Once again, Jeku is gonna become annoying after I post this... fortunately for me... I don't care.
(Because you'll berate me and generally insult everything I say... you've done it before and I wouldn't put it past you doing it again)
Quote: "A freaking large % of Windows users use email, surf the net, and run Office. They don't program games or run the most bleeding games on the market. Our hobby here is a small niche in the overall computer sector, so Microsoft is more likely to cater to managers who have the horsepower to spare."
Lets see, you mean to say a large percentage of people are NOT "time is money" consumers, who DO prefer the minorly appeasing graphics compared to efficient and clean? That these same people LOVE the fact that Microsoft changed EVERYTHING.*1
By that I mean that a large percentage of people are so utterly focused on the graphics that the applications they are using are of no importance? Like that term paper they need to type? Or more "popularly" the video they're watching on youtube that does not in anyway relate to the "shinny new taskbar"?
You mean to say that those people would prefer to wait for their applications to load and be happy about the increased loading time because of a few features that you rarely pay attention to?
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, Yes, a large percentage of the people who bought Vista were either retarded (Really hard to explain), or just too docile (Meaning they didn't DEMAND a computer with XP instead of Vista). *Note: I mean to indicate that a large percentage of the population ARE the above things (Don't start the Humanities debate...)
By retarded I mean buying vista for no good reason. Such an example is "It's New", or "It looks Cool", or "Everyone else has it" or even "DX10 ROX YEAHH" From what I read about DX10... it's mainly a patch that removes the preset limits due to distribution of resources... and graphics aren't everything. Or the worse one yet "People have to get used to the fact that they'll have to upgrade their systems every few years to stay ahead of the curve.".
WHY do you want to stay ahead of the curve? I'll give you that a GUI operating system is a significant advantage to the command based systems, but I will NOT give you that Windows Vista, let alone Windows XP improves productivity by a massive amount over Windows 95... You may have the current hardware issues (like flash drives) But the core of the system, the click point do, has not changed.
You may CLAIM to use each and every new feature of Vista and love it, but I ask you this: Do you use the features because they increase productivity, or do you use them because they are there?
Quote: "I hear this lame diatribe every time Microsoft releases a new OS. People were using the same lame arguments as Matt Rock when XP was released, how it's just a new skin with pretty effects, taking up too many resources, etc. etc. I distinctly remember people saying Win2k was crap compared to '98. This is a cycle, and honestly I'm looking forward to trying Vista once I get my new system next year."
A wise man once said "If something’s not broken, don't fix it". I know that you'll bash me for saying something like "Microsoft skips alpha and beta and goes straight to the public" but thats often how their software feels. Perhaps their groups are too small (and don't go telling me there are 10000 testers, because numbers lie. *2) The first few weeks are so full of patches that people question it extensively... let alone the OS' aren't exactly on par with the required hardware.
Another wise man said "The customer knows best". I know you'll also bash me for saying that Microsoft ignores it's consumer database... but I can't be blamed for saying it FEELS that way. I know that people had complained before about how slow XP operated... so the question is, why would Microsoft put out an OS that operates SLOWER than XP? *3
*1:
That is what really turned me off, It wasn't that even after I tried turning off all the schemes the system was still slow... but the fact that Microsoft had the brilliant idea to redesign everything in a way that makes it hard to do anything technical if you're a veteran of the Windows Operating system. (I mean, even the SAVE in NOTEPAD is changed)
*2:
Simply because you pulled 1000 blue cubes out of the hat does not mean all cubes are blue. It merely means that you're pulling from the wrong hat.
*3:
Quote: "Perhaps we should compare and run xp on an old p4 (think 1.7ghz) with 256mb ram or 512mb, back in the day when xp was released that would have been a midrange pc, now pop in a c2d with 2gb of ram for vista and compare the two"
Those have been my specs since XP came out, and it's still faster than Vista.
Quote: "Disagreed. I think the looks and aesthetical feeling of an OS are a feature. You wouldn't work with an OS that looked like 3.11, even if it worked as fast or slightly faster than another OS."
I know a rebuttal has been said... but seriously? You ARE a programmer right? I mean, every project I've worked on started out as a mere data output, I didn't bother creating fancy smancys simply because it looked better. I just tell it what to output so I can check it.
Quote: "Really, this just re-confirms that I won't be buying Windows Vista, now or in the future. I'll just wait until they release their next OS in 2010. Now if only they could get DX10 to run on XP..."
I foresee Microsoft pressing the game market hard enough to force us to make the choice, console or Vista. And I foresee Windows 2010 being even slower than Vista. Unless Microsoft FINALLY wisens up and realizes that winning on technicalities isn't the same as winning.
God I Rant too much
Its not who you are or what you've done... its WHY you did it and how far you are willing to go.
If you fear speaking for yourself, make use the words of others while discovering your own voice.
