Athenian200
Protocol Droid
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 8,856
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 4w5
Well, as most of you probably know, Windows 7 is coming out (I'd always hoped they'd go back to version numbers and stop with the retarded names ever since they released Windows 95).
The thing is, from what I've seen of it, it seems like it should be a service pack for Vista (or even what Vista should have been to start with) rather than a whole new version of Windows we should have to pay $150+ for. It's not really going to include a whole lot of stuff that won't run on Vista, it's just going to be more efficient than Vista and do most of what it does better.
The thing that really sucks (to me), is that XP users are eligable to upgrade at the same price as Vista users. Essentially, you get absoultely nothing for putting up with Vista's inefficiency for the past two years, not even a cheaper upgrade. You're stuck with a lame, inefficent stopgap that's clunkier than XP, and has less refined and buggier versions of most of the features of Windows 7. I'd be angrier if it were my money that had been used to purchase Vista (a relative purchased this computer for me and stuck me with a 32-bit version of Vista Ultimate on 64-bit hardware due to concerns about 64-bit backwards compatibility), but it's still very frustrating. Basically, people who stuck to XP and resisted Vista for the last couple of years are the winners.
I noticed that this reminds me of something... the difference between using a beta version, and a finished product. I actually feel like Microsoft somehow screwed Vista users into paying THEM to for the priviliage of beta testing their software, when most companies have to pay for beta testing. I'll admit, it's rather clever on their part that they got paid for something other companies pay for, but it leaves me feeling cheated.
Of course, this probably isn't the first time Microsoft has done this.
Lousy trick versions:
Windows 3.0 (post 16-bit era), Windows 95 (early 32-bit era), Windows ME (late 32-bit era), Windows Vista (post 32-bit era).
"Golden" versions:
Windows 3.11 (post 16-bit era), Windows 98SE (early 32-bit era), Windows XP (late 32-bit era), Windows 7 (post 32-bit era).
This is one of the reasons I always used to crusade against Microsoft back when I was young and idealistic. Now I just suck it up and whine occasionally when they do something particularly irritating, like everyone else.
I'm probably not going to be upgrading to Windows 7, since my computer has 4GB of RAM and thus runs fine with Vista anyway, and Vista will be updated to include enough of the features of Windows 7 for compatibility (like IE 8, new DirectX versions, and new driver compatibility) that I'll feel silly upgrading, but will still retain the wasteful memory management and other undesirable "beta" quirks.
Does anyone else who uses Vista feel like they got the short end of the stick, or is it just me?
The thing is, from what I've seen of it, it seems like it should be a service pack for Vista (or even what Vista should have been to start with) rather than a whole new version of Windows we should have to pay $150+ for. It's not really going to include a whole lot of stuff that won't run on Vista, it's just going to be more efficient than Vista and do most of what it does better.
The thing that really sucks (to me), is that XP users are eligable to upgrade at the same price as Vista users. Essentially, you get absoultely nothing for putting up with Vista's inefficiency for the past two years, not even a cheaper upgrade. You're stuck with a lame, inefficent stopgap that's clunkier than XP, and has less refined and buggier versions of most of the features of Windows 7. I'd be angrier if it were my money that had been used to purchase Vista (a relative purchased this computer for me and stuck me with a 32-bit version of Vista Ultimate on 64-bit hardware due to concerns about 64-bit backwards compatibility), but it's still very frustrating. Basically, people who stuck to XP and resisted Vista for the last couple of years are the winners.
I noticed that this reminds me of something... the difference between using a beta version, and a finished product. I actually feel like Microsoft somehow screwed Vista users into paying THEM to for the priviliage of beta testing their software, when most companies have to pay for beta testing. I'll admit, it's rather clever on their part that they got paid for something other companies pay for, but it leaves me feeling cheated.
Of course, this probably isn't the first time Microsoft has done this.
Lousy trick versions:
Windows 3.0 (post 16-bit era), Windows 95 (early 32-bit era), Windows ME (late 32-bit era), Windows Vista (post 32-bit era).
"Golden" versions:
Windows 3.11 (post 16-bit era), Windows 98SE (early 32-bit era), Windows XP (late 32-bit era), Windows 7 (post 32-bit era).
This is one of the reasons I always used to crusade against Microsoft back when I was young and idealistic. Now I just suck it up and whine occasionally when they do something particularly irritating, like everyone else.
I'm probably not going to be upgrading to Windows 7, since my computer has 4GB of RAM and thus runs fine with Vista anyway, and Vista will be updated to include enough of the features of Windows 7 for compatibility (like IE 8, new DirectX versions, and new driver compatibility) that I'll feel silly upgrading, but will still retain the wasteful memory management and other undesirable "beta" quirks.
Does anyone else who uses Vista feel like they got the short end of the stick, or is it just me?
