LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Distributors now have until 30th May 2009 to take delivery of their final orders of Windows XP.
Read more.Distributors now have until 30th May 2009 to take delivery of their final orders of Windows XP.
I quite like Microsoft, because, frankly without them, I'd not be into computing.
But this is a farce. Either your new OS (which is no longer anywhere near NEW anymore) is the dogs danglers, and you kill the old one,....or it's not good/not popular/not up to the job and you admit it.
Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
But the problem isn't the operating system, it is the perceived quality of your everyday Joe thats causing them grief.
I find vista a much tidier OS than XP, not just graphically, but some functions are much better, such as networking.
M$ keep having to extend dates because people refuse to try it and if they do try it, then they think of all the rigmaroll of 'it doesn't work, it's broken', the 'mojave experiment' showed that...
M$ have to work on changing peoples perceptions before trying a product, rather than keep offering OEMs liscences of a haggered old OS for newer PCs, i'll admit, vista is a bit of a hardware junkie, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be used on lower end machines, it just means less features should be used if possible, (and the less features and lower usage requirements =XP), so they are better off keeping XP going along side Vista and having the respected old timer and the Professor Frink n00b.
okay... so i have changed my mind about the need for XP now
Post Counts and Other Rewards, Rules, Folding@Home, Fans: Push vs Pull vs Push-Pull, Corsair PSU OEMs.
TAKTAK.co.uk
For Microsoft to have done Vista right, they would have had to have done a "Mac OS X". Essentially a "start from scratch, lose the bloat, and break all your software" kind of approach, with some sort of compatibility layer so some old stuff still works.
The Vista security model sort of has that, but Vista is really just XP with a new UI, new security model, new network stack, and a bunch of other things... it's new bits, tacked onto an old core.
One of the other problems MS has is that its strategy for getting the job done focuses on functionality over efficiency - as long as it does what is asked of it, how it does it isn't that big a deal.
The reason MS might be reluctant to "do an Apple" is quite clear: it has a significantly larger user base than Apple. The momentum from the already developed software is enormous - trying to push against that is nearly impossible.
But let's think back 6 or so years and work out what made XP so great. Back then, the savvy had two choices. We could either use Windows ME - the biggest disaster since Microsoft Bob - or Windows 2000, which was a business-oriented OS not meant for home use.
And so the wise switched to Win2k, and people realised that 9x based OSes were rubbish; they wanted some of the same juice the business folks were getting. The same quality. The same stability.
I think Microsoft could do to develop something completely new. Something aimed at businesses - special ones, big ones - that ignores regular consumers. Basically, create a new NT. If it works, then people down the food chain will want in on it. The caveats will be "all your hardware will break" or "all your software will break" or "everything will work, but old stuff will run through an emulation layer REALLY SLOWLY". And everyone will say "oh, that's OK, just give me the good stuff!"
I think it's the only way MS can do something truly innovative, without being torn up by the momentum built up by its previous creations.
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
@Steve You make some interesting points.
Of course MS can't do a MAC-OS, as they have no control over the hardware base the OP exists on. Apple are notorious for this control. Hence their ability to produce items such as the iphone with a slick interface. Compare this to third party phones ( even, dare I say Crackberry) and notice the less fluid user experience. Whcih, as you mention, brings us to functionality over efficiency. MS trys to be all things to all men and suffers as a consequence. Their previous market dominance my just be thier undoing if they do not revisit the business model. - XP underlines this. I am happy with XP ( and frankly so is my ageing system) I have no need for Vista on this particular system. So why should I upgrade to improve their profits?
After all, ... "if it ain't brike, dont fix it"...... well, almost ;-))
You forget though Steve that XP came out in 2001.
My favourite operating system along with 2000 Pro.
People say Vista has better networking.. Well, I never had problems on XP, still get them with Vista.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
