dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed


PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to rfhar

Re: Windows 8's usage uptake falls further behind Vista's

Although I do think that Win 8 is somewhat of a "kludge" first effort at attempting to make Windows an "all-device" OS, an equal contributing factor is that the pace of hardware development and CPU changes have slowed noticeably in recent years.

Many Vista-equipped desktops and laptops are still relevant machines in terms of horse-power, storage space, etc., so that even though Vista was a bomb for MS, as long as it works, many folks with Vista machines are not just running out and getting new computers.
--
Deeds, not words


BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:3

2 recommendations

Vista wasn't a bad os, and uac was a good idea for the average user who wasn't a complete moron, however most 3rd party software wasn't correctly written to use user account when unnecessarily needing admin privileges for bullcrap reasons when Vista was released. Even to this day some software is still poorly written, and while it's not a system utility, otherwise installer wants admin privileges for everyday use due to piss poor programming. Vista also wasn't accepting of antique computers either due mostly lack of driver support from 3rd parties which Microsoft had no control of, but could have delayed the release of the os to reduce this problem.

I wouldn't replace Vista with Win 8 either.
--
I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires- Susan B. Anthony
Yesterday we obeyed kings, and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to the truth- Kahlil G.



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

said by BlitzenZeus:

Vista wasn't a bad os, and uac was a good idea for the average user who wasn't a complete moron, however most 3rd party software wasn't correctly written to use user account when unnecessarily needing admin privileges for bullcrap reasons when Vista was released.

If they keep changing the O/S, then 3rd party vendors are going to fall behind even more. Add money market issues and low finances I can imagine it will not get better. By the time 3rd party vendors get chance to keep up, the page will have changed again.

We end up with an O/S and it's toys designed internally due to outside companies dropping off more than they open. More cash flow for the O/S vendor, less cash flow for 3rd party vendors?

/theory
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke


BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:3

Xp has user accounts, these same companies were ignorantaly, and deliberately designing software that didn't work on user account in xp also. No excuse.



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

said by BlitzenZeus:

Xp has user accounts, these same companies were ignorantaly, and deliberately designing software that didn't work on user account in xp also. No excuse.

If that is the case and it is still the same companies and not different ones, I can't argue that point.

It certainly didn't help end-users and their security needing admin just to do play with the favorite software. I'm getting off topic though.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Kramer
Premium,Mod
join:2000-08-03
Richmond, VA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·GoDaddy Hosting

1 edit
reply to BlitzenZeus

said by BlitzenZeus:

Vista wasn't a bad os, and uac was a good idea for the average user who wasn't a complete moron, however most 3rd party software wasn't correctly written to use user account when unnecessarily needing admin privileges for bullcrap reasons when Vista was released. Even to this day some software is still poorly written, and while it's not a system utility, otherwise installer wants admin privileges for everyday use due to piss poor programming. Vista also wasn't accepting of antique computers either due mostly lack of driver support from 3rd parties which Microsoft had no control of, but could have delayed the release of the os to reduce this problem.

I wouldn't replace Vista with Win 8 either.

Microsoft could have delayed Vista ten years and the 3rd parties would have waited eleven. Vista prepared us for Windows 7. By the time the OS (edit: Windows 7) came out most hardware and software vendors had come in line. I'd have no problem upgrading the lone machine I have running Vista to WIN8 if I thought the machine would benefit. It is barely running Vista adequately. I really don't have a problem with Windows 8. I never see Metro and I have an operating system that has had some significant improvements over the earlier version. Businesses on the other hand are not going to adopt Windows 8, until Microsoft changes it. The consumers I have dealt with (that is a fairly small number close to but not over two figures) pretty much hate it, until you install something like Classicshell and let them deal with Metro in their free time, if at all. I've ordered close to $30,000 worth of computers since early December and not one of them was ordered with Windows 8 on it with one exception... I bought my daughter a $500 laptop at Best Buy and it came with it.


Darkfairy
Aeolus, your daughter flies.
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Louisville, KY
reply to PeteC2

said by PeteC2:

an equal contributing factor is that the pace of hardware development and CPU changes have slowed noticeably in recent years.

You bring up a good point. A lot of people trying to run Vista were trying to run it on 128 and 512MB of system memory when it really needed at least 4GB. This is the problem with having a 10 year release cycle.
--
Fairy Blessings,
Stefanie


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by Darkfairy:

said by PeteC2:

an equal contributing factor is that the pace of hardware development and CPU changes have slowed noticeably in recent years.

You bring up a good point. A lot of people trying to run Vista were trying to run it on 128 and 512MB of system memory when it really needed at least 4GB. This is the problem with having a 10 year release cycle.

There is a little more to it then that. Vista heralded wider adoption of 64bit over Windows XP 64. Such a transition wasn't easy for many. There was also an issue with drivers (lack of drivers / poor drivers) for many (which likely would have been true for XP 64) and general bugs in the then new OS as well as lackluster computer hardware in use during that time,...

Software support issues and many of the general problems that occur with an OS upgrade,...

So it was a combination of issues colliding. For those hit with multiple issues when things previously worked fine in XP it would be difficult to do anything other then vilify Vista,.....and go back to XP.

For those with robust computer hardware and no noteworthy software, driver or hardware problems upgrading / using Vista wasn't difficult,....


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

1 recommendation

Octavean, your post is outstanding in its content and relevancy. Well done!

I have to add something though that might be considered by some a bit at odds with the undeniably accurate info you posted.

When MS decided to replace XP with a new OS it made a big deal of it starting five years before the release of Vista. They boldly and publicly stated that they were going to make the design of a new super OS to replace XP has THE number one goal or priority of the company. They were going to spare no effort in money or manpower to make the pending wonderful new modern OS that we all were going to love.

About five years later they rolled out Vista as the end product of their super top priority new OS that would change our lives---Vista!

For both the reasons you mention plus the interface itself it was shocking to many, myself included, that THIS was the end result of five years of the best MS could produce sparing no effort or cost? It was in that context an embarrassment to the company and a shock to the user anticipating what was being advertised as coming from MS.

Naturally, Vista never took off really, and very quickly after the newest thing in town syndrome rapidly wore off and reality sunk in the OS was accurately labeled a failure by MS and they ended up two years later with OS 7, which is what Vista should have been.

OS 7 is IMO clearly the best OS MS has ever designed even accounting for the time period any prior OS was released.

Unfortunately, OS Win 8 is starting off in way too many areas in a negative way including the totality of reception by its users. Many like it. No doubt about that. But way too many don't like it and vocally so. That is not a good trait in any context.
--
The signal is usually drowned out by the noise.



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

Thank you, and you make a very good point yourself.

I will say thought that when Vista was in development and nearing release I think it became clear before the product went gold that intended features were being dropped.

I liken this to my Intel Core i7 3930K / Asus P8X79 Deluxe based system in some ways. We were hearing about features of the X79 chipset like SAS support, motherboards with 14 SATA ports, an improved Intel SRT SSD caching feature and more,.....all were apparently dropped to get the product out the door on time.

I get that anticipation and expectation of a great new OS may be impossible to live up to under the circumstances but I also don't think people should get swept away with said expectations.

I mean, at the end of the day we all have to live in the real world and it helps to have realistic expectations regardless of what a company may say about their "magical" new widget.



digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to Blogger

So when all support for XP ends in a year, are all these users (40% of Windows desktops) going to abandon Microsoft because "too many don't like Windows 8"? Mass migration to Apple? Android?
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


Kerodo

join:2004-05-08

They'll be forced to use whatever the MS monopoly is selling when their machines die.. or just go on with XP without updates till that time arrives... there aren't any reasonable alternatives...


OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to digitalfutur

said by digitalfutur:

So when all support for XP ends in a year, are all these users (40% of Windows desktops) going to abandon Microsoft because "too many don't like Windows 8"? Mass migration to Apple? Android?

Ready to dump Windows, is Mac or Linux better for me?
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...