Micro$oft doesn't give a ****

[frostbite]

"Microsoft unconcerned over Vista SP1 incompatibility"

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9362114,00.htm

Arrogant or what?

[matt_hooks]

When you have such a stranglehold on the market, you don't NEED to be concerned. As most new machines come with Windoze bundled, and most people not even knowing they have alternatives, the other software vendors will have to make their software compatible or risk losing out on a massive market.

Not saying it's a GOOD attitude, but it's perfectly in keeping with what we have come to expect from Micro****e! Business-wise, for them, they have very little to lose. Can't see anyone selling many PC's packaged with a non-MS OS, except for Macs of course.

[hellsbrink]

It is coming, Matt. Your super-cheap systems (like the Wal-Mart $200 system) comes with Linux and others like Dell sells workstation machines and a few business machines with Linux now ( http://www.dell.com/content/products...n&s=bsd&~ck=mn ).

The stranglehold is loosening

[green granite]

No, [we're] not at all worried," Turner told ZDNet.co.uk. "We've had several million downloads of SP1. We're very excited about it. It still hasn't been officially released, but we're excited about it."

How can anyone get excited by a piece of software that, had the original been right in the first place, would not have been needed.

Typical M$ mentality.

[Saab Dastard]

I suspect that there will be a good correlation between the number of downloads of SP1 and the actual number of installed instances of Vista - particularly in the SOHO and home user space - as opposed to the number of "licenses sold" on new PCs.

MS are obviously excited that it is in the millions, globally - they were probably worried that it was only going to be a few thousand...

SD

[bnt]

It's an exercise in "bell curve" statistics. As long as most people are happy enough, they've succeeded. There will always be a fringe that is unhappy, and Microsoft can, to be blunt, afford to lose them as customers.

The fringe is getting larger, however...

[WALSue]

I have heard that MS is thinking of dropping Vista soon as so few companies are using it.
No idea how true that is though

[hellsbrink]

They won't drop it as such, but are now rushing through the "nex-gen" version of Windows..

Now, we've all seen the results of them rushing things. It's called Win 98, Win XP and Vista

[WALSue]

Now, we've all seen the results of them rushing things. It's called Win 98, Win XP and Vista

Windows ME...need I say more?

[hellsbrink]

Wish you had never even mentioned that one!

[Saab Dastard]

Now, we've all seen the results of them rushing things. It's called Win 98, Win XP and Vista

Whoa - Win98 is what Win95 should have been, and XP is what 2000 should have been, IMHO.

But Win98 is what a lot of folks stuck with as "working", in the same way as most people are sticking with XP instead of Vista.

WinME was a 16-bit evolution that was neither useful nor wanted. Vista is looking sadly similar in the 32-bit world - even though there are 64-bit versions. But then there's a 64-bit versions of XP, so the point is...?

So If you had said "Win ME and Vista" I'd agree!

SD

[P.Pilcher]

Throughout the history of PCs Microsoft has always continued its arrogance to operating system development as described above. When I first ordered one, I remember specifying DOS version 3.2 instead of the new DOS ver. 3.3 because so many people were complaining about it back in 1988! (In fact as my hard drive was over 30 mB capacity, I had to use ver 3.3 and never had any problems!). For as long as I can remember, I have always tried to avoid Microshaft's new operating systems, always preferring the old one. I think that the only exception was XP because this gave very enhanced facilities for handling digital photography and video which I wanted soon after XP came out which coincided with my requirement for a new machine. Now, like many others I am trying my hardest to avoid Vista and have a requirement for a new lappie without it. This is becoming harder and harder to find! However a new dawn is breaking with Linux and my hand is getting closer and closer to that free Linux disk on my shelf. Trouble is that if I press the button to install it, I will have a new operating system to learn which will waste hours and hours. Thus I am tempted, like Brer Rabbit "to sit in my briar patch and do nuffin". Like most other people, I ask what Vista will do for me and apart from needing a further serious memory upgrade and wasting yet more time to learn how to drive it, the answer is probably "nuffin". The ONLY thing it appears to do is to put more money in Gates' pocket!

P.P.

[kenhughes]

Quote by SD

XP is what 2000 should have been, IMHO

I quite liked 2000 and stuck to it until it became difficult to find new software that ran on 2000. XP isn't too bad though.

I don't know what it's like in the UK now, but over here in the US, it's almost impossible to buy a new machine with anything but Vista on it. "Best Buy", the US equivalent of Dixons/PC World, couldn't/wouldn't even supply XP Pro on a separate disc.

I upgraded the machine with my old copy of XP Pro, then had all the hassle of finding drivers!

If it becomes difficult to find software than runs on XP, I won't be buying any new software.

[Shunter]

Why people just assume "this is the only way" and put up with so much Microsoft gash is just beyond me.

Buy an Apple, or get your feet wet with Linux. Sure, you'll stumble for a little while, just like learning to speak a new language, but you'll never go back....

Unless you've got some software which point-blank only runs on Windows, there really is no reason people have to put up with this rubbish. You can run a large amount of Win software on Mac/Linux using Wine and Crossover, and there are free, open-source alternatives around for many common applications.

But don't ALL of you go jumping ship now... fixing your crap-ass Windows Servers pays for my flying

[hellsbrink]

Whoa - Win98 is what Win95 should have been, and XP is what 2000 should have been, IMHO.

But Win98 is what a lot of folks stuck with as "working", in the same way as most people are sticking with XP instead of Vista.

WinME was a 16-bit evolution that was neither useful nor wanted. Vista is looking sadly similar in the 32-bit world - even though there are 64-bit versions. But then there's a 64-bit versions of XP, so the point is...?

So If you had said "Win ME and Vista" I'd agree!

Well, SD, I brought up 98 as since it was rushed and so fouled up they had to release a new version of it (Win98SE). XP was rushed, and we know the issues it had. Vista, unless you have the "right" hardware, is a pain.

Win2k was good, I liked that. It was nice and stable and would cause hardly any issues so how they made such a howler with they morphed that into XP is beyond me.

I deliberately ignored WinME. The less we are reminded of that the better.

[Saab Dastard]

I brought up 98 as since it was rushed and so fouled up they had to release a new version of it (Win98SE). XP was rushed, and we know the issues it had. Vista, unless you have the "right" hardware, is a pain.

Win2k was good, I liked that. It was nice and stable and would cause hardly any issues so how they made such a howler with they morphed that into XP is beyond me.

Win 98 was a significant improvement over 95, and 98 SE was more to introduce additional functionality rather than correct problems. Win98 was built on 95, and there was no real pressure at the time to rush anything out. It was a new "name" release to clear up the ridiculous situation about the number of versions of Win95 that existed - there were at least 4, IIRC.

Win 2K was rushed out because of the millenium and the tie in with Server 2000 and the introduction of Active Directory.

How many Service Packs did Win2K have in its short life? 4 in 3 years? XP is on 2 after 6 years, although I accept that SP3 is overdue. Again, XP was an evolution of Win2K - there were much greater architectural changes from NT4 to Win2K than from Win2K to XP

95 and 2K were both rushed, and 98 (& 98SE) and XP respectively were superior OS's, both in terms of functionality and stability.

As you say, let's not mention Win ME. I'm still trying to figure out the point.

Having said all that, the 16-bit Windows family (95-ME) was cr@p, however much better Win98 was than 95. It was just a question of "less awful".

SD

[mart52]

Win XP

Apologies if I've drifted off subject here....
In my experience Win XP is a stable OS... I was a late to adopt - stuck with W2000 until XP had been around for a couple of years.. probably never move to Vista.
Despite my concerns with M$, I won't go down the Apple route: I have some of the same dislikes of their business practices as I do of M$.
I am serously looking at Ubuntu: every release seems to be impoving - I have IT professional friends who are very positive about how well Ubuntu is working for them.
(I'm not for or against any one OS - make your own choice)
If you still want a decent spec PC in the UK with XP installed, e-buyer are still offering some reasonable deals (look in the business PC section)
Regards
Martin.