Misquote...Quoted the wrong person..Sorry

---

Added on February 18, 2009, 11:04 pmNoted

This post has been edited by solstice818: Feb 18 2009, 11:04 PM

EVERY new windows release will cause this kind of arguments, don't you think so?

Windows ME come out then we say Windows ME failed. Windows XP released and yet it is also failed? Now Windows Vista's turn. Later? Windows Se7en.

Don't you get bored of this. It's the matter of time to get yourself into new environment.

I do agree that new window released are usually quoted as "failed" products because users tend to compare them with the previous version of window.But, they forget that one already stable while another is still in improving process.I found it funny when people blamed Window Vista to be SLOWER than XP.From my experiences of using Vista, as long your pc fits the requirement, you should have no problem using it smoothly.Processor, Rams, make sure all these things fits the requirement.

As I stated before it is all M$ market strategy.
More service pack comes out equal to more money.

Agreed

If Vista was so bad, and XP was the way to go, NATO wouldn't have skipped XP and moved directly to Vista. That's millions of licensing skipping XP going directly to Vista.

So is the Chinese government, Russian Federation, Singapore and UK.

It's the Joe and Marry everyday that has problem with Vista, because of the nature of what they do to the machine.

More service packs equal to more money? I don't know Microsoft charges for service packs

it failed because it does not meet your expectation.
but it meets my expectation,so it is not failed,for me

Please don't post misleading information.Those service packs are available to download for free.You don't have to pay for it.

I were saying when new service pack comes out.
People or organization who use window xp might have an interest to change to vista.
They will think new service pack equal to more improvement in stability and security.
Just like what happen when window xp sp2 comes out.

If you're talking about home consumer, then yes, they'll be tempted to upgrade when SP is out since it's more stable etc etc. But for corporate/organization, that's a no-go still even if you got SP9. Their old applications won't probably run even if they apply SP9 and some older hardwares are just unsupported.

i saw my friend using the vista that it's really much a good window than xp. but it's not stable yet that sometime caused the system failure.

System failure? What kind of system failure?

Do u mean system crashed with blue screen?

I dont think vista is worse than XP. At least the installation of vista is much more easier, more user friendly. Despite the better UI and interface, vista just... wont phail me... But my slow processor is the only problem that makes my vista slow; nevertheless after upgrading to vista (and after some tweaks to disable some unwanted services) it appears to be faster than XP..

Well just my 2 cents

dont blame those ppl who think vista is bad la bcoz it requires more ram, better graphic or better procs. the problem is that they dont wanna accept the fact that it is alot better than xp. they cannot accept that they dun hav the money to buy another ram (ram is seriously cheap like some sh*t now)..

it's depend how you use it, maintenance it & your knowledge on OS..
comparison is needed sometimes..not always..

looking 4 sombody can give me windows vista ultimate, if got PM me, THX

For free or for paid? If you wanna buy, I can recommend places. There's no such thing as free Windows OS (especially with money-minded Uncle William).

Window Vista is fine. All you need is a little patient because Vista load slow.