Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft's New Vista Ad Campaign: Microsoft Mojave
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Better yet, why not simply use XP instead? Less expensive, less convoluted, more memory efficient, faster, leaner, more responsive, transfers files more efficiently, and much more compatible with what you already have. I'll be holding out for Windows 8, (2018) all the while enjoying the immense capabilities, productivity and stability of OS X.
The first problem with Vista is the greater memory requirement than XP. Next, Vista likes a processor with more power than XP needs. If anyone disputes this, just look at Dell's recommendation for 3GB RAM for Vista. And then there is the interview with Bill Gates who talks about all the problems that will be fixed in the next version of Windows.
For the record, I use Windows XP Home and XP Professional on PC boxes as well as Apple Leopard.
Don't get me started about the various versions of Vista at different prices.
Don't get me started about the confusion about the 32 bit Windows vs the 64 bit Windows.
And of course there are different drivers for the 32 bit OS than for the 64 bit OS. Talk about confusing the PC buyer.
For the record, I use Windows XP Home and XP Professional on PC boxes as well as Apple Leopard.
Don't get me started about the various versions of Vista at different prices.
Don't get me started about the confusion about the 32 bit Windows vs the 64 bit Windows.
And of course there are different drivers for the 32 bit OS than for the 64 bit OS. Talk about confusing the PC buyer.
everyone should just avoid the headache. Go with a mac and live happy.
Commercials and advertisments with people who never used computers??? or windows vista.. come one.. Or the part where the girl said she used other computers like apple and this seems easiers.. COME ONE!!!
She's a dork.
Commercials and advertisments with people who never used computers??? or windows vista.. come one.. Or the part where the girl said she used other computers like apple and this seems easiers.. COME ONE!!!
She's a dork.
I've said it before, I'll say it again;
Vista gets a bad rep because it struggled when initially released. It requires a more powerful system to run it then XP. Sure, but to run OS X 10.5.4 you need a pretty comparable system.
Vista is much better than XP. In every. single. way. If you don't see it, your blind.
Vista gets a bad rep because it struggled when initially released. It requires a more powerful system to run it then XP. Sure, but to run OS X 10.5.4 you need a pretty comparable system.
Vista is much better than XP. In every. single. way. If you don't see it, your blind.
OS 10.5.4 runs apps smoothly on a G4 500Mhz Mac with 1G RAM. This would not be true for Vista SP1, which is still much more convoluted than XP, runs slower on PCs of similar configurations, utilizes more memory, even when idle, transfers files poorly, processes audio abysmally, and has had so many promised features cut before it's premature release, it draws very little incentive to upgrade.
Or, perhaps she was simply paid to be a dork.
Vista was always going to struggle on release. You don't get a choice of OS when you buy a pc off a manufacturer, you just get the latest version of windows, it's pretty irritating.
Vista surprised everyone by not being full of security vulnerabilities, but I must be blind - I don't see the improvements over xp.
I havn't spent much time with vista, it seems fine but offers nothing I need and has features I don't want. OSX blows vista away out of the box for doing anything productive.
I'm surprised there's so many versions of windows now, I think there should be two. MS obviously need the legacy support for business, but I think consumer versions should be more ruthless with support and more 'cutting edge' for progress/fun/whatever - like osx.
Under heavy use my osx occasionally glitches, while my xp64 system runs for weeks with no problems.
I've never used a desktop pc bought from a manufacturer that hasn't a bodged OS install - I honestly think this is the biggest thorn for opinions on microsoft os', that and the fact that it's relatively easy for an average user to break/bodge with registry/driver changes (same thing I guess).
These are my random and partially explained comments. I don't own a massive tech enterprise, but I do know more than apple and ms.
So why is business still demanding XP. Why does XP hold more than double the market share of Vista. That doesn't include the huge number of double licenses sold where Vista is registered but XP is used.
And of course it depends on which version of Vista your talking about. Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate ship with DVD decoders with full DXVA support out of the box.
Vista Home Basic, Business, and Enterprise do not.
However, the only way to really get any of those three is to buy a PC with those pre-installed.
Even just that one choice starts confusing people - cross that with other choices and well ......... sorry but a confused user base is an unhappy user base.
Then MS runs an ad campaign that says - Its not our fault - its the users fault - look - they all feel like idiots.
Because, as anyone who works on tech refreshes and IT purchasing as oposed to those who get their information from frustrated bloggers will tell you, tech refreshes are inevitably three to five years behind initial release schedules. XP didn't achieve 15% until about 18 months after release and didn't hit 50% until four years after release. Vista is following the same route for the same reasons.
Or buy an upgrade version.
Another myth. Vista Home Premium is the standard personal use install on mid range computers and the one that the vast majority of personal users will have. There's no confusion - the OS is packaged to the needs of the consumer.
No, it says you shouldn't believe all you hear in tech blogs whilst admitting that they made a pig's ear of the launch.
This is just outdated FUD I'm afraid.
Can you please tell me which versions of OSX Apple allow you to select on a current Macbook purchase?
Probably since Windows doesn't run on PPC architecture Macs at all without hacking it. Please stop the disingenious comparisons.
But has about 60% the SLOC of Leopard.
Only up to, say, 1.8GHz Core 2 Duos after which it's comparable or faster. Can you please advise me how many people are buying CPUs with less processing power than that as of, say, April this year?
This is superfetch at work. If you actually knew anything about Vista's architecture instread of regurgitating factoids from blogs you would know this.
Incorrect. I'd like it to be better but it's by no means poor.
Again incorrect. This was the case because older programs and devices didn't support OpenAL. This issue has largely been resolved.
I agree. If you're happy with XP on your current box then keep using it. If you're buying a new PC get Vista. Anything else is just silly.
I think Vista was released when standard computers could only poorly run it. It lacks, contrary to OS X, the backwards specs compatibility required to run it in old systems. That's why we were seeing poor performances in the beginning (besides bugs and other problems that need to be solved with time).
Right now, basically every computer you find in the market is perfectly able to run Vista smoothly (I just got one, and no problems at all so far).
Don't misunderstand me, I still think OSX is a better OS, and that's what I use for work, but Vista is not as bad as people (mostly mac users) say. And, seriously, I got a Vista laptop, C2D, 3 Gb of RAM, 256 Mb video, 17" screen for 600 euros. It's not penryn, of course (I have a MBP for the important things), but I have a big screen, quite powerful computer for a more than reasonable price and I can always find the piece of software that I need for whatever I need (Mac version, coming soon).
I'm sorry, but Apple does not have a cheap laptop just for entertainment (play games not requiring a lot of resources, browse the web, watch videos/movies, etc).
The cheapest one is 300 euros more expensive than this and it has a 13.3" screen.
Right now, basically every computer you find in the market is perfectly able to run Vista smoothly (I just got one, and no problems at all so far).
Don't misunderstand me, I still think OSX is a better OS, and that's what I use for work, but Vista is not as bad as people (mostly mac users) say. And, seriously, I got a Vista laptop, C2D, 3 Gb of RAM, 256 Mb video, 17" screen for 600 euros. It's not penryn, of course (I have a MBP for the important things), but I have a big screen, quite powerful computer for a more than reasonable price and I can always find the piece of software that I need for whatever I need (Mac version, coming soon).
I'm sorry, but Apple does not have a cheap laptop just for entertainment (play games not requiring a lot of resources, browse the web, watch videos/movies, etc).
The cheapest one is 300 euros more expensive than this and it has a 13.3" screen.
I'm not a fan of Vista, but I'm sure it will mature eventually, just as XP was rather slow to do so. I appreciate that there probably are misunderstood features, but personally I don't see it as a 'good OS' yet.
Just before I bought my MacBook (therefore couldn't use any booting software) I was in need of a Windows desktop for work purposes. In November last year I purchased a mid-ish range Vista box, from the first week onwards it was nothing but trouble. Despite repairs, resets and more it just kept crashing; and it wasn't even under heavy use. The computer had its biggest problems in March and I decided to give in at that point.
With changing purely to Mac in sight, I chose my final Windows computer; a refurbished Compaq Evo running XP Pro that was cheaper than the Logitech I had left over from my last machine. In the last five months there have been no problems with it at all, and if anything its been used more than the Vista PC.
Comparison:
Packard Bell running Vista Home Premium;
1 GB RAM/2GHz/£280GBP
Compaq Evo running XP Professional;
512MB RAM/1.7GHz/£40GBP
It turned out that I wasn't alone in my problems with Vista, as I started to wonder at the time.
On the subject of the adverts, I don't think they'll be convincing too many to change their minds. An attempt nonetheless.
Just before I bought my MacBook (therefore couldn't use any booting software) I was in need of a Windows desktop for work purposes. In November last year I purchased a mid-ish range Vista box, from the first week onwards it was nothing but trouble. Despite repairs, resets and more it just kept crashing; and it wasn't even under heavy use. The computer had its biggest problems in March and I decided to give in at that point.
With changing purely to Mac in sight, I chose my final Windows computer; a refurbished Compaq Evo running XP Pro that was cheaper than the Logitech I had left over from my last machine. In the last five months there have been no problems with it at all, and if anything its been used more than the Vista PC.
Comparison:
Packard Bell running Vista Home Premium;
1 GB RAM/2GHz/£280GBP
Compaq Evo running XP Professional;
512MB RAM/1.7GHz/£40GBP
It turned out that I wasn't alone in my problems with Vista, as I started to wonder at the time.
On the subject of the adverts, I don't think they'll be convincing too many to change their minds. An attempt nonetheless.
Lol
Vista even with SP1, BLOWS. 10.5.4 runs fantastic on a lot of my older Macs and FLIES on those few Core Duo systems that Vista absolutely tanks on. Let's face it, Vista is a beast because Microsoft slapped a pretty CPU/GPU intensive UI on top of an already bloated system.
If Microsoft wants to be successful with Windows 7, they need to begin cutting out the 20-year legacy support and begin forcing these companies still stuck in the 90's to upgrade their software to support the "new" Windows. It will make for a much faster, leaner, and stable operating system. You hear the same thing from your core Windows developers, but you ignore and snub your own kind in defense of your buggy and bloated operating system.
While Vista may run fine on a Core 2 Quad with 4GB of RAM, it doesn't make up for the 0x000xxx error codes due to a slew of problems originating from apps changing registry permissions to Windows Update incorrectly replacing .dll files that break other dependent services on the system. The hardware will eventually get to a point where Vista runs well, but it won't save you from a legacy of damaged registries and DLL hell.
Vista even with SP1, BLOWS. 10.5.4 runs fantastic on a lot of my older Macs and FLIES on those few Core Duo systems that Vista absolutely tanks on. Let's face it, Vista is a beast because Microsoft slapped a pretty CPU/GPU intensive UI on top of an already bloated system.
If Microsoft wants to be successful with Windows 7, they need to begin cutting out the 20-year legacy support and begin forcing these companies still stuck in the 90's to upgrade their software to support the "new" Windows. It will make for a much faster, leaner, and stable operating system. You hear the same thing from your core Windows developers, but you ignore and snub your own kind in defense of your buggy and bloated operating system.
While Vista may run fine on a Core 2 Quad with 4GB of RAM, it doesn't make up for the 0x000xxx error codes due to a slew of problems originating from apps changing registry permissions to Windows Update incorrectly replacing .dll files that break other dependent services on the system. The hardware will eventually get to a point where Vista runs well, but it won't save you from a legacy of damaged registries and DLL hell.
I bought 5 (super cheap) dell pcs recently and they all came with vista installed. They were all a bit slow, unresponsive and had 'random windows glitches'.
After a few minutes of looking at the preinstalled software, I discovered the included roxio cd burning software (pointless seeing as all the features are already in windows anyway) was a vista incompatible version - pretty crazy?
I didn't spend any time looking at what else had been preinstalled, a fresh vista install with the oem cd and the system(s) was working as it should, fine.
All the systems had xp put on them afterwards anyway, as this is what all the users were used to, it's a more responsive os and vista added nothing that was needed.
It's a shame that pc manufacturers rarely ship a stable system (I honestly believe this), but I guess the subsidies that software companies offer dell for installing their software push the prices down. I think it's insane I can't get a dell ubuntu system for less than a vista system, but I love the fact you can get full c2d computers and all the peripherals for under £200 - Can't put together a system for anywhere near these prices, especially if you include software licenses and a the convenience of the warranty.
ps. I thought this mojave advertising campaign was utterly awful, mainly because it all looked like porkie pies - the concept was good.
After a few minutes of looking at the preinstalled software, I discovered the included roxio cd burning software (pointless seeing as all the features are already in windows anyway) was a vista incompatible version - pretty crazy?
I didn't spend any time looking at what else had been preinstalled, a fresh vista install with the oem cd and the system(s) was working as it should, fine.
All the systems had xp put on them afterwards anyway, as this is what all the users were used to, it's a more responsive os and vista added nothing that was needed.
It's a shame that pc manufacturers rarely ship a stable system (I honestly believe this), but I guess the subsidies that software companies offer dell for installing their software push the prices down. I think it's insane I can't get a dell ubuntu system for less than a vista system, but I love the fact you can get full c2d computers and all the peripherals for under £200 - Can't put together a system for anywhere near these prices, especially if you include software licenses and a the convenience of the warranty.
ps. I thought this mojave advertising campaign was utterly awful, mainly because it all looked like porkie pies - the concept was good.
The day that MS do this is the day that they lose all of their market share (well, don't sell any new versions of windows). If osx had 99.9% of the enterprise market, they'd be doing the same thing.
Aero needs a brand new gpu (I guess this was done for business reasons), but you certainly don't need a 'brand new system with 8gigs of ram' etc to have vista run responsively, it's a bit tiring hearing this.
first impresison
Of course the people on the video said they really loved it. They didn't need to install it, nor did they need to solve problems. The only thing those people did was moving there mouse and adoring the "nice" gui. If they were asked to make a little movie, they would probably get stucked and said it also sucked.
Of course the people on the video said they really loved it. They didn't need to install it, nor did they need to solve problems. The only thing those people did was moving there mouse and adoring the "nice" gui. If they were asked to make a little movie, they would probably get stucked and said it also sucked.
I don't know about that. Most of the videos did seem to imply that they were using/watching things that were relatively productive.
'Making a little movie' like you said was actually used as a specific example in some of the videos and on the main feature/reasons to switch pages.
The cynic in me say's that it was all fake though. 22 hidden cameras it says?! Why were some of them mounted at 45 degree angles in b&w, some of them hand held and moving etcetc. Slightly more entertaining to watch? Like I said before, porkie pies.
'Making a little movie' like you said was actually used as a specific example in some of the videos and on the main feature/reasons to switch pages.
The cynic in me say's that it was all fake though. 22 hidden cameras it says?! Why were some of them mounted at 45 degree angles in b&w, some of them hand held and moving etcetc. Slightly more entertaining to watch? Like I said before, porkie pies.
No, you're right. Windows Vista could NEVER run on a 500MHz PC with 1G RAM. It would need at least 1.8-2GHZ with 2G+ of RAM. OS 10.5.4 runs well on a 500Mhz machine. This was the point of the response previously, until you chimed in.
Convoluted has other meanings than 'bloated.' It also means complicated, confusing, and entangled. Leopard, with its large code base, is not bloated in the way you describe, and certainly carries less backward compatibility bloat than Vista does.
Slower to comparable - which is not saying much.
And if you knew anything about Vista's architecture, you would know that superfetch is relatively useless, as it wastes - valuable memory. It is useless, especially if you keep apps open as most pros do using OS X.
http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=1048
Perhaps not poor, more like ludicrous.
Not so much
As a large majority of PC users are - hence the ad campaign.
No, his point was that it would never run on a non x86 CPU that was tailored to the OS.
Pretty basic part of understanding why the entire move to Intel occured.(Not to mention that you can't do an apples to apples comparison between different CPU architectures, or else a Pentium 4 clearly would've dominated a K8 Athlon)
No, his point was that it would never run on a non x86 CPU that was tailored to the OS.
(Not to mention that you can't do an apples to apples comparison between different CPU architectures, or else a Pentium 4 clearly would've dominated a K8 Athlon)
I know that. The original post stated:
I was responding to "pretty comparable system." Vista could not run on a 500Mhz PC with 1G RAM. The platform was not being addressed in this context.
If thats true - they'll be finally upgrading just in time/or after the release of Windows 7 - I don't think so. They all basically went with XP in the end because they had to wait so long for Vista. The numbers I read on Wiki about uptake of XP over Vista said in the first year XP hit 36% but Vista only 14%. Also that Vista is still under 20%.
You have Vista - but you didn't realise this feature was missing - now you have to pay again. Nice.
It's all basically part of the - Why question - why not one version. My mother can use MacosX (she is terrified of computers), I can use MacosX (Mac user since 1984) and my friend who is IT manager for a multinational insurance company can use MacosX too.
I'm sorry but the whole Windows Mojave campaign is MS is based on getting Vista critics and showing them how wrong they were by using trickery. Lots of people ended up saying they felt like idiots ha ha ha.
The underlying message is MS is right - you are wrong - you feel like idiots now, right.
To expand the MS logic just one step - Only idiots think there is something wrong with Vista. They are certainly not telling you the great features of Vista
It's really a bit like the emperors new clothes type of advert/campaign.
You can only select one version - the version you need.
(sorry to answer for you VoR)
http://www.trustedreviews.com/noteb...4/Installing-Windows-Vista-On-The-MSI-Wind/p1
Lulz.
Mainly because it isn't sophisticated enough to support backwards compatibility to any degree whilst still actually being more bloated than Vista.
Slower than what exactly? Let's have current - not six month old - measurements comparing file transfer on OSX, XP and Vista please. Personally I think OSX and XP will beat it but not by that much.
Valuable for what since you're not actually using it?
Well, if you read the article you would have noticed that they actually agree superfetch is useful if you have more than 2GB of memory installed, preferably more than 4GB which, given Vista is designed to roll in 64 bit operating systems (which is why you have the choice of installing either 32 or 64 bit versions), and the way we're going is what it's built for.
You'll also note that the site - ocmodshop - is concerned with tweaking performance primarily for gaming and if you're gaming - and therefore don't need to load in many applications - it may be of use. However, as the following article explains, whilst you can disable it there isn't really any point in doing so and it's not recommended because the real purpose of superfetch is to instantly load commonly used applications.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/how-to-disable-superfetch-on-windows-vista/
So in your haste to find an article that supports your view you actually end up showing why its wrong and you miss the point of what superfetch does anyway.
Like I said, you obviously have no idea of what superfetch or, indeed, Vista actually does.
So let's see the stats then.
Really? Show me where then.
Incorrect. The campaign is primarily to raise MS's profile and to improve Vista's perception primarily amongst people who are buying new units.
Once again your own irrational hatred blinds you to the facts.
No, they went with XP because once SP2 was out it was a far more compelling proposition than remaining with 2000 or NT especially after SP2 was adopted. Like I said, if you actually work on tech refresh cycles you would understand this is quite normal.
The 36% is based on Harry McCracken's website metrics from PCWorld.com and are not reflective of the overall adoption trend, merely of Harry's readership. Of course, those of us who remember XP's launch know what really happened which was this:
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18829228
Vista has been out for about 20 months now and has about 16-20% of the market depending on whose figures you use. This is comparable with XP's market share at the same point in its lifecycle.
As I said it actually helps if you know what you're talking about rather than merely regurgitating Wiki or tech blogs.
You miss the point. You have the option but why would you? Of course, if you really wanted Ultimate you would just buy it at install. You'll note Dell and the other OEM manufacturers offer you this choice.
Yes? Is there a point here because the obvious conclusion here is that, since Windows has 95% of the OS market share, that just about anyone on the planet can use Windows.
Perhaps they did. If I'd been silly enough to let tech blogs and heresay influence my opinion and then had that opinion shown to be wrong I'd feel pretty foolish too.
Incorrect. The underlying message is "Don't always believe what you read".
That's a pretty big step. Fortunately since it's not the point of the campaign it's not one we have to take.
Actually the PC vs Mac adverts rather remind me of that scenario.
So you have a choice of Leopard and... nothing else which would make the complaint about not being able to choose which version of Windows (in terms of Xp or Vista) rather a moot point would it not?
You know, I never used to be that bothered about MS products. Sure, they worked for me but they were just a tool. However when I read some of the absolute nonsense spouted by people who have either never used Vista or used it when it really did have problems I kind of feel obliged to try and dispel some of the more obvious bits of blind hatred and ignorance. Hopefully this series of posts has helped to do that a little.
See?
My point, and the point of this "Mojave Experiment" is that, there is a stigma that goes along with Vista. It is unwarranted. I don't see why there is so much hate aimed at this OS. I really, really don't.
People may use Vista at Best Buy or a similar store and check it out for minutes, but that is not enough time to get a real impression.
I've had Vista since the day it was publicly released. I bought it when I was stationed at Andersen AFB, Guam. There were a few others who bought it with me. I put it in my Acer laptop, which said Vista Capable, and it ran like charm. The only initial problem was that my anti virus wouldn't work. But within weeks, McAfee released a patch and voila.
Since then I bought a Macbook and sold my Acer. I have a Desktop PC as well with Vista Home Premium. Between OS X and Vista, I prefer OSX, however, that's no shot at Vista. It's very, very good.
As for why businesses' prefer to use XP, I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for the place I work at and the architectural firm my dad works at.
Vista does require a pretty fast machine to run at it's full potential, without slowdowns, and it would mean that we'd have to upgrade the PC's hardware.
My dads office doesn't upgrade because they've "heard" how "bad" Vista is, and don't want to risk switching from something that they "know" works. I think this is a big factor for a lot of places as well.