Houston we have a problem, lets force feed Vista to people

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I honestly cant believe the main anti-Vista bandwagon is STILL screaming "No driver/hardware support!" and, my favorite, "It's just an eye-candy bloated upgrade!"

Un believable.

Well you can't deny the truth, if people are talking about, they obviously got to have some hardware that is not supported.

and most of those people finds out after they have already made the move to Vista

Remember the whole thing from Microsoft about if you upgrade to Vista you lose your old XP license?, well that's what most people cry foul about.

Lucky i do my research before moving into any OS, and right now Vista is not yet ready for me.

So i'm happy dual booting back and forth every time i find a new driver to test it out to make sure it works the way i want before i switch fully to Vista, otherwise it's rather pointless if i can't run my entertainment system under vista.

 

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Lack of network connectivity isn't an execute to skip good security practices.

That is true, but who's going to target a NT4 junk that is sitting in the back office that nobody really knows it even exist except for few the accountants people that does their stuff on it?

LOL

 

[Nothinman]

Well you can't deny the truth, if people are talking about, they obviously got to have some hardware that is not supported.

Sure you can deny it, I get yelled at every time I mention that installing Linux is many orders of magnitude simpler than XP is because it doesn't support any of my hardware out of the box. It's a huge PITA to download drivers for anything else when the OS doesn't even have a driver for the NIC.

Remember the whole thing from Microsoft about if you upgrade to Vista you lose your old XP license?, well that's what most people cry foul about.

Upgrade licenses have always worked that way. It's the reason that the upgrade license is cheaper than the full retail license.

That is true, but who's going to target a NT4 junk that is sitting in the back office that nobody really knows it even exist except for few the accountants people that does their stuff on it?

The accountants or anyone that knows where the accounting department sits?

 

[videopho]

Hey OP
Shouldn't "Houston" now be called "Redmond"?
LOL

Viva Vista.
Vista for life (well, almost)...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
Ironically, NT4 had more control and better hardware support than Win2k,

C'mon dude. Really. Nobody is swallowing that for a second.

NT4 had terrible hardware support compared to Windows 2000. Why do you think all the gamers were running 9x back in the day instead of NT? Because they liked the security and stability that 9x offered?

NT 4.0 didn't even have a device manager. It had no plug and play support, no USB support, a fixed DX version, couldn't use 2000 drivers (although 2000 could commonly use NT drivers). NT 4.0 support was awful compared to 2000.

Don't make me call shenanigans on you. Switch to a different argument.

 

[nweaver]

I don't run Vista, and have only used it a handfull of times, so I don't care either way. The arguments sound like an echo from when XP came out, and all the 9x fanboys (and some 2K, but most "gamers" still used 9x) whined, complained, and said they would never upgrade and that XP was craptastic blah blah blah. I was even one of those, who didn't want to upgrade.

Realize that here at AT, we get a skewed view of the tech world. Mom and pop don't care what's happening on their PC. They check their email, surf Ebay, and maybe print some pictures. The percentage of people that upgrade hardware or OS instead of just buying a new PC is probably less then 10% of the market. It's buisness that they sell a new OS with a new computer, and that New OS needs to work better/be better then their old computer. In 2-5 years, most folks will get another one anyway, and don't care that Creative has crappy/no drivers, or that the Nvidia drivers were getting 20% less frames in the beginning because of crappy drivers.

 

[AllGamer]

sorry Smilin, but you just described how ignorant or lack of knowledge you have for NT4, needless to say that what you say doesn't have or do, it actually do have, the only thing true is the lack of the "Device Manager" as you know it, and there was no need since NT4 you installed the hardware that you needed directly into the HAL list, PnP is supported, just not the way you come to understand it, and everything else is manual, which is exactly the great thing about NT4, you don't need to worry about the rest of the Machine crap conflicting, simply because if you did not install drivers for it, they don't exist, unlike all new windows version, that it detects and wants to install the hardware in the machine, either you want it or not, it still does and takes up resources even when they are not running yet.

NT4 was not designed for games from the gecko so there's no comparison there.

 

[bsobel]

you don't need to worry about the rest of the Machine crap conflicting, simply because if you did not install drivers for it, they don't exist, unlike all new windows version, that it detects and wants to install the hardware in the machine, either you want it or not, it still does and takes up resources even when they are not running yet.

Hahahahaha. Someone has too fond memories of the ISA bus, port conflicts, and actually thinks the hardware needed a driver in order to take resources. There isnt a single user, developer, OEM, etc that is going to say with a straight face NT4 had better HW support than W2K. AllGamer, all I can do at this point is shake my head while Smilin owns you.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
*snip*

Holy crap dude. Are you familiar with the idea of a run-on sentence?

And oh yeah, you're smoking something pretty good if you think NT had better hardware support. Ever try to run it on a laptop?

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: bsobel

you don't need to worry about the rest of the Machine crap conflicting, simply because if you did not install drivers for it, they don't exist, unlike all new windows version, that it detects and wants to install the hardware in the machine, either you want it or not, it still does and takes up resources even when they are not running yet.

Hahahahaha. Someone has too fond memories of the ISA bus, port conflicts, and actually thinks the hardware needed a driver in order to take resources. There isnt a single user, developer, OEM, etc that is going to say with a straight face NT4 had better HW support than W2K. AllGamer, all I can do at this point is shake my head while Smilin owns you.

My laugh was about the USB support. I know of ONE USB device that worked for NT4, and that was an HP scanner that hacked some semblence of PnP and USB support, and when you got a tech call on that scanner, you knew the rest of your day was ruined.

 

[AllGamer]

NT was never in intented for laptops back in the days when NT was popular, Laptop were only running Win95 and Win98.

There are hardwares that only ran in NT4, mostly to do with certain Raid, and SCSI controllers, which some never got their drivers for Win2k, and if you wanted Win2k, then you'd have had to change hardware, also upgrade to Win2k compatible version of the software, of what you had on NT4.

Which again brings us back to the point of Upgrading OS = spending more money, and time, for new hardware and software, that there is no need to be upgraded / changed in the first place.

As some of you might know, in some corporate places getting your IT budget approved some something like that, is like asking to pull a teeth from your CEO.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
NT was never in intented for laptops back in the days when NT was popular, Laptop were only running Win95 and Win98.

There are hardwares that only ran in NT4, mostly to do with certain Raid, and SCSI controllers, which some never got their drivers for Win2k, and if you wanted Win2k, then you'd have had to change hardware, also upgrade to Win2k compatible version of the software, of what you had on NT4.

Which again brings us back to the point of Upgrading OS = spending more money, and time, for new hardware and software, that there is no need to be upgraded / changed in the first place.

As some of you might know, in some corporate places getting your IT budget approved some something like that, is like asking to pull a teeth from your CEO.

Your IT budget should have money for upgrading and changing out legacy hardware/software. That's the point of the budget. Your budget should have already had that in it, as well as supporting information about why it's needed. CEO's realize that investing in IT is a necessary evil. yes, some are over budget, some are under budget, but the bottom line is that in this day and age, every company realizes the need to spend money on infrastructure.

 

[Nothinman]

NT was never in intented for laptops back in the days when NT was popular, Laptop were only running Win95 and Win98.

Which is why it's not even in the same league as Win2K with regards to hotpluggable hardware like USB and PCMCIA.

There are hardwares that only ran in NT4, mostly to do with certain Raid, and SCSI controllers, which some never got their drivers for Win2k, and if you wanted Win2k, then you'd have had to change hardware, also upgrade to Win2k compatible version of the software, of what you had on NT4.

There's no denying that, it happens with every release because some manufacturers don't like to properly support their customers. And Win2K could use some NT4 drivers so it's not like you were definitely out in the cold if you wanted to upgrade.

Which again brings us back to the point of Upgrading OS = spending more money, and time, for new hardware and software, that there is no need to be upgraded / changed in the first place.

The main need is support, you need to have your configuration be supported by the vendors that provided the hardware and software and that doesn't happen indefinitely.

 

[bsobel]

There are hardwares that only ran in NT4, mostly to do with certain Raid, and SCSI controllers, which some never got their drivers for Win2k, and if you wanted Win2k, then you'd have had to change hardware, also upgrade to Win2k compatible version of the software, of what you had on NT4.

Sure no denying that that will be true of pretty much any new release with a new driver model. Companies go out of business, companies dont support their older product lines, etc. But thats a long long way from from the redicoulous claim of "NT4 had more control and better hardware support than Win2k" you originally made. Nice back-peddling.

 

[bullbert]

Originally posted by: nerp
The fact is, consumers have choice and they always will. To this day, you can buy licensed copies of Windows 3.11 on eBay. Does anyone here honestly think that XP will be nonexistant a year from now? Get serious. Stop living in a fantasy world.

Incorrect. The sale of so called "licensed" copies of Windows 3.11 is in breach of the EULA. Hence, these are unauthorized licenses and therefore illegal. And yes/no about XP. In one year, no. In several years, then yes, I honestly think that ***LEGAL*** XP sales/resales will be nonexistant. Get serious. Stop living in a fantasy world. Microsoft lawyers define and control the contracts of what constitutes legal sales and legal installations any MS product, past present or future.

Remember, according to the TOS to which you agreed, in layman terms, you do not own the OS, you do not own the rights to use the OS, you only are granted the temporary usage of the OS, until Microsoft decides otherwise.

 

[bsobel]

Incorrect. The sale of so called "licensed" copies of Windows 3.11 is in breach of the EULA. Hence, these are unauthorized licenses and therefore illegal.

Resell of retail licenses is not against the EULA. eBay is very good at working with MS, us, and others to remove software being sold that shouldnt be (accedemic versions, nfr's, pirated versions etc). So, since you claimed it please post the terms of the eula that you think applies to the W3.11 sales on ebay.

 

[nerp]

Yeah!

 

[shortylickens]

The quote in Your own first post: "At some point, they might have to consider limiting the availability of XP, to push people to Vista."

directly contradicts your thread title.

Nobody is forcing anything down your throat.
If you really dont like it, go with Linux or Mac.
I'll probably be getting into Ubuntu for home use after I play a few of the next gen games like Crysis.

No one is forcing you to buy a Hybrid. You can still get a monster SUV or an efficient regular compact car.
Its your money, do what you want.

 

[Abram730]

Originally posted by: orion23
Vista was never intended to be an Upgrade OS, but a jump from the OLD to the new Tech, only allowing up to date or newer systems to run it. Vista was supposed to be more of a monster OS but it became less and less as time passed by.

In the end, MS lowered the requirements and pretty much created all type of versions and allowed most to tag along.

Vista so far is the best OS I've used. Very stable, easy to work with.

And most people that complain about Vista, either don't even use it, or have tried it in their crappy 10 year old pc's

I have a New computer and I don't like vista. I have had many bugs. Example I can't use any Nvidia driver after 97.46. They removed hardware sound and that is a no go for me. I don't buy the stability claim...I personally think it is so they can restrict and secure audio for DRM.

I have a lot of system stutter too that I don't have in XP

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: Abram730

Originally posted by: orion23
Vista was never intended to be an Upgrade OS, but a jump from the OLD to the new Tech, only allowing up to date or newer systems to run it. Vista was supposed to be more of a monster OS but it became less and less as time passed by.

In the end, MS lowered the requirements and pretty much created all type of versions and allowed most to tag along.

Vista so far is the best OS I've used. Very stable, easy to work with.

And most people that complain about Vista, either don't even use it, or have tried it in their crappy 10 year old pc's

I have a New computer and I don't like vista. I have had many bugs. Example I can't use any Nvidia driver after 97.46. They removed hardware sound and that is a no go for me. I don't buy the stability claim...I personally think it is so they can restrict and secure audio for DRM.

I have a lot of system stutter too that I don't have in XP

You apparently bought a crappy configured hardware PC that stutters with Vista.
Upgrade the system memory is a must for most Vista based PCs.
A dual core processor is another huge benefit.

I second the post in your quote...
Vista by far is MS's best OS I've ever associated with.
Is it perfect?
Hell no, it's still a long shot but by far it's way better than XP in almost everything I've thrown at it.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
since NT4 you installed the hardware that you needed directly into the HAL list

What?? What does that even mean? Please describe this "installed the hardware directly into the HAL list"??

PnP is supported

ORLY?? I'm not even going to bother to provide a link on this. (yet..I'm giving you more rope)

everything else is manual, which is exactly the great thing about NT4, you don't need to worry about the rest of the Machine crap conflicting

No "manual" is exactly why you have to worry about resource conflicts. The conflicts sucked so bad it's the reason they invented PnP, the PIC, APIC & ACPI standards.

unlike all new windows version, that it detects and wants to install the hardware in the machine, either you want it or not, it still does and takes up resources even when they are not running yet

mmm...if you are configuring hardware "manually" the resources are taken up the moment you plug the hardware in. If you choose not to install a driver then you are just crippling the OS so it can't access those resources. Under modern ACPI the OS handles resource allocation of the hardware so if you disable (not "uninstall" or "cancel" install..why do people not get this?) then the resources are freed.

sorry Smilin, but you just described how ignorant or lack of knowledge you have for NT4

Dude, I forget more about NT 4.0 on a good weekend bender than you've ever known.

 

[Nothinman]

What?? What does that even mean? Please describe this "installed the hardware directly into the HAL list"??

Obviously he had one of those ultra-rare open source builds of NT where he could compile all of his drivers statically into the HAL...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Abram730
I have a lot of system stutter too that I don't have in XP

Hmm. That seems to be a not-uncommon complaint. I've read at least three cases including yours that mentioned this.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Dude, I forget more about NT 4.0 on a good weekend bender than you've ever known.

LOL. I used to run NT 3.5, 3.51, and 4.0, and now - I don't remember a damn thing about them, other than they used PROGMAN.EXE and stuff. Ugh!

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
The quote in Your own first post: "At some point, they might have to consider limiting the availability of XP, to push people to Vista."

directly contradicts your thread title.

Nobody is forcing anything down your throat.
If you really dont like it, go with Linux or Mac.
I'll probably be getting into Ubuntu for home use after I play a few of the next gen games like Crysis.

No one is forcing you to buy a Hybrid. You can still get a monster SUV or an efficient regular compact car.
Its your money, do what you want.

ubuntu looks sweet check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPecBxM2f6c