DescentBB

Kilarin wrote:

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.

At my last job we were still running NT 3.51 on some servers.

I wouldn't worry about XP disappearing any time soon:

\"Customer demand has forced Microsoft to extend the shelf life of Windows XP by five months.

Microsoft was scheduled to stop selling the six-year-old operating system on 30 January 2008 to leave the field clear for Vista.

Now the date on which many sellers of XP will no longer be able to offer it has been lengthened to 30 June 2008. \"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7017624.stm

JMEaT wrote:At my last job we were still running NT 3.51 on some servers.

Haha -- the "never change a working system" rule taken to the extreme

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.

Bwahahahahah!!!!!

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.

Windows Vista should be called Windows ME-2.

[removed]

WarAdvocat wrote:[removed]

LOL @ the Amstrad! I still have mine from 1987!

ok... I feel violated now. o_0

WarAdvocat wrote:[removed]

That's not quite work safe...

WTF did WarAdvocat say! Eeeeeeeek!

It's not what he said.
It was a link to a pic he posted.

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.

Not quite work safe if you ask me.

You mean \"not kindergarden safe\" ?

bewbies

That was a great pic. It's easily Google-able.

What computer system did the woman with boobs represent?

I'm thinkin more of image number one than ms. topless. >_<

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.

Not quite work safe if you ask me.

Don't forget.....HARD GAY!!!!

OK, I'm curious. Give a hint on what to Google to find the picture link.

there's always the option of typing 'NSFW'...

but anyways.. back to why vista sucks!

HERE some real picts.

Enjoy.

tunnelcat wrote:OK, I'm curious. Give a hint on what to Google to find the picture link.

Check your PM

Duper wrote:HERE some real picts.

Enjoy.

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.

True Krom. I was a bit surprised by how well Vista did. Nevertheless, I detest Ms's marketing antics.

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.

Thanks MD-2389 for sending me the link. LOL, you made my day!

I think it's an absolute riot and cracked up laughing when I saw it. Technology imitates life, perversely.