Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Is Windows XP too good for Microsoft’s own good?

<< < (2/3) > >>

1101doc:
True, but the immediate default is to arrange alphabetically.

OldElmerFudd:
 ;)
IMHO MS decided to release RC3?4?5? versions of the OS just to take the heat off the delays. Never mind the 4!! versions, or the still missing add-ons to Ultimate, or the fact that Vista is a poor shadow of what Longhorn was proposed to be. XP Pro just works, day in and day out. Buy all the OEM copies you can, and settle in for a few more years.

my 2 pennies
OEF

zridling:
No, XP is not too good; rather, Vista is that bad, as in embarrassing. Also, XP is Vista's biggest competitor. How many tens of millions — or is it hundreds? — of people are using a version of Windows? The larger the base, the harder it is to move.
________________________________________________
Person-1 has a laptop with XP on it. Laptop boots in 40 seconds, runs great; is 2+ years old. Has tons of great software available to run on XP. All its hardware only has drivers written for XP. Not enough memory to upgrade to Vista. So why should he?

Person-2 has a desktop with Vista on it. Boots in 115 seconds, runs slow; is brand new with multi-core processor. Freezes and stalls coming out of hibernation. Can't upgrade hardware without buying another copy of Vista and reinstalling everything. Gets Automatic updates whether she turns them off or not. Is subject to being locked out of their computer if their copy of Vista is not continuouly validated. Can't downgrade to XP because new desktop hardware only has a few XP drivers written for it. Also, count how many clicks it takes to get anywhere in Vista compared to XP. Start with networking.

Result?
Person-2 is bloody pissed.
Person-1 is productive.

justice:
Person 2 is bending the truth. You get the same Automatic updates automatically applied on both XP and Vista AFAIK. Also, you it takes one phone call to get vista reactivated on hardware change, not any different from xp. WGA does not require any more activation on vista than it does on XP, microsoft changed that using an wga update, again AFAIK. I'm pretty sure.

Carol Haynes:
I know I was critical of MS for the automatic update debacle - but having thought about it I don't think what they did was that unreasonable. There were two issues:


* updates to windows automatic update software
* turning on automatic update
AIUI the first only occured when "Notify me of updates" was enabled (not if automatic update was actually switched off). Given that you have asked to be notified of updates there are only two options available to MS: only notify that automatic update has an update and not of other updates OR update automatic update so that it can inform you of updates to Windows that are available including security patches. MS chose the latter option and since the user has specified that they want to be notified of updates it doesn't seem unreasonable in the cold light of day that MS enable your system to do what you asked. Having said that I would have preferred a message saying "Automatic Updates needs to be updated, you will not see other updates until it is done" and leave it to the user to choose.

The second situation only occurs if you install Windows Live OneCare - and personally I think anyone who installs that bunch of crap as a security suite deserves to have automatic updates enabled as they are too stupid to understand how to check for themselves.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page