Vista retail not sellling - surprisingly..

superscaper

tomsolomon wrote: »

OK so its translated and repacketed so your MS Windows OS can understand it...:D
But still Linux nevertheless.

I wasn't listing computers I'd only heard of that run linux, just personal experience first hand, hence why your point wasn't valid. Otherwise I'd be here forever typing in various servers around the world which is meaningless and not relevant to the post I was responding to. I think you've completely missed what I've actually said in my post.

LuciferTDark

tomsolomon wrote: »

The GUI on Mac and Linux have always been far way and beyond Windows.

Having used all 3 as I have I can honestly say they're all pretty much the same in looks & functionality.

tomsolomon wrote: »

They are simple to use and very pleasing to the eye.

See above.

tomsolomon wrote: »

Its also a well known fact that the multimedia on Mac are well advanced, and Linux is renowned for its networking and security.

see above again, everything available on each platform has an equivalent available on the other platforms, almost, Linux is slightly behind on some things but catching up fast.

tomsolomon wrote: »

Windows is fine if you want to play games all day long, but then you may aswell buy a games console.......

Actually I create 3d art on my windows machine while listening to MP3 files & I can watch movies while creating my own music if I really want to.

Have you ever tried a Windows machine? doesn't seem like it from your posts.

Zahc

Sorry I mentioned servers, I was just interested.............;)

Zahc

LuciferTDark

If Microsoft want me to use Vista willingly they can pay me cause I'm not giving them a single penny for it. My choice for next OS will be Linux.

robt_2

tomsolomon, your clearly a linux lover and there is nothing wrong with that. But Windows users don't make up ridiciolous arguments to try and say we are better than you. What you are doing is no better than preaching, it is almost as if you are in a cult and can't see beyond it.

Windows, rightly or wrongly, has a higher market share than Linux - that is a fact, and preaching like you are does nothing to increase Linux's market share.

tomsolomon

Windows was basic and quite frankly 90's looking untill they released Vista. But who in their right mind is going to pay for a full licensed edition, of a repackaged OS with an updated GUI. It still runs on the same NT technology as XP, as far as I'm aware there is no NT6 yet. All Vista is is XP with Blinds built in, and a few extra utilities to play with.......
Why didnt they just call it XPVista or somthing?
As for Mac and Linux well the facts speak for themselves........

tomsolomon

robt wrote: »

Windows, rightly or wrongly, has a higher market share than Linux - that is a fact, and preaching like you are does nothing to increase Linux's market share.

Thats just the point... Linux has no market share its open source.:D

PROLIANT

If you installed XP on an old box say Pentium 2, 128MB RAM etc, it would run like an elephant with a HGV tied to its tail (I just made this analogy up by the way), you see my point is that as hardware becomes more advanced so does the software that runs on it, Vista is designed for "Modern" robust hardware and not legacy kit, I don’t use vista yet personally but I have installed it on several machines in my job as an I.T Support Engineer and I can say that it is a very good O/S and manages hardware more efficiently than its predecessor, why? It's called evolution, development, progress etc. The same was said when XP was first released and 98 users kicked and punched and whined until they realised they could not do there job without XP, Vista is a completely different construct to XP and is slowly moving away from the legacy yet robust and proven Windows NT platform (NT, 2000, XP, 2003), this is my professional opinion based on factual finding and experience, I would hope this has been a useful contribution for people to read.

robt_2

tomsolomon wrote: »

Windows was basic and quite frankly 90's looking untill they released Vista.

Once again, in your opinion. Personally I didn't think XP was at all '90s looking'. I would hardly call XP 'basic' either.

But who in their right mind is going to pay for a full licensed edition, of a repackaged OS with an updated GUI.

Very few people (less than 10%) buy a retail version - why should they? They have an existing operating system that works. Coming bundled with a new PC is not considered by the vast majority as 'buying it'.

It still runs on the same NT technology as XP, as far as I'm aware there is no NT6 yet. All Vista is is XP with Blinds built in, and a few extra utilities to play with.......
Why didnt they just call it XPVista or somthing?
As for Mac and Linux well the facts speak for themselves........

You clearly haven't used Vista for more than a day, so I don't think your the right person to judge it.

tomsolomon

robt wrote: »

Very few people (less than 10%) buy a retail version - why should they? They have an existing operating system that works. Coming bundled with a new PC is not considered by the vast majority as 'buying it'.

Then you've answered the question why OEM OS's are so popular, Its not becuse people want them ist because thats all that available to them, and thats why only 10% of sales are retail.......