Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K3 on July 23, 2005, 04:12:24 PM
-
from BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4708177.stm
-
After it's been customer beta tested for a couple years I'll look at it. I won't pay to test more microshaft stuff.
-
xp takes a ton of resources to run the way it is. hate to see how much vista wastes...er uses
-
I`ll wait for the movie.
-
So far, the base requirement is 1GB of RAM for the OS.
Suggestions for the optimal amount of memory runs around 4GB. Microsoft fully expects systems to have have around 8GB of RAM in the next couple or years and they intend on using it.
I figure it will be ready for prime time in around 2008. Of course there will be early adopters and are they in for some surprises. DRM (Digital Rights Management) takes on new levels of control in the OS.
-
XP works well enough, I can't see any reason why I would be compelled to update.
-
I said the same thing about 95 and 98SE until I started seeing updates suspended. Unfortunately they also changed xp enough that some of my older games from 95 time frame won't run anymore :mad:
-
"Microsoft has previously said that Vista will make malicious software that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge "a thing of the past".
Yep. Right up and untill someone figures out a way in.
Well at least they waited a few years before introducing a new OS
Still as usual I'll be waiting untill I just about absolutely HAVE to upgrade before I do.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
XP works well enough, I can't see any reason why I would be compelled to update.
Because the republicans allow microsoft to be a monopoly, there is no competition, so XP will slowly be made useless and you will have to upgrade.
If MS were a phone company they would have been broken up a long time ago
-
"Microsoft has previously said that Vista will make malicious software that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge "a thing of the past".
Does this include windows?
-
Shouldnt they announce when XP will be finished before moving on?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Because the republicans allow microsoft to be a monopoly, there is no competition, so XP will slowly be made useless and you will have to upgrade.
If MS were a phone company they would have been broken up a long time ago
EDIT: Nice troll btw. :aok
ahh yes it is the Republicans that make you install an MS OS. I bet they held a gun to your head to make you do it too????
It's not like you have freedom of choice to install something else its those big bad evil republicans. How dare Microsoft and Bill Gates for being such viscious ruthless software Giants.
Some liberal senator should just make them pay other companys not to make software at all, then it would be all fair
-
XP is the best OS ever developed for the mass market, as was Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98 and 2000. The factor that you nerds are discounting is the usability. Maybe it is just because yu don't remember the bad old days, or maybe it is just because you have so little to compare it to, but don't blame MS for being succesful; blame your own lazy bellybutton for not doing better.
-
ROFL lizking
for my use win2k is still the best of what MS has made
-
MS products sell, to the masses. Let's make a law forcing people to buy Macs, since the masses seem to be idiots and don't know just how much better the Mac was.
Do you know what a monopoly is? Do you know that there Is competition for MS, but they just don't do as well.
If MS were "a" phone company..did you mean if MS were "The" Phone company? Bell was broken because it was the only option. Again, MS isn't the only option.
Soundbites are cute, but not really very clever.
-
hey if you guys don't like MS there's allways Apple/Mac ;) last time I checked they were still in business and still making computers.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
hey if you guys don't like MS there's allways Apple/Mac ;) last time I checked they were still in business and still making computers.
I use both. I know ill open a can of worms if i say that OSX is better so i wont. ;)
Vorticon? :p
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Because the republicans allow microsoft to be a monopoly, there is no competition, so XP will slowly be made useless and you will have to upgrade.
If MS were a phone company they would have been broken up a long time ago
You are way off base on this. It's not Microsoft's fault at all. It's the end user who is to blame for this.
Try putting together a business plan and get it funded to compete against Microsoft. Talk about an exercise in futility.
It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with business. Corporate, end-users, and developers have spoken. And they are then ones who put Microsoft where Microsoft is.
Politicians have doodly-poop to say about this.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
hey if you guys don't like MS there's allways Apple/Mac ;) last time I checked they were still in business and still making computers.
problem is, apple computers patronize the masses, microsoft panders to them.
"Vorticon?"
just because OSX comes with "witchcraft for the vikings" ...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
problem is, apple computers patronize the masses, microsoft panders to them.
"Vorticon?"
just because OSX comes with "witchcraft for the vikings" ...
:D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
So far, the base requirement is 1GB of RAM for the OS.
Suggestions for the optimal amount of memory runs around 4GB. Microsoft fully expects systems to have have around 8GB of RAM in the next couple or years and they intend on using it.
WTF man, you're making our current PCs look like AMIGA or ATARI!:mad:
:D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
EDIT: Nice troll btw. :aok
ahh yes it is the Republicans that make you install an MS OS. I bet they held a gun to your head to make you do it too????
It's not like you have freedom of choice to install something else its those big bad evil republicans. How dare Microsoft and Bill Gates for being such viscious ruthless software Giants.
Some liberal senator should just make them pay other companys not to make software at all, then it would be all fair
Dang it Gunslinger, you left out Haliburton AND Abortions! :)
Karaya
-
I should be getting my beta disc next week or so ... Vista is running on 512 ram machines . but it really going postal on the dual type cpu's .
-
Re: Windows 95 was sooo much better, it was all that was needed.
Cool, so how does that steam engine car of yours work? Has the price of wood gone up as well?
-
The comparison to W95/98 is pretty bad - those OS'es were unstable heaps of trouble. W2k/XP are the first generations that combined the stability of NT with the ease of use seen in W98.
-
Beta 1 does not have everything enabled yet Rosco. Beta 2 should have more enabled. Expect RAM requirements to go up with Beta 2 and later.
-
I've run various builds of "Longhorn" and it makes all three versions of XP seem pretty light on comsumption of hardware resources.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
ROFL lizking
for my use win2k is still the best of what MS has made
Ditto, same for me...
-
I must be doing something wrong. I'm running 98SE and have no problems at all. Never had a virus, worm, trojan, lockup or BSOD.
AHII runs and looks fine @ 1280 x 1024 with 512MB Ram, AMD 2700+, ATI 9800Pro, All USB CH JS, throttle & rudders and no IRQ problems, no services that need to be shut down and never seen a "windows messenger" popup...
What am I missing? :p
-
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.
-
Rolex either you're yanking our chain or have been just incredibly lucky.
W9x is very easy to corrupt with certain software installations.
-
Micro$oft is going to have trouble with the name, Vista. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002397450_microvista23.html).
-
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.
-
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.. :)
-
I'll let you know how these Intel based Mac's stack up (looks over shoulder) ;)
-
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.
-
W2k is a lot more like W98 in feel, but its a resource hog almost as bad as XP.
-
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.
-
Where is the overhead?
(http://www.lizking.com/taskmanager.jpg)
-
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. :eek:
-
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 .
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Is anyone that dense?
Originally posted by Steve
a bitter democrat.
Do you always answer your own questions like that?
-
Do you always answer your own questions like that?
My bad. Carry on.