Do you think XP will be used more than Vista? in Off Topic

Page: 1 2
#20 Oct 3 2007, 4:52 am
Kujila wrote:
Do you think that Windows XP will be used more than Windows Vista in the following two to five years? Or do you think Vista will steadily gain acceptance?

~Kujila

Not sure, maybe its a trend with this new generation of technology.

Because look at the ps3, I bet more ps2's are selling than ps3's still, and they are releasing more ps2 games still than they are ps3 games.
#21 Oct 3 2007, 5:28 am
In response to Atomixkid (#13)
XP/2000 is far better than Win9x. In many ways, including security and long-term stability. Vista, however, is not much of a change in any field except eye candy. I loath Windows, but I can't say XP is buggy nor completely insecure(Way better than 9x, but still has some general problems based on it's security model).

But there are still plenty of people using Win9x, which tells me that it will be a lot of years before XP/2000 dies. Gaming is the only reason I would upgrade(it's the only reason I use Windows at all). If I'm ever forced to upgrade to Vista, I'll run a dual boot with Vista/Linux, using Linux as my primary. By the time I'm forced into Vista, I'm certain Linux will be a polished OS ready for the consumer level.(it's damn close as it stands, just needs a few corners smoothed).
#22 Oct 3 2007, 5:42 am
In response to Narmanb (#7)
Narmanb wrote:
Anyways, XP wasn't accepted right away at first, but people are gonna accept Vista eventually.

That's mostly true. 2000 had already a foot hold, and XP is pretty much the same thing, so it was just matter of time till everyone upgrade their computers and it came with XP. One of the good things for business is XP could look almost exactly like 2000, and there weren't any compatibility problems, so it was just a waiting game. Problem with Vista is that businesses are refusing to buy it. They are demanding XP from their computer manufacturers. This actually includes the office I work at. About 90% of our software is something that is updated yearly with new versions, the old versions are still very important, and their not Vista compatible. So we can't use Vista. Not now, not in 2 years, not after the first service pack. It will be a good 10 years before we cycle through enough software to make the jump and not loose access to important file.

What they should have done was not include compatibility for any older Windows software. This seems like a bad idea, but at some point you have to sever old ties. Vista was a chance for Microsoft to start anew. They missed that chance. Sure, it would still have taken my business a lot of years to switch, but it would have drove companies to build software for XP and Vista separately. Then, after a few years, they could just drop XP completely. This would also remove many of the security bugs in Vista, because they wouldn't have to recycle old code.
#23 Oct 3 2007, 1:24 pm
In response to Ripiz (#16)
There are very few games that are DX10 only right now and will continue to be in the future. Only Windows Vista and signature video cards even support DX10 and it can cost a pretty penny to buy the card needed to use DX10. Most developers are saying they will continue to support DX9 for several years yet, at least until DX10 support becomes less costly.

No company worth their salt is going to take a game and make it DX10 only and cut their consumer base in almost in half. Even when you got games that say they only support a ceritan version, a lot of times you can force the game to run in lower versions.

I used to have several games that stated it only supported DX9 and would ask me to install and I did. The problem was, my video card wasn't compatible with DX9 and because of that the games ran really terrible. When I rolled back to DX8, guess what? All my problems went away. So just because a game SAYS DX10, doesn't nesescarly mean it won't run on a older version.
#24 Oct 4 2007, 1:33 pm
In response to Revenant Jesus (#23)
What people do not understand is that XP went through the same thing Vista was going through. People were using 2000 and 98 and then XP came in - everyone thought it sucked. I quote 'Wow, look at those insane requirements! 256 MB of RAM? 1 GB to run it smoothly? A Pentium 3? Wow, I'm sticking with my 98 and 64 MBs of RAM, crazy.' XP wasn't so great before it's first service pack either. What people don't understand is that Vista doesn't really have insane requirements. 512 MB of RAM isn't so bad[minimum]. People think it uses way more than that, well it doesn't. It only uses that for it's caching service, it has 'supercache', which saves information in the RAM so it can recall it should you want to use it again. There's even a setting to change the cache level, but most people don't know about it and they complain more. I know someone that runs Vista fine with 512MB of RAM with the 'supercache' off.

Vista is about to get it's SP1 in... a few months I think? It'll be way better then. XP wasn't so great before it's SP1. Vista'll be better now, too. Driver updates, compatibility with more programs, etc etc. Once SP1 rolls around, there will be a lot more people upgrading to Vista. 1 GB of RAM costs 30 dollars. I don't see the 'insane' requirements here. I see a simple upgrade, 35 dollars for a stick of RAM, and a random amount of money[depends how you obtain it... pirates <.<] for the operating system. It is not that much. It is not insane. It's the future, and you can't change it. We'll be using Vista soon, and you guys will look back in 5 years and argue that you never said that we would not be using Vista.

Good day.
Page: 1 2