Author Topic: Windows Vista to arrive @ 2006 (Read 1587 times)

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #30 on:** July 25, 2005, 02:14:17 PM »

Rolex either you're yanking our chain or have been just incredibly lucky.

W9x is very easy to corrupt with certain software installations.

Sandman · « **Reply #31 on:** July 25, 2005, 04:11:56 PM »

Micro$oft is going to have trouble with the name, Vista..

Vulcan · « **Reply #32 on:** July 25, 2005, 04:19:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CavPuke
Just some food for thought here, the latest edition of Maximum PC had an editorial suggesting that with the switch to Intel processors by Apple this may be the beginning of a new OS war with Apple trying to grab a market share with Mac OS . I've used both OS, neither are perfect and both have their strengths and weakness's, but in the end it would be nice to have some real competition forcing both MS and Apple to bring a better product to us. Not saying that is what will happen, just saying give it a thought.

Unlikely, Apples enterprise appeal isn't there. The thing with Apple is there is twice as much bluster as MS, believe it or not, take OS X's 64bitness, often touted by Apple, well its not really. Theres one 64 bit library, the GUI and any apps the run on the OS X gui are all 32 bit. Apple may be ahead in the GUI (~1 year is my guess), but they're about 2 years behind in an enterprise ready product.

soda72 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 25, 2005, 05:16:11 PM »

Apple had their chance to be dominant in the personal PC market but they blew it. I guess that's what happens when you let tech heads run a company instead of people from sales..

Vulcan · « **Reply #34 on:** July 25, 2005, 05:58:25 PM »

I'll let you know how these Intel based Mac's stack up (looks over shoulder)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #35 on:** July 25, 2005, 06:04:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert
I've run various builds of "Longhorn" and it makes all three versions of XP seem pretty light on comsumption of hardware resources.

Does all of this inclued "Windows 64"? The one thing I hate bout XP is the amount of rescources it takes to run.....why devote all that to JUST the OS?

I've never used Win2K is it a hog like XP or more like 98? I have a couple of PII 450 boxes I've been wanting to set up. With a Gig of ram they are blazing fast for what I need them for until you install XP on them.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #36 on:** July 25, 2005, 06:17:31 PM »

W2k is a lot more like W98 in feel, but its a resource hog almost as bad as XP.

Lizking · « **Reply #37 on:** July 25, 2005, 06:49:05 PM »

One man's "resource hog" is another man's "ease of use". XP let's you adjust that overhead quite a bit. The only time it is an issue is when you cheap out on RAM, anyway.

Lizking · « **Reply #38 on:** July 25, 2005, 07:19:30 PM »

Where is the overhead?

Rolex · « **Reply #39 on:** July 25, 2005, 07:24:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Rolex either you're yanking our chain or have been just incredibly lucky.

W9x is very easy to corrupt with certain software installations.

No, not yanking your chain. But, you are correct since I only have a few applications installed (ZoneAlarm, Firefox, Thunderbird and AHII).

If I want to do anything, I use my Mac.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #40 on:** July 25, 2005, 10:35:03 PM »

I run 98se sp1.5 mainly also ..

firefox, fix it utilities(trend micro av), ad aware , and hijack this .

i stay perfectly clean and my setup catches any badies and hangs them at the door .

i pass the symantec security test in full stealth mode . (ports hidden)

I perfur 98se to xp anyday ... but then i can walk thru 98's registry like a day in the park .

SLO · « **Reply #41 on:** July 26, 2005, 09:01:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
W2k is a lot more like W98 in feel, but its a resource hog almost as bad as XP.

you live on another planet mate, W2K is more NT/98 then anthing else, it is far from XP(media target) resource hugging, trust me.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #42 on:** July 26, 2005, 11:36:31 AM »

Well SLO I used W2k only for about 3 years on several workstations before moving to XP. It is my opinnion that W2k and XP do not differ very much when only core functions are left enabled.

Even bare to the bones, both however use significantly more resources than W98.

Not saying it's a problem of any kind, just a fact.

Steve · « **Reply #43 on:** July 26, 2005, 12:38:12 PM »

Quote

Because the republicans allow microsoft to be a monopoly

I have to assume he's kidding and not just a bitter democrat. No-one really believes this, do they? Is anyone that dense?

Edbert1 · « **Reply #44 on:** July 26, 2005, 12:45:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Is anyone that dense?

Quote

Originally posted by Steve

a bitter democrat.

Do you always answer your own questions like that?