseball year in and year out, and the best team of all time considering how many championships they have won. You got to use your head, not your heart, to determine who the winner (or the influence) is. Win98 and especially Win98SE was THE killer OS for me, but without Windows95 and the insane influence it (and MS) had, there wouldn't be a Win98SE nor 2k or XP. There just wouldn't.

 

Why was Win95 such an influence? Like you, I'm not sure why from a personal viewpoint (as I never used it all that much myself), but I can tell you why from an objective viewpoint that ties in with reality:

 

because it gave the home user an easy way to do all the things they thought they needed to do, but more importantly, it gave the business/enterprise user a way to be productive in ways they hadn't even though about before. Tying in client machines to Windows NT4 (the best of the NT's but even previous NT's were decent enough) gave a business a very stable backbone to which employees could be productive...linking spreadsheets on a server to all the clients who could change necessary fields in real-time is just one of the benefits that might have been possible in previous OS's from all competitors, but none did it as well and as efficiently (that sounds like a joke from all of us these days knowing what a nightmare NT4 and 95 was haha) as Win95 did, nor did any other OS give the HOME user the same productivity and efficiency.

 

This is just how it was, whether you and I liked the OS or not. It led the way for what we all have now (XP, not Vista).

 

 

You are the only person I have ever heard say that WinME was a pretty good OS. Every other person I have ever heard - be it online, in print or in person - has said that WinME was a piece of crap - in fact they said it was the worst OS MS had yet come out with. Now I never had WinME, so I'm not saying this from personal experience and I'm not saying I wasn't a noob back then, but I had been tinkering with PCs for about 10 years when ME came out.

 

Must be a lonely world for me is what you are saying? None of the co-workers or friends or customers I've ever dealt with in the era of ME said anything negative about it. Plenty of customers would come into the shop . and moaning about it but would leave happy and we rarely heard from them again once we fixed THEIR screw-ups.

 

I've heard plenty of people on the internet moan about how awful ME was, but I've never had that feeling about the OS nor has anyone whom I've personally worked with in the same field...we've always attributed it to the user (hint...think DFI motherboards and how the USER was almost always the problem on boards that weren't defective right out of the production facility...like the Lanparty NF3 and NF4...). Might or might not be true for you personally, just like it is true for me personally.

 

It's a moot issue these days as ME didn't have the influence that 95 did, and it was a stop-gap OS between 98SE and 2000...in the same way that 2000 was a temporary stop-gap for Windows XP. The same way that Vista is a pile of crap stop-gap between XP and whatever comes next (hopefully Google/Mac/Linux hahaha)

 

 

Now who is using hindsight? I remember when they first came out with 65MB HDDs and everyone thought they were HUGE; having 16MB of RAM made your rig killer or having a Voodoo card was the shiznit as a gamer. Yes, we had almost nothing compared to what we have today; but for back then everything we did have was hardware to drool over just like today.

 

Now I know you're going to rip me a new one over this post, lol, and I know I'm not the techhead that you are and probably never will be; but I call 'em as I see 'em and that's how I view it. Getting back to Vista I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

there's no ripping needed. Windows 95 came out in an era of 16MB of RAM and 500MB or smaller hard disks. My point was that the majority of people who hated Windows 95 never used it until Windows98 was out, or more likely they tend to forget there simply was no USB, AGP, etc, and the rub was that as each new technology came out, Windows95 had to be hacked and patched to make it work properly.

 

Why is this important? Think about it...you've got an OS that was built when there wasn't really even a concept of AGP and probably not USB, and now you are having to tie these technologies into an OS's kernel to work properly.

 

OS's like Windows XP...notice you don't need any drivers for USB storage devices nor the USB ports themselves...they are native now because the OS was built with that technology in mind. Wireless isn't an butt-whip in XP because wireless was an established (albeit young) technology when XP was built. AGP still required drivers but you now had to put the onus on the chipset makers, not the OS maker, because the XP recognized what an AGP slot was, and only needed to be told how to run it during 3d applications (you didn't need AGP drivers to do 2d stuff, only the video card drivers).

 

Heck, lets take a look at standard VGA...you plug in a card to Win95 or Win98 that it doesn't recognize (ie: something newer than a Tseng Labs 2MB PCI haha) like say a ATI Rage IIc 8MB, what do you get? 16-colors @ 640x480 until you pop in some drivers.

 

Drop in a brand new card like an 8800GTS 320 in Windows XP what do you get? 16-bit color + 1024x768 resolution without any drivers. Why the difference? Because all these years later, all the hardware makers have made sure that their cards will run at those settings without any drivers (even though you get nice screen lag) because they all work on a STANDARD VGA platform. Why? Because Windows XP is built to recognize ANY video card as a standard VGA card that has the ability to do 800x600 or 1024x768 with minimum 256 color but I've yet to run into one that doesn't do 16-bit color without drivers.

 

Back in Windows 95, you couldn't agree on a standard because MS didn't have the influence or market share that they do now, which means they can dictate the terms of the hardware to the hardware mfg's and there's not much hardware mfg's can do about it as if it doesn't work the way MS says it should, who is going to buy it? If you have to fight a piece of hardware for 40 minutes to get it to work with all kinds of drivers, reg hacks, conf edits, etc, is it worth your time just to get 5fps more in a game than a card that you just drop in, install drivers, and play the game?