Page 4 of 4
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:00 am
by Grim...
I honestly think that's because of all the crack-kiddies also wanting to bash Microsoft.
But that still makes it a misconception, you're right.
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:47 am
by pilau
Windows XP's take-over on the PC world was the fastest windows-take-over ever.
Vista's take-over, however, wouldnt be as easy and fast as XP's - it will take more time for people to give up on XP, not to mention that 16% of the Windows users still use 98/98SE.
(Although that could mean that the people who use Win9x would transfer to Vista faster than XP users, since Win9x REALLY sucks).
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:04 am
by Roja
pilau wrote:Windows XP's take-over on the PC world was the fastest windows-take-over ever.
Thats completely inaccurate.
The fastest was win2k, pushed on by the year 2000 funding thrown around in virtually every company to ensure they were year2k compliant. They took that budget, and spent part of it to migrate since they had put it off for years.
The second fastest was windows 95, which rapid-fire replaced 3.11 around the world with a MUCH simplified memory and GUI model (in comparison to 3.11).
XP has been *extremely* slow.
Just two months ago there was an article talking about how slow it has rolled out. Windows 2000 still has a larger installed base!
pilau wrote:Vista's take-over, however, wouldnt be as easy and fast as XP's - it will take more time for people to give up on XP, not to mention that 16% of the Windows users still use 98/98SE.
(Although that could mean that the people who use Win9x would transfer to Vista faster than XP users, since Win9x REALLY sucks).
You got it right the second time. They aren't counting on picking up many of the XP users. They are counting on getting all the Win95/98/ME/2000 users that have held out until now.
By ending general (but not corporate) support for all four before the launch of Vista, they ensure that people will be absolutely desperate to migrate to it. If they can also migrate some XP users (gamers, first-adopters, etc), even better.
The net result is that you will need to upgrade to keep doing what you've been doing, ensuring that Microsoft will be raking in the money.
Of course, the interesting question is what the NEXT version will have in store..
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:58 pm
by pilau
Roja wrote:
The net result is that you will need to upgrade to keep doing what you've been doing, ensuring that Microsoft will be raking in the money.
Which is a very productive but abusive and bad way to make money.
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:29 am
by Grim...
I'm just hoping hardware prices will come down when Vista comes out, especially for GFX cards.
I'm guessing when everyone starts throwing 256meg onto their cards, the high-end GeForce prices should drop...
/fingers crossed
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:12 am
by John Cartwright
Grim... wrote:I'm just hoping hardware prices will come down when Vista comes out, especially for GFX cards.
I'm guessing when everyone starts throwing 256meg onto their cards, the high-end GeForce prices should drop...
/fingers crossed
they will, they always do.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:25 pm
by pilau
Even before longhorn was announced, the prices where dropping. they'll always drop.
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:44 pm
by m3mn0n
That's why I am not complaining about the new requirements.
I got a top of the line system for less than a grand and when Vista hits the store shelves, those types of machines will be in demand and the prices will take an even bigger drop than normal so I can buy a couple more of these babies for cheaper than I normally would.
Gamers and server owners rejoice!

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:24 am
by pilau
Well - the conclusion is, that maybe Vista's departure (in spite of the many downfals and disadvantages it has)
will help reduce the cost of high-end computers and so.
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:34 pm
by patrikG
very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about the core changes Windows as well as Microsoft have been going through so far:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1127 ... s_page_one
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:40 pm
by d3ad1ysp0rk
Maybe Microsoft should create memory/cpu hogging Operating Systems.
I mean, it's nice to push for hardware innovation, but when it's due to a bloated operating system; no thanks.
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:28 am
by Grim...
Holy <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span>! Surely the guy pictured in the Wall Street Journal article is Tony Blair?
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:48 pm
by alvinphp
The bigger the company the slower they move. Yahoo was the new kid on the block with new innovation, they then got big. Now it is Google with all the cool ideas, how will they work when they get bigger?
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:21 pm
by theda
I find it funny that Microsoft expects people to buy whole brand new PC's to run Vista.... And if they don't, how do they expect that 16-20% 98and older OS users to switch over to Vista? Screw buying a brand new pc when the current works as fine =D