Microsoft's New Vista Ad Campaign: Microsoft Mojave

[mackmgg]

GREAT blooper

sumtimes hidden cameras dont work out 2 well no wonder m$ cut it out


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtXRnel2GT8


lol

 

[Chappers]

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.

So basically what you saying is - once MS have patched it enough to be worthwhile to use then it is adopted. Therefore tech refresh cycles are dominated by when MS provides a compelling reason to upgrade. That is a result of having a monopoly.

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:

You are right - can't argue with that. XP uptake was slow until (long wait) SP2. Now years later Vista uptake is slow and MS are worried.

As I said it actually helps if you know what you're talking about rather than merely regurgitating Wiki or tech blogs.

Please don't talk down to me.

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.

I haven't missed the point. Even if a small number of people make the mistake of choosing the wrong version of Vista and then are forced to upgrade that = unhappy customers. You may be tech savy but a lot of people are not.

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.

Yes there is a point - that is : people don't need multiple versions of an OS - it leads to confusion. Of course people can use Windows - but people have to decide which version to buy. I could understand if there were just Home and Business versions. Again this is a small point - but enough to upset part of the user base.

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.

So you agree with me. However advertising to people telling them that they are foolish and basically talking down to them is not a good way to talk to your user base. As you have talked down to me in this discussion and I wasn't impressed maybe you can see where I'm coming from.

Incorrect. The underlying message is "Don't always believe what you read".

If MS showed the things Vista could do and how well it could do it (but they don't) then you would be correct. They however relied on making their user base look stupid.

That's a pretty big step. Fortunately since it's not the point of the campaign it's not one we have to take.

If the point of the ad was to show how great Vista is - then why take the approach of making users look foolish. The step is therefore very small.

Actually the PC vs Mac adverts rather remind me of that scenario.

My analogy holds. People being led to believe they are foolish for not seeing something. Mac/PC ads compare a Mac and a PC and tell you that a Mac is cooler than a PC and can do stuff that the PC can do. You could stretch it to say that "PC" represents Windows users but one could also assume they are talking about the computer itself. The fact that the Mac/PC adverts are successful shows that people agree with me. With MS - its straight in - our users are stupid and we've made an ad to show everyone.

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?

I made no such complaint - I said there was a problem with the choices in Vista - causing confusion in the user base. I don't see the need for anything other than one OS version.

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.

Start a thread discussing the merits of Vista.

 

[DMann]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/noteb...4/Installing-Windows-Vista-On-The-MSI-Wind/p1

If hacking and lipo-suctioning an operating system is necessary to run Vista on a notebook, this certainly speaks volumes of Vista's operating efficiency.

Mainly because it isn't sophisticated enough to support backwards compatibility to any degree whilst still actually being more bloated than Vista.

Wrong, sophistication has nothing to do with it. OS X is exponentially more sophisticated, more efficiently designed, and does not carry all of that redundant baggage called 'backward compatibility code' which plagues Vista. Although OS X has more lines of clean, efficient and well maintained Open Source code than that of Vista's heavily patched code, OS X can easily run on an MSI Wind, (faster than Ubuntu) without the pairing down and hacking required to run Vista. Sophisticated? Vista is shackled by it's own stranglehold of primitive patchwork.

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.

Preferably more than 4GB?? and you find this acceptable? First of all, with more than 4GB RAM, applications will open quickly enough to render superfetch unnecessary. Furthermore, what a waste of resources. Please read the comments, written by Vista users other than myself, found at the end of the link you have enclosed, which address the issues of uselessnes and inefficiencies of superfetch:

1. January 26, 2008 11:38 pm 
Peter

Thanks. I always disable it because it runs for long time after log into Windows and its quite annoying. 


2. January 27, 2008 2:09 am 
Daniel Spiewak

I might actually do this. I've often noticed that SuperFetch loads the "wrong thing" more often than not, leading to extremely slow startup for the app I really want. It also will do odd things to my system while I'm in the process of using another app, though this is more infrequent. 


3. January 27, 2008 7:14 am 
Charles

I agree with Peter. I disabled SuperFetch and my Vista experience has been so much better. My PC seems more responsive and faster than before. Also, one big thing, gaming seems to be even smoother now. That's just my opinion, but see what happens and experiment. I think you will be surprised. 


4. January 27, 2008 2:25 pm 
Gary

I tried turning SF off and the only change I noticed was the lack of disk activity during the login processing due to the absence of preloading programs into memory by SF.
If you think about it for a moment SF should not decrease performance. If a program requires memory then Vista will just take it. It's not as if SF locks the memory it uses. Of course the programs in memory that are forced out will have to be read from disk again but that's the way it is without SF. 
IMO SF is a great feature. Of course your mileage may vary. 


5. January 27, 2008 8:51 pm 
The Geek

I've personally had a noticeable speed increase from disabling superfetch… I typically keep most of my applications open all the time, so it's not really very useful to cache them anywhere.
It's not the memory usage that is an issue, I really have no problem with that since I have loads of memory… it's the hard drive access I'm not fond of, especially in my laptop with the much slower drive.
It's the same thing I experience with Firefox… I don't really care about the memory usage, but it seems like it's always taking much more CPU than necessary.
All that said, I think it's probably unwise for the "average" person to disable it. Microsoft will continue to tweak the algorithm over time and make it better… perhaps someday we'll all actually want to keep it enabled. 


6. January 31, 2008 5:51 pm 
Jordan

Yay it worked. 


7. February 20, 2008 8:54 am 
ebe

Hello, Ram is required when you do a lot of Virtual LAB..!
I doubte vmware/virtual server, when checking RAM availability, will see that it can purge some garbage from SF! SF is just an aberation^^
But as it can be disable.. it's now ok. (I upgraded to XP just for this reason and others (like no adminpacks, no this or no that). I need all bit of my physical ram (3go) for my labs.. 


8. March 9, 2008 9:30 pm 
Larry
Superfetch is a disaster. Much like rest of Vista, in my opinion. All day, superfetch eats up CPU and disk cycles loading programs into memory. And if I open up an unexpected memory hungry program, it dumps it all. Then it starts loading stuff into memory all over again. How long does it take to load IE Outlook, or Word anyways? Especially on today's machines? 


9. March 26, 2008 4:38 am 
John Celia

SuperFetch is always re-reading (among other things) a 7.5 gig file into ram. Are you seriuos? What the hell? My hard drive NEVER stops churning! 


10. April 21, 2008 12:40 am 
Maxwelldon

Thanks for this "tweak", I always wait long while up on boot and had to listen my HDD go load all day long because of superfetch.. After I disabled it, HDD been nicely quiet and PC acting a bit faster for what I'm using it. 


11. May 14, 2008 10:55 pm 
Ccy

hey guys!how do i turn superfetch on? 


12. May 19, 2008 2:17 am 
photomstr

I now love vista even more!!! super fetch is crap, you want vista to behave more like xp disable this useless program. I have always hated the way MS assumes it knows best about defaults and preferences! KILL SUPERFETCH and its just like xp only more secure. thanx very very much, I tried the trick and love the idea totally! 


13. May 19, 2008 5:10 am 
Rich

This is a must. Do it. You wont regret it. Games like cysis and Bioshock load faster so what is the point of haveing it on at all. 


14. May 28, 2008 10:17 pm 
BooBear

Thanks much for this disabling SuperFetch tip. I think this is what's been driving me crazy when I try to do multitrack recording and get stuttering from interrupted CPU cycles or whatever. The performance manager shows tons of files being read and written even though I'm not trying to use them. This tip isn't included in some optimization guides for DAWs (digital audio workstations) but really should. Thanks 


15. June 21, 2008 9:39 am 
Chris

Thank you. This covers what is by far the worst aspect of Vista, the horrendous noise it makes has been destroying me deep inside for too long now and i really appreciate this fix for it. 


16. July 5, 2008 4:49 pm 
Sylvia

Wow…I already thought I was neurotic…being extremely annoyed by this constant grinding noise. Calling Sony- they even sent me a new HD ! But I had to return it because it was even louder!
Now my Laptop is quiet and I can finally relax !
Thank you so much! 


17. July 12, 2008 10:15 pm 
Xoch

This is remarkable. I have read on numerous threads how turning off this feature can ruin system performance, but it seems these people speak out of opinion and not of use!
I installed a 3.6 gig file on my desktop, which i cant erase because Superfetch locks its out, then takes all day and night to read it; burning my HD out in the process! Screw that. SuperFetch will remain disabled as long as Vista wont crash without it.
Toodles. 


18. July 15, 2008 4:50 am 
Bill

When i had super fetch on my two fast and noisy hard disks never stopped going and my case rattled all day… Now the hard disk only goes when i do some thing. 


19. July 20, 2008 1:00 pm 
Joe

Thank you very much for this tip. I'm not sure if turning Superfetch off has helped performance much, but it has definitely stopped the harddrive from going on so long after start up and repeatedly thereafter.
That alone is a HUGE help, because I have a HP tx2500 tablet pc. The harddrive is right underneath where I rest my right hand when typing and using the touch pad!!!! It was ALWAYS warm. 


20. July 26, 2008 8:53 pm 
khaled

annoying is all it is… damn microsoft…
the only reason i upgraded to vista was to use all my memory.. only to find that it all goes down to zero available… in a matter of minutes.. now with this disabled. i can see my memory free..
but here is the deal.. not all of it is still available.. i should see at least 3 gigs right?
in fact thats what i see when i boot up..
then 1 gig gets cached over time.. sometimes even more!!!
i use my computer as a DAW and am wondering does this affect performance?
whats being cached and can i disable it? will it improve performance?
but where does my ram disappear? with superfetch enabled all the ram was cached..
now only some get cached.. and thats after doing some house cleaning… moving files navigating around.. listening to music files is the only thing.. but i can see the ram being freed after media player is off.. so.. as using cubase.. i can see the ram being freed up…
i only use the computer for 1 application.. thats cubase 4… nothing els is running at all.. most services are disabled… i have a 512 Geforce 8600 GT card which is taking alot of resources.. but i like the aero interface so i think ill buy more ram to keep things happy anyway…
any ideas? 


21. August 15, 2008 9:58 pm 
Dee

I am a new (as in 12 hours new) Vista user. I have been using Windows XP and Linux for years. I just found out about SuperFetch a few minutes ago. This is the most useless feature ever for an operating system. How does it know what programs should be cached. It's a different story if we can set which programs to cache manually, then it will be a very useful feature.
For now, I dont see why we have to enable it. Like one of the previous comments, how long does it take to load a program from hard drive to memory anyway? I like to keep my memory free, so whenever I need to use it, I dont need to flush it clean first. That's just silly….
All in all, Vista is a very beautiful operating system. But this SuperFetch is a total disaster. It's great to know that we can disable it… 


22. August 16, 2008 2:48 pm 
switch

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.

Is that so? Read the above reactions to superfetch.

Like I said, you obviously have no idea of what superfetch or, indeed, Vista actually does.

Before using a pejorative tone with me, realize that your accusatory statements are highly uncalled for and not appreciated by me, or others on this site. Furthermore, in lieu of this subject, you are in no position to make judgments on a personal level, period. Although your defense of Vista's feeble features, such as superfetch, remains a mystery to me, as it would be to others who have voluntarily disabled it, I have refrained from making any derisive personal statements about it.

 

[BongoBanger]

You know, I would reply in detail to your post but since the entire content consists of a copy and paste of reader comments rather than, say, the dozens of tech journals and blogs who endorse superfetch coupled with the usual nonsense that Leopard is less bloated than Vista despite it having about 40% more lines of code I'm not sure there would be much point.

However the point remains - and it's not an insult, it's an observation because I genuinely believe the comment to be true - you have absolutely no idea what superfetch or, indeed, Vista does.

 

[Chappers]

You know, I would reply in detail to your post but since the entire content consists of a copy and paste of reader comments from the very site you sourced originally rather than, say, the dozens of tech journals and blogs who endorse superfetch coupled with the usual nonsense that Leopard is less bloated than Vista despite it having about 40% more lines of code I'm not sure there would be much point.

However the point remains - and it's not an insult, it's an observation because I genuinely believe the comment to be true - you have absolutely no idea what superfetch or, indeed, Vista does.

As you haven't bothered to reply to me I thought I'd reply to your post -

The copy and paste of user comments criticizing superfetch that DMann posted was from the site you originally sourced not DMann.

So the very site you recommend for explaining superfetch is full of users criticizing it. LOL.

 

[DMann]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/noteb...4/Installing-Windows-Vista-On-The-MSI-Wind/p1

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.

This clearly illustrates the extent to which you actually read, comprehend, and scrutinize the very articles which you, yourself, endorse as accurate in terms of facts to base your claims. Pathetically, you go on to criticize others for not knowing what things do, how basic operations and components function, and go on condemn others in a derogatory fashion for the very actions which you yourself commit. This has been entered into the official 2008 Journal of Hypocrisy and shall be remembered for all time.

 

[g2tegg]

I have been a Windows user and fan for years. I also never liked apple, at the early stages (before OSX). Recently, about 5 months ago I decided to try out a mac. My job requires me to fix and install wireless internet, and if a customer of mine is having networking issues with a mac, I of course would need to know how to operate one. Needless to say, the switch over was absolutely painless, and I am 100 percent more productive. Mac is above microsoft by leaps and bounds. Simply the best operating system to date!
Vista, in my opinion will be another ME. As soon as anyone hears the name Vista they cringe. The most annoying and slow operating system I have ever used. I would in fact use windows 98se over vista any day.
Macs are so efficiant that my iBook g4 (1.33 GHz/1.25GB ram) runs faster and more reliably then my AMD athlon 3000+ with 2 GB of ram running windows xp. Especially running adobe cs2 and photomatix. Mac owns!
Vista -> ME = FAIL
OSX = WIN

Im not a fan boy, Im just stating my opinions because I have used and operated the both. From windows 3.1 to vista, OSX is the new king!

 

[DMann]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/noteb...4/Installing-Windows-Vista-On-The-MSI-Wind/p1

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.

You know, I would reply in detail to your post but since the entire content consists of a copy and paste of reader comments from the very site you sourced originally rather than, say, the dozens of tech journals and blogs who endorse superfetch coupled with the usual nonsense that Leopard is less bloated than Vista despite it having about 40% more lines of code I'm not sure there would be much point.

However the point remains - and it's not an insult, it's an observation because I genuinely believe the comment to be true - you have absolutely no idea what superfetch or, indeed, Vista does.

To add insult to your own injury, you reaffirm your blatant disregard to content and detail by accusing me of submitting reader comments "from the very site (you) sourced originally," while, in fact, the user responses cited were from the very site which had been endorsed, posted and recommended by you. This highly relevant detail was even pointed out in my previous post which stated:

Please read the comments, written by Vista users other than myself, found at the end of the link you have enclosed, which address the issues of uselessnes and inefficiencies of superfetch:

You further display your contempt by reasserting your ignorance with directives stating that "you having no idea what superfetch or, indeed, Vista does" while I, and 20+ users from your recommended site, seem to have a "different" understanding of what superfetch does and does not do.

This clearly illustrates the extent to which you actually read, comprehend, and scrutinize the very articles which you, yourself, endorse as accurate in terms of facts to base your claims. Pathetically, you go on to criticize others for not knowing what things do, how basic operations and components function, and go on further to condemn others in a derogatory fashion for the very actions which you yourself commit. This has been entered into the official 2008 Journal of Hypocrisy and shall be remembered for all time.

 

[BongoBanger]

As you haven't bothered to reply to me I thought I'd reply to your post -

The copy and paste of user comments criticizing superfetch that DMann posted was from the site you originally sourced not DMann.

So the very site you recommend for explaining superfetch is full of users criticizing it. LOL.

Yup, my mistake. Doesn't alter the fact they're reader comments though and that the site recommends that you don't disable superfetch. The comments also miss the point that superfetch is there to access commonly used applications quickly, not give faster performance. Indeed, if you do disable it and you're running only a handful of applications - or one (perhaps two if you're using team chat) - then as it's one less process you will get a slight boost. However, if you're using Vista for productivity and launching multiple apps or need quick access then it's a great utility.

Tom's hardware explains it a bit better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed,1532.html

 

[BongoBanger]

This clearly illustrates the extent to which you actually read, comprehend, and scrutinize the very articles which you, yourself, endorse as accurate in terms of facts to base your claims. Pathetically, you go on to criticize others for not knowing what things do, how basic operations and components function, and go on condemn others in a derogatory fashion for the very actions which you yourself commit. This has been entered into the official 2008 Journal of Hypocrisy and shall be remembered for all time.

Yup, like I said, it's a banana skin. Mea culpa.

This clearly illustrates the extent to which you actually read, comprehend, and scrutinize the very articles which you, yourself, endorse as accurate in terms of facts to base your claims.

Well no, it illustrates that I don't take reader comments as gospel but the tech journals themselves. Sure, I got your source wrong but they're still random reader comments it doesn't change the point itself, does it?

So hands up for my mistake and I apologise because my attention to detail there was not up to scratch. Now we've cleared that up, let's look at why you and the commenters misunderstand what superfetch and Vista does.

Superfetch is a caching utility which enables you to launch applications quickly. If you're running only one or two applications then, yeah, there is a reason to disable it because it's one less process. However since that's not what it's there to do both the reader comments and you miss the point.

The link to Tom's hardware in a previous post explains this.

 

[Chappers]

Tom's hardware explains it a bit better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed,1532.html

That was written when Vista had only just come out and is even more vague than your other link.

DManns original link was far more informative http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=1048

but you said

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.

but it doesn't say that - its says "The performance advantages really only show themselves if you have more than 4GB of RAM" and "In our testing SuperFetch only offers performance enhancement if you have 4GB of RAM or more, and even then you only shave off fractions of a second when loading programs."

I still prefer my Mac where I just leave apps open and they're there instantly. Although they open pretty damn quickly anyway.
Of course I don't have anything like Windows Update that will forcibly shut down my computer. I know you can hack it but the site you quoted before as being legit also says they don't think turning off Windows update is available for Vista Home just the "temporary disabling" measure.

Nice.

 

[BongoBanger]

That was written when Vista had only just come out and is even more vague than your other link.

The link is to Tom's Hardware. If you can find a group of more trusted sites on hardware and software performance then please post them.

DManns original link was far more informative http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=1048

Well no, it wasn't because that site deals with performance and misses the point of superfetch. If you read DMann's original comment it was:

utilizes more memory, even when idle

To which I replied:

This is superfetch at work.

Not sure what the confusion is here.

but it doesn't say that - its says "The performance advantages really only show themselves if you have more than 4GB of RAM" and "In our testing SuperFetch only offers performance enhancement if you have 4GB of RAM or more, and even then you only shave off fractions of a second when loading programs."

So, the more memory you have the better. Tom's hardware puts the figure at 2GB though. No offence to DMann's site but I trust their take a bit more.

I still prefer my Mac where I just leave apps open and they're there instantly.

Well since you can do that on a PC too I'm not sure where the comparison is.

Of course I don't have anything like Windows Update that will forcibly shut down my computer.

Well neither does Vista since it asks you if you want to reboot now or later. You can defer the reboot as much as you like.

I know you can hack it but the site you quoted before as being legit also says they don't think turning off Windows update is available for Vista Home just the "temporary disabling" measure.

Nice.

Not sure I'm with you. I have Home Premium and this is a link to the WU setting screen:

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8338/wusettingsyk8.jpg

You can switch it on and off as you like.

 

[Chappers]

The link is to Tom's Hardware. If you can find a group of more trusted sites on hardware and software performance then please post them.

OK finally found all the testing stuff - not totally clearly laid out but does show some quite dramatic improvements in certain situations - and obviously Vista needs it.
My point is that real people have issues with it and Vista in general. All your numbers add up - two pieces of software tested and improvements are great. However this means little if users have problems and start downgrading to XP or just not upgrading to Vista. Lets be honest - Vista has quite a few quirks and end users now have the power of the internet to spread the word of their unhappiness.
These are not Apple fanboys but real users and they are getting hacked off with Windows - hence MS are advertising because they are worried.

Obviously as a Mac user the majority of other computer users I know use Windows, however I now see friends that have downgraded to XP or upgraded to Mac (sorry ). As a Mac user I have never seen this before and have been genuinely surprised by the number of Mac switchers.
Mac sales are increasing and there are a variety of reasons - one of which is the Mac/iPod/iPhone ads, the halo effect from iPhone/iPod and word of mouth are the others. The ads tell you how cool Mac is or what cool things the iPhone can do - then a loyal user base that tells you how great it all is.

People are loyal because they are happy - and people leave when they are not.

This ad from MS that we were meant to be discussing - ridicules its users on several levels and this is not a good ploy.

I can't argue your other points - I was quoting from http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/wind...update-from-forcibly-rebooting-your-computer/ one of the sites that you originally posted from but they obviously aren't quite up-to-date.

It doesn't matter what you and I think. It's all those Windows users that MS are worried about losing - they matter and an advert/campaign that takes the piss out of them will add to the general unhappiness.

We've decided - but there are converts to be had.

The new ads look confusing .... we shall see what happens.

 

[BongoBanger]

My point is that real people have issues with it and Vista in general.

Totally agree. The way Microsoft handled the launch coupled with the whole 'Vista Ready' fiasco was just an absolute disaster and Microsoft deserved everything that came about because of it. Their approach was shoddy and, frankly, just shy of criminal.

But time moves on and, as I've shown by my own posting , people do make mistakes. The trick is to move on, learn from one's errors and fix one's cock ups. I think MS have largely done that with Vista and now they need to clean up the mess they caused in terms of public perception.

Time will tell I suppose.

 

[G58]

Well, I'm late coming to this little debate, so forgive me if this has already been covered.

I genuinely don't know what Vista does. Can you tell me please?

Is it a virus?

...

However the point remains - and it's not an insult, it's an observation because I genuinely believe the comment to be true - you have absolutely no idea what superfetch or, indeed, Vista does.

 

[G58]

I'm sorry, you're quite wrong about XP being less expensive than Vista.

Vista is now free! At least for a lot of people. I got a copy in a packet of Crunchies the other day. Some of my friends have found them in Cornflakes.

I've even heard of other people finding whole boxes of them in trash cans in major cities. Not all of them are unopened of course, and some are actually damaged beyond use by what appears to be rabid teeth marks.

Just thought folks would like to know before splashing out on XP. Surely any completely free operating system is better than something that's nearly seven years old. No? Oh well.

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.

 

[isethx]

their other ads are much better.

 

[sra. Aguirre]

"It's a ossum program you have to see for yourself!"
Terrible Video.

Funny how they never show them using Vista ... probably had a laptop running OS X.

Ok...off topic for sure but your avatar is just plain FUNNY, what's Obama doing with a poodle?????

Oh and I did not see that Mojave thing cause the website asks me to install Microsoft Silverlight...and thanks but no thanks!

Edit:
I saw that I could watch the non silverlight version...well.....does not make a whole lotta sense to me...and am just waiting for some windows fan boy to come tell me how retarded and ignorant I am for not seeing it.....I shall be prepared!

 

[Slippery Gimp]

I read the other day that the next Windows (Windows 7 - working title), might be released sometime in 2009. Which makes me think MS don't give a toss about Vista anymore, and that by advertising it, they want to get rid of all the pressed copies. Maybe, maybe not, maybe I'm just too cynical.

 

[G58]

Vista was six years late, and they had to throw out a ton of stuff to make that release date. Chances are they had enough to make another complete OS.

So what they're probably going to do is create a hybrid using the REAL version of Mojave used in the tests, and all the crap that was left in the 'rush' to get Vista out and fronted by the photocopied looks of Leopard.

Either way, if they say 2009, you know they mean 2010, 11, 12...

And whatever they call it, we also know it won't be a genuine new OS. It took Apple five years to develop Mac OS X - and last time I heard, M$ hadn't even started on 7.

So Windows 7 will be: Windows/Vista/Mojave/Cuttingroomcrap/stolenMacOSXgui [pronounced: 'gooie' of course], all taped together with peeling Gaffer tape and oozing Ballmer sweat. It will weigh as much as Ballmer too. But it will work... as long as you have four 6GHz Quad core processors, 16GB of RAM and a 1TB HD to store it on.

I read the other day that the next Windows (Windows 7 - working title), might be released sometime in 2009. Which makes me think MS don't give a toss about Vista anymore, and that by advertising it, they want to get rid of all the pressed copies. Maybe, maybe not, maybe I'm just too cynical.