Krom wrote:If they tried to do that, I guarantee lawsuits would fly faster than someone tripping in a wal-mart parking lot.
Possibly, it depends on how many XP users are left by that time.
Also, on what tactic they take. If they just decide they won't allow XP to install, and claim they are doing it to "protect the web", who knows?
Hopefully thy won't try anything like that, BUT, I'm moving to Ubuntu anyway. I'd rather use software where I don't have to trust a corporation to behave rationally and benevolently.
WGA is already easily crackable. Google it and you will find a DL link in less than a minute, so for the clever or search engine savy MS shutting down XP is pretty irrelevant.
Even if they do, you will see a fit from all of the major corporations. I interned at Motorola a while ago and they still had a few Windows 2000 machines running. And only reason why we "upgraded" to SP2 last year was because SP1 was due to be off support at that time.
Mike Nash, corporate VP wrote:While we’ve been pleased with the positive response we’ve seen and heard from customers using Windows Vista, there are some customers who need a little more time to make the switch to Windows Vista.
Translation, there are still people who need to have their heads warped in the favor of thinking that Vista isn't bloatware, restricting people form using computers how they want. Even though its true.
I think the more accurate assumption would be: more time for the high performance hardware that Vista really needs to become more affordable. As it stands right now, absolutely nothing right off the catalog under $2,500 from a major OEM is sufficient to run Vista well. While practically everything over $500 is sufficient to run XP well.
He showed a pic of personalities associated with various computer systems (ie: cool hip guy=mac, nerd=pc, and MANY others) and one of them was a woman with boobies.
Top Wop wrote:He showed a pic of personalities associated with various computer systems (ie: cool hip guy=mac, nerd=pc, and MANY others) and one of them was a woman with boobies.
Actually I'd say that managing to keep almost everything within 10% with all the extra stuff going on in Vista is quite good. It means with a few more months of optimizations they might get the average framerates to match, or even start to edge out XP once in a while.
Krom wrote:
...with all the extra stuff going on in Vista...
Well, I keep reading about so-called 'Features' in Vista, in vague or MS marketing-speak, but what is there in Vista, for the user, in layman's terms, that isn't just eye-candy?
The eye candy is just what you see, which is a very minor part of it, what you see is actually very easy to do in the video hardware and is likely even faster than the methods that previous versions of Windows used to draw the screen.
The important stuff we talk about is going on behind the scenes. Like the DRM and encryption engine running in the background, or the new memory management, tons of changes to the NT kernel. Vista especially handles the system memory and caching in a totally different way than XP or any previous version of Windows. All of this stuff will use more memory, more CPU time and more system resources than XP used.
^^^ Dont forget a completely fsked up audio stack. Now I cant control bass/treble functions on my audio card, and games sound funny on it. Oh yea, no audio through DScaler.
