RSSUsers to Microsoft: 'Just make Windows faster'
by Scott M. Fulton, III
Continuing an unprecedented public dialog on the future of Windows begun last week, a Microsoft senior vice president admits that the request he's hearing most often from users is pretty simple: Speed it up.
Though we won't make it a point to post a story every time a Microsoft Senior Vice President, such as Steven Sinofsky or Jon DeVaan, issues an utterance about the next edition of Windows on its newly launched corporate blog, one statement from Sinofsky this morning will raise eyebrows: In response to the blog's inaugural call for ideas from the general public about what features they'd like to see in "Windows 7," he surprisingly acknowledged that many were more interested not so much in features but in behavior.
As one blog reader TimOR commented in response to Sinofsky last Thursday, "Vista really is a dog compared to XP performance-wise and compatibility-wise. Yes, it is prettier and it has the search facility. But its UAC, networking and compatibility just sux. I always turn UAC off it is so annoying. For overall compatibility and speed XP is still the gold standard for me. I truly hope Microsoft listens to its customers and makes Windows 7 everything Vista should have been - faster, as compatible (hardware and software) and easier to use than XP. (Hey, and dump the DRM bloat too - your customers don't need it!)."
As user shadow_concept noted the following day, "I'll probably post this multiple times until it gets noticed, but I really think windows 7 needs to be a super efficient core with plug-in style features. That way, as a gamer or just someone who needs all the speed he can get I can just run windows barebones, with only the applications I need."
His was not the only message suggesting that Windows could actually use a paring down -- a removal of features from the operating system package itself, perhaps separating them into separate products or even separate downloads.
As if to demonstrate shadow_concept's very point, Sinofsky's latest message demonstrated the complexity of the Microsoft project management scheme for Windows, listing 23 separate, main "feature teams," each with development managers and program managers, and implying the existence of even more.
"Some have said that the Windows team is just too big and that it has reached a size that causes engineering problems," Sinofsky wrote. "At the same time, I might point out that just looking at the comments there is a pretty significant demand for a broad set of features and changes to Windows. It takes a set of people to build Windows and it is a big project. The way that I look at this is that our job is to have the Windows team be the right size -- that sounds cliche but I mean by that is that the team is neither too large nor too small, but is effectively managed so that the work of the team reflects the size of the team and you see the project as having the benefits we articulate."
The senior VP came dangerously close to admitting that one of the reasons systems like Windows Vista end up with so many "features" is because so many teams are in existence whose job it is to come up with those features. He suggested that perhaps "optimizations" could eliminate some of this complexity, perhaps hoping that commenters could suggest places where such optimizations could take place. But he then cited a scene from the movie Amadeus, where Emperor Joseph II suggests that Mozart could do well to get rid of some of the notes in "The Marriage of Figaro," saying, "Cut a few and it will be perfect." Whereupon Mozart responds, "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?"
For our own part last week, some BetaNews readers were in general agreement with Sinofsky's readers. As eunichman wrote, "I like the idea, a stripped down version of Windows 7, just the basics, no pretty fluff, no bloat, and hardware requirements way below that of the full blown bloatdows 7...Of course, the price would be significantly lower as well...Ahhh, lovely dream, won't happen."
215 Comments
I recently bought a laptop with 1gig or ram. It came with Vista and I installed Ubuntu 8.04. Linux is so much faster with only 1gig. Vista crawls.
With so many version of Windows developed under the same company I have to believe the slowness is because MS doesn't go back and improve old legacy code.
http://afewtips.com
Score: 0
...or that Vista just runs like crap on a system with 1Gig and any manufacturer that would sell such a PoS should be hanged...
*laughing*
I love it when people's expectations simply don't mesh with reality. When was the last time any MSFT OS performed well anywhere *near* their baseline RAM requirements? Hmmmm?
Score: 0
I don't like waiting 7 or 8 seconds on this Vista machine when I hit my CTRL-ALT-C shortcut just to open the calculator.
AMD Athlon 64 Processor 4000+ 2.41 GHz
4 GB RAM
Windows Vista Bisiness (32-bit) Service Pack 1
Score: 0
1.) Why do you have 4GB on that system?
2.) Video card integrated or discrete?
My system is only a touch more powerful than yours and Vista screams on it. The differences being only 2GB of RAM, a 4600+ CPU, and a discretee 512MB ATi 2900.
Score: 0
one can simply imagine how fast win95 would function on a dual core computer.
so i don't believe that making windows faster is the key.
instead the hardware must be faster and better as well as the internet.
what i would like microsoft to do is to make windows more reliable and self sufficient in every aspect like having a failing windows to sync with microsoft and have it repair itself.
Score: 0
Why would you want to run the BSOD filled OS? Yes it would run faster but was far from a stable OS. It was better than 3.11 but then 98 was better than 95.
Score: 0
Windows 9x has major problems with the amount of RAM and how fast the CPU is.
Typically you can't install more then 512mb of RAM without changing the vcache setting and even then you're limited to about 768mb ram with the setting changed and the patch.
Then you're going to be limted by the type of CPU you can run in Windows 9x. With older cpu's ,anything more then 1.4ghz and you'll have problems with BSOD.
So windows 95 wouldn't function very well on a dual core computer.. and lets not forget that Windows 95 would only see 1 core or CPU in the first place.
For a modern day machine, you're really going to be limited to Windows 2000 (at a push, due to updates and new software not working on there) but I'd expect anyone to be using at least Windows XP to get the best performance from their system.
Score: 0
you want a fast version of windows then it depends on your PC. windows 2000 or windows 98
Score: 0
I thought I placed BetaNews in my search and it takes me to a forum for the criminally insane. That will teach me not to use Live Search.
Score: 0
Yay! More whining!
...at least you're constant. Thanks for the wonderfully informative and relevant insight there, sparky.
Score: 0
Yeah, and I don't even have to take a laxative. How's life treating you and yours? Not suffering from chronic Vista?
I'm running Vista X64, greatest disaster since the Pele eruption. I guess it's what I get for being a MSDN member. I.m also on the quality improvement team. Too bad there's no quality to improve.
My caretaker just arrived so I gotta cut this short. Don't think this hasn't been a little slice of heaven, cause it hasn't.
Score: 0
I'm running Vista X64, greatest disaster since the Pele eruption.
Nice to see the rhetoric in full swing. Get some perspec.. Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to...
Score: 0
I'm heartened to see so many MS bashers circle the wagons around WinXP when the topic of Vista rears it's head. =)
Score: 0
Well, if you choose not to go with Linux or to lock yourself into the cult of Apple, all you're left with is a a bad bunch of bloaters from a monopolistic corp, and the sad knowledge that nothing would be different even if it wasn't MS.
From a bad bunch, XP (post service pack) is currently the best on the basis of responsiveness.
Score: 0
"Windows Vista executes typical applications more slowly than Windows XP, even with the same hardware configuration, even with Vista Service Pack 1."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ticism_of_Windows_Vista
I'm not saying Wikipedia is the source of all truth, but this makes sense. It's not saying that Vista runs SLOW on good hardware, just that it runs SLOWER than XP on that same hardware.
This for me is the main issue, along with the DRM stuff.
Score: 0
#1 Problem, trusting Wiki
#2 Search for benchmarks from 2008
#3 Make sure the people doing the benchmarks follow the guidelines, like NOT turning off AERO, which speeds up graphics applications like Photoshop or Illustrator.
Here is a quick link to get you started on the Vista is slower Myth...
http://www.extremetech.c...2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp
With late 2007 drivers for Video and other updates in SP1, Vista screams around XP in several areas.
#1 The WDDM in Vista actually 'speed up' applications even though it add the pretty glass, and a lot of idiots turn it off thinking it slows stuff down. The AERO composer shoves some GDI/GDI+ through the 3D gpu, as well as Font rendering, and even bitmap decompression.
Even games often run faster in Vista, and can use higher quality textures as it uses the WDDM (XBox 360 design) to share GPU RAM with the system, so you can load higher quality textures, even on a 128mb Video card that would normally demand a 512mb Video card.
#2 Application load times (game dynamic loading lag) - Vista's superfetch shines here, and even on 1GB systems, Vista will load applications 10x faster than XP on average, and this is pretty major.
#3 New Memory prioritization and I/O locking changes eliminate the waiting or chugging you find in XP.
#4 Try Vista x64, faster by 15% on average over XP or 10% faster than Vista x32. Also it is more stable than Vista x32 and XP. (Secret here is it a 'real' 64bit OS, so the lower levels run in native 64bit mode and even speed up 32bit applications by dual writing RAM in 64bit chunks, so a 32bit application writing or reading RAM, Vista x64 gets the data in one read. Also the lower level memory management tables are not restricted with 32bit tables, and of course other things like the 64bit registers. 64bits IS faster, in contrast: (OS X is 32bit with 64bit application RAM addressing, this is why 64bit applications on OS X don't benefit except for the larger memory range)
-----------
Truly, do some research, Vista and the XP is faster Myth needs to be put to rest once and for all.
Score: 0
The most sensible thing I've read here today.
Score: 0
This highlights what has been 1 of the major blunders that MS continues to make with Vista: they never bother to tout many real benefits behind the scenes.
Score: 0
It's not a myth. I'm a computer builders. I did the test myself.
When I build a new pc I always run Performance Test from Passmark. It test all the piece of the PC and I check the result against a reference result to make sure the machine is good.
2 identical PCs: Asus M2N-MX SE + (Nvidia chipset), Athlon X2 3600+, Seagate 160 Gigs SATA2, on-board GeForce 6150. 1 Gig. in the XP pc, 2 Gig. in the Vista PC (DDR2-800). XP SP3 Home vs Vista SP1 Home. Freshly builded, freshly installed.
XP score: 513
Vista score: 478
XP beat Vista in every category even with the advantage in memory for Vista.
Score: 0
on-board GeForce 6150
Therein lies your problem. :)
Get a discrete Video card. Vista will at the very least match XP bench for bench.
Score: 0
Heh...
It's been here. One of the very first comments I posted in this topic had that exact link. :)
Score: 0
"on-board GeForce 6150"
The machine is not good, that's the problem. I have an old comp with the 6150 in it and that card is absolutely pathetic.
Score: 0
What problem ? the pc work perfertly to do internet surfing and word processing.
All the test are slower in Vista, not just the video one.
Score: 0
Every app in Vista requires windows, eh?
Borders, buttons, etc.?
All of those require Aero (GPU) or GDI (CPU).
When using Aero, the 6150 will slow the entire computer down as application *wait* for the windows to be drawn.
Try disabling Aero. The banchmarks should change (though only slightly since you've moved the UI from GPU to CPU...)
Putting in a decent video card will not only boost your GUI responsiveness, but most of your other benchmarks as well.
Vista will not perform adequately on a 6150. Period. It will work, but you'd best stick with XP on it.
Had you a discrete vid, the benchmarks would be completely different, as witnessed by the multiple ExtremeTech links floating around this topic.
Point: Your system, as configured, should remain on XP. ...but it's not Vista's fault because the system simply wasn't built for it. (That'd be like complaining that gas works just fine to run your car, but rocket fuel keeps blowing it up..)
Score: 0
...not *really* a "card". :p
Oddly enough, the Intel 965 integrated seems to handle Aero just splendidly.
My D630 boots and runs a *hell* of a lot faster in Vista than any of our desktops (running the gamut of the Optiplex line) running XP here.
Still haven't quite figured that one out....
Score: 0
Point: all the excuses are good.
First no Aero, because it was Home Basic.
Second the 6150 cannot slow down memory access or a floating-point cpu test. That's BS.
This PC has a dual-core CPU and 2 Gigs. of DDR2 RAM and you're going to tell me it's not big enough to run Vista. Think about that again.
XP is faster than Vista.
Score: 0
THERE IS NO DRM IN VISTA ITS SUPPORT ONLY GET A CLUE...
Score: 0
Uh, yeah it can since the video memory is SHARED and does not have its own. Which would mean its eating into the 2 gig of ram you have...
He said your video card was causing the problems not once did he say anything about big enough. VIDEO VIDEO VIDEO.
Score: 0
Whatever your excuses, XP is still faster than Vista and it is not a myth.
Score: 0
XP is faster than Vista on hardware that cripples Vista.
Fixed that for you, you seem to be missing the point. Go figure.
Score: 0
And even the services that offer that supprt are manual. They do not run unless called upon by said DRM protection.
Score: 0
I'm not surprised that the libertopians on here support Vista. Its so corporate, and they worship the corporate.
Score: 0
Hope their dialog is not a simple show:they are used to create a product and impose it afterwards by all means. Even when there is a lot of simple minded people who buy anything new because it is new, the most important opinion is that of the most important customers (governements, big corporations, airlines, etc). Their networks, in many cases composed of tens of thousands of computers, are in the hands of proffesional people perfectly prepared to use Linux in their servers, and almost all their computers are now using XP or Windows 2000 AFAIK. These clients are no pirates at all, they are forcedly conservative because their responsability is great and always at stake, and only renew a machine or introduce as little as possible changes in its OS when there is a sufficient reason for that.
Score: 0
I totally agree with shadow_concept, it would be beneficial to both Microsoft and its clients if W7 was streamlined in that sense...
And as eunichman pointed out, "Ahhh, lovely dream, won't happen", we are lacking trust in MS to deliver the goods. I hope we can be proven wrong...
Score: 0
hey, you didn't pay the (c) royalties to quote me lol
Score: 0
My thoughts...
Quit making everything interdependent on everything else and make it modular with the option to remove unneeded and unwanted features.
I’m not against bundled apps or the like being in the OS, just that generally everyone is forced to keep services and programs lingering around because the removal or disabling of something invariably screws up something else. Why should Outlook or IE need Outlook Express around to function properly? Give your users choice on what’s installed or not installed with the OS.
Some SSE2/SSE3 optimizations in the kernel and user land wouldn’t hurt either. But it seems that in today’s age that fast computers = code bloat. Just throw in the kitchen sink with it because the CPU is capable of dragging it along. There used to be a time when programmers cared about how optimal their code ran. It seems those days are gone.
Score: 0
"make it modular" - amen to that. They do this ppl will be drooling for their next OS.
Score: 0
Yes! Very good points.
Could you imagine how Windows would run if it were properly 'cleaned up'? Problem solved Microsoft, windows will be faster!
Score: 0
Hi to everybody! To make a long story short
XP good Vista much better
Mainbaord with DDR2 ok
Mainboard with DDR3 much better
the latest hardware technology make athe diference
Main problem with Vista is HARDWARE not software as everyone wants to believe
Using Vist 32 Ultimate since it came to the market, I do not use XP no more and for all of you who running problem its all about hardware
Free tip for all of you who running problem such as iexplorer.exe and services.exe this is not virus this is a hardware problem. I learned it the hard way and if anyone install Vista on a new or old machine and sees the machine freeze or behave strange on a clean installation the problem is hardware.For all who omplain about speed is it matter how long the machine takes to reboot after you load other software? Or is it matter how long the software start when you are on your desktop?How staeady and smooth it is . Nothing to compare beatween XP and Vista
XP good Vista MUCH MUCH BETTER!!!!!
Score: 0
Perhaps we could go back to two Windows versions: Basic & Ultimate.
The Basic package would give you a core Windows program, with minimal features and basic functionality - just an OS on which to run your programs. From there, extra services could be bought and added on (Movie Maker, WMP, IIS, etc, etc). These could all be simple links in the Add/Remove programs area and could be purchased for nominal pricing.
Then there would be the Ultimate/Full package - which gives you a disc with all the available add-ons already included - so those that want every Windows feature can install and use it if they want with no further charges. Of course, the option would remain to customise during installation for those with Windows Ultimate.
Seems like the best of both worlds. Most OEMs would opt for Ultimate to keep customers happy, while a few might build netbooks and basic PCs with the Basic version and a couple of add-ons.
Score: 0
My personal opinion is YES!!!
If we have to deal with windows for the majority of things then lets have a GOOD, Stable, and FAST Operating System to work with.
With the options to be there for the people that want the extra WINDOW dressing, ok fine. but then the classic Basics for those that want to just have an OS and nothing else.
Lets face it Vista Basic! I wouldnt put that in ANYTHING. FOR ANY reason. Min would be Vista Business with customized Classic interfacing. and manually removing Mediaplayer, and games, and MSN. Bingo a good OS.
Now performance... Well Bloatware is standard in MS Vista. so unless its top of the line Duo core 4gb ram MIN. You should prob go with XP pro sp3.
In the next version of windows I would LOVE to see the BASIC core OS Outperform XP or Vista on ANYTHING that it says its made for. Meaning They should SAY specifically What machines its for and STICK to it. MS main mistake with Vista was caving to OEM demands for unreasonable extended life to antiquated equipment the OEMs wanted to dump on the public. Alla Vista ready and Vista capable nonsense. All of which were NOT! Today New equipment being made is FINALLY at a level that Vista can be considered ACCEPTABLE performance. Thats over a year later. But the truth still stands that with existing equipment Windows XP Pro out performs
Vista for Gaming no matter what its on. And that is a key factor for the Power users many times.
Vista Is a great OS, but needed to be better in EVERY way to justify its exorbitant original price tag. Now with the demand so low for it and a bloated supply of Vista Home premium, the price has come in line for a OS of its stature. But amazingly XP Pro prices go up and up. why? High Demand and supply dwindling.
One has to ask WHY that is... Why is demand for what MS claims is a dead OS keep going up? Obviously its because people are UNWILLING to sacrifice performance for windowdressing on their machines. And that should be the indicatior that PERFORMANCE is key to success.
MS windows 7 MUST outperform XP pro and Vista. It simply MUST be Fast to boot, (REALLY, not just from a sleep state as they often show off and find that even though it looks like its ready to go its not fully booted yet)
Must be Easy and quick to install.
Must have total customization of what we want and especially What we DO NOT WANT to be installed.
And should just be a fantastically stable OS not requiring undue prompting or reboots every few mins.
Apple had it right in that most software for apples does not even need installed, It just runs. when you don't want it anymore you just get rid of it. No problem.
Windows has so many dependencies that often you can't just delete something you do NOT want anymore. like say IE. Or Say you try out IE 10 and want to go back to IE 7 instead cause you didn't like it. Thats no easy thing in MS windows. So simplicity is also a request.
1 last thing. there are different levels of computer users. some know a ton, more know a little and more still know just about nothing...
Their should be a setting for prompting to adjust for such users.
For instance if I am a power user and I want to install something I should not have to tell it 10 times to do so. I said to install it and I mean to install it. However if something is installing automatically without a user prompt it should be able to tell the difference.
If your a power user or a novice there should be enough in the OS to tell what is being installed by a user and what is scripted and malicious.
The OS should treat you as you expect to be treated. If you tell it to do it one time that should be enough for it to know you want it to do something at that moment. then when your done it should say installation complete and that tells the computer OS that this is done now and no more prompting about it should be needed.
and Visa versa. If I want something GONE and not running. it should stop it and not loose stability from doing so. Just remove what you do not want. ask 1 time if your sure you do not want it anymore, and GONE forever it be. God would that be nice.
Are we asking too much with that? probably. But if MS delivered on even 1/2 that it would be a HUGE step in the right direction for many of us users that just do not see a reason to change from something that works great as it is without upgrading. And thats the untapped dollars they so desperately want to have access too.
Score: 0
"MS windows 7 MUST outperform XP pro and Vista."
You are right, we have become too deluded by Vista that we have forgotten to improve on XP standards! Things should really step up.
Score: 0
Speed would be nice in the next Windows. I think Microsoft should get under the hood and clean out some junk. I think they should turn off AUC because it really doesn't do anything, or if they're gonna offer it, they should integrate a smart "suggestions" feature where Microsoft gives you a green light if they think the application being installed is safe.
Compatibility is not Microsoft's fault, they cannot control who decides to make drivers for their OS. Not to mention Vista was in beta for a long time, so there's no excuse.
They also should expand on Aero. Flip 3D is not useful so axe it for something I can use. The thumbnail images of your minimized Windows are a good idea however they 'freeze' when they are minimized...which defeats the purpose of the feature if you are quickly checking the progress of an installation while browsing the web. Sidebar, get rid of...takes up space, ram, really just a gimmick.
Score: 0
I have a dual boot system AMD x2 5000 4GB PC 6400 RAM 350GB SATA.
32 bit home premium vs 32 bit XP SP3.
Same software on both partitions. I use the XP partition because it is faster. Once in awhile I boot to Vista in order to keep it current at Windows update. I keep hoping MS will have an update someday to make Vista faster than XP
Score: 0
Perhaps the PMs are listening now. I would say that they are barely admitting that something failed. That's a start out of all the denial going on.
I'm not a Linux lover though. I mainly use my PC to play FPS games and work. Just the gaming part moves me away from any other platform.
But when I found that Vista's Aero didn't help me at all and UAC was simply a resource waste, that's when I decided to turn back to my old and reliable XP. Let's see how W7 develops.
Score: 0
Intersting
Same system, except it's a 4600+, 2 GB of RAM, and a (2x)250GB SATA.
XP won't even install (unless I break the RAID) and Vista, scoring a 5.9, runs very well. XP, without the RAID is quite a bit slower and after a few weeks is due for another reload just to get the speed back.
I notice you didn't mention a video card. Are you using the integrated video, or do you have a discrete video card?
Mine is an Ati2900HD and Aero absolutely flies on it.
I keep hoping MS will have an update someday to make Vista faster than XP
They did. It was called SP1. ;)
Score: 0
Users to Microsoft: 'Just make Winblows faster, STOP RIPPING APPLE, AND COME UP WITH ORIGINAL IDEAS!!!!!!'
Score: 0
I love MS and Vista, and also love my Xp, anything MS. Not really anything, but just said that to p-off the MS all-haters, lol. It's not perfect, but like those commercials try to insult...we need it to get work done. So what's real and what's not real? I'll take the work thing...oh and we have the most games too...so it's really over isn't it?
Oh wait...just copy more of MS/Windows/Vista...and swear it's yours and not MS...gotcha. heehee
love it! Mr Gates rules. Yes I really do like MS and MOST of it's products.
Score: 0
I get all my processor speed, memory, and lots more HD space and all I did was switch to Linux! No more waiting for vaporware and more empty promises. (Aren't you glad you bought the 'Ultimate' version, whose extras MS never delivered?)
Now I'm having more fun than I ever did on a Win machine and conversations like this one -- mainly trolled to death by toolie's asinine clinical stupidity makes me laugh my arse off.
Flame on, brothers!
Score: 0
*laughing*
No need to make jokes about it, that's for sure.
The joke is you.
Score: 0
I know from personal experience that Vista will run circles around Linux. It's GUI is pathetically slow - no matter the Distro or window manager.
Score: 0
Are you on crack???
I have an old Athlon 1.2ghz box that runs PCLinuxOS with 3d beryl enabled and even with that POS computer the 3d kicks vista's a$$. And I have a brand new Core 2 Quad with Vista U. to compare it to.
Score: 0
You've gotta be kidding... I'm not a big fan of Linux, but there's NO WAY you can convince me Vista is faster, especially with less than 2GB of RAM.
How on earth did you get that impression?!?!?
Score: 0
No, I'm quite serious. I'm running a Dual Opteron 180 with a 8500GT video card, two gigs of ram and SATA RAID 0....5.7 on the Vista Richter scale. I used Linux in many iterations over the last four months - nearly thirty distros in all. Hell...I even grew to like Linux - it's potential seems virtually unlimited. I have all of the key commands memorized, and found substitutes for Windows apps that I actually preferred-example: Hellanzb instead over NewsLeecher. The one thing I just couldn't get used to was the responsiveness (or lack thereof) of the GUI. I don't care for KDE, but tried both Gnome and XFCE desktops. My favorite is a bare bones Debian install with an XFCE desktop. It's quite a bit snappier than Gnome. I may yet return to Linux when its performance meets or exceeds that of Windows. For now, subjectively, it feels very similar to when I tried to run Vista on a single core Athlon 2500 - just not enough h.p.
Score: 0
Yeah? Try Linux with your Core 2, and see if there is a linear increase in performance over the Athlon.
Score: 0
...and it still takes a minute for Firefox to load...
Score: 0
Rather than keep updating Windows v3.1, M$ should just build a new OS from scratch, using the knowledge of the last 20 years. And also do what they do best by stealing stuff from Linux,OS X and others. Then I tell you Windows 7 will can be a great OS.
Score: 0
XP and Vista are both based on NT, which had nothing to do with Windows 3.1 whatsoever. There is no reason to build from scratch, NT is a good kernel. It's just the junk that they build on top of it that causes problems.
Score: 0
I am in semi agreement here.. I would really like to see MS build a "from the ground up" redo of windows, but that in itself will have inherent problems mainly hw driver compatibility and app availability.
Some thins windows really needs IMO:
* Journaled File system (or something simular)
* Real time file defrag happens in the background on idle system ticks)
* A modular approach as mentioned above
* Removal of ALL "legacy" code..
Just a few thoughts is all
Score: 0
(1) Make Windows 7 less of a memory hog
(2) Make 2 gigs of RAM truly enough
(3) Put Outlook on line and FREE to compete with Google
Score: 0
(3) Put Outlook on line and FREE to compete with Google
Ech...
Have you ever used OWA? It's crap. Trust me.
Score: 0
Truth!
Score: 0
(1) that is a common misconception. Vista actually uses that ram to speed up your pc. It is adaptive so, based on how much mem you have or what you are running, it will change its memory footprint.
Score: 0
*LAUGHING*
I've read the Windows 7 blog. It's in my feed. Of the three posts, none of them focus on any specific issue.
Of course, there are always plenty of trolls to quote, eh, Scott?
Try these on for size:
Vista gaming == XP gaming[/b][/u]
...or...
[b][u]Vista outperforms XP on Atom Laptop
The first one is dead-nuts. You can't argue this. The second one is admittedly Vista Basic Vs XP Pro, but it should (read: won't) shut up those morons saying Vista will never run on an ultra-portable.
Yeah, I know. Facts. I've been noticing more and more frequently how much both the writers and users of this site seem to completely ignore them...
Score: 0
How dare you post facts PC! You haft to rant on about how horrible your experience was even though you know you are full of crap.
Score: 0
It's almost insulting, really.
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/default.aspx
That's the blog in question. Read it yourself. This article *totally* misrepresents it. Completely.
Between this and Jaq's recent rumor pieces, I'm beyond "beginning to get tired of it", and quickly becoming annoyed with it. Scott used to do really great, detailed tech pieces. Nate used to handle the Windows stuff pretty well (where'd he go?), Ed always seemed to pick up the fluff pieces and at least present them in an interesting way (and seems to be the only one still "kicking it old school"...minus the proofreading mis-steps)...
All in all, it's become quite a joke as far as the reporting goes. Just fodder for the kids who couldn't hack the Slashdot comment system...
Score: 0
BetaNews: One step up from /.
Score: 0
What a tool.
Score: 0
and still...
nobody cares...
even with all your lame posts
nobody cares...
Score: 0
Aw... Are you going to be my puppy today?
How cute...
Your utter lack of creativity disappoints...
Score: 0
well I don't play too much FPS games, but a lot of games I play (MMORGPs) works much better on VISTA than my XP that I uses as second machine.
Games like Lucent Heart Online or other stuff got like a clear performance difference between XP and VISTA.
So I'd say that comment is not too false.
Although if you go for the old games, XP >> VISTA definitely applies.
Score: 0
... and nobody cares. lol
Score: 0
You care enough to find every post he makes...Looks to me like you do care...
Score: 0
Yay! More puppies!
better watch where I step, I doubt their housebroken...
Score: 0
meanwhile....Apple is slowly gaining ground, by the time windows 7 is out, I hope they have at least 35% or more marketshare..
Score: 0
Keep Hoping!
http://marketshare.hitsl...mp;qpsp=101&qpnp=14
Score: 0
*laughing*
Yeah, the iPod/MobilMe issues should *really* help boost that...
Score: 0
I can't resist Tool...
I think its cute that you see the iPod as a comparable equivalent and alternative to Windows 7!
I only wish I could effectively debate the point!
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Score: 0
*laughing*
Are you trying to tell me you don't think the success of the iPod/iPhone has had any impact on Mac sales?
Really?
Being the shrewd business tech analyst I know you are, I am surprised and appalled you didn't figure that one out. ;)
Score: 0
Of course it is.
The funny thing is the iPhone has the potential to become a very powerful remote terminal client.
And most folks here who see it only as a phone are failing to understand that!
My personal gripe is that I don't need an iPhone client! I need a more powerful, higher capacity luggable laptop that will support multiple robust VMS over multiple high resource environments! ;-) ;-)
Score: 0
Phew...just a bit more than Windows 2000 machines! Yep...hot on their heels alright.
Score: 0
People thought XP was too bloated at one time as well. http://www.digitalvideoe...rials/chazzletter18.htm
Now they worship the ground it walks on. *shrug*
Score: 0
It still is!
Worship? How about simply prefer it to the even more bloated eye candy called Vista?
Score: 0
"It still is!"
Then go back to Windows 3.1! No bloat there!
Score: 0
Nope! There was and still is the MacOS
I'm not a fan of XP, why would I want to go back to an even more archaic version of MS?
Score: 0
LOL! MacOS is more bloated and slow now then ever! You bash MS on something that Apple is doing themselves!
Score: 0
Agreed. Every single Windows version at least going back to 3.x has had higher system requirements than it's predecessor. MS has always required fairly recent hardware to run the most recent version of Windows. I remember many of the same comments made about Windows 95. I am sure many of the whiners made the same sort of comments about previous versions.
Score: 0
But Windows barely does Windows well.
MacOS does Windows and UNIX natively. And OSX Server does all x86 VM environments as well as[/i] OSX VMs.
Some of us as well as just a [i]few enterprises do more than just play games on their PCs!
Score: 0
A lot of people were really upset that Windows 95 was so slow on their 386DX computer with 4MB RAM. Kinda like the idiots that are so upset that a modern operating system like Vista won't run faster than a snail's pace on their Pentium III 1GHz computer with 512MB RAM.
Score: 0