If you completely ignore the fact that Windows Vista addresses the areas where Windows XP was weak in like security and interface with a number of new features like Aero, instant search, the breadcrumbs address bar, user-customizeable file browser links, and improvements throughout the Windows shell (the File Transfer dialog, vector icons, resolution independence in .NET 3.0) to take care of XP's interface issues... and things like User Account Control, address space layout randomizer, Protected Mode and visual prompting of ActiveX controls in Internet Explorer 7, Windows Defender, the improved Windows Security Center, Digital Driver Signing and BitLocker Drive Encryption and PatchGuard...

...then yes, I suppose you could say Windows Vista was a waste of time and effort. But ignoring all of the above would be a pretty weak cop-out, now, wouldn't it?



Wrong. Civilization III works perfectly right after install. I haven't even bothered to patch -- I will because updates aren't usually a bad thing. Hell, Civilization II worked just fine after install, and my roommate is addicted to Civilization IV on his laptop running Windows Vista Home Premium. The ONLY game I've had trouble with is Prey, and unlike you I've taken the time to figure out why it doesn't run and as it turns out, it isn't Windows Vista.

I'm inclined to link you to this ExtremeTech article, mentioning game compatibility and Windows Vista. Civilization IV is among the compatible, in fact, I'm not sure they ran into any incompatible titles in that article.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2090571,00.asp



I can tell you know what you're talking about... since Windows XP suffers from that problem... Windows Vista... does not. Windows Vista comes with a built-in DVD and HD-DVD decoder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista#Win...dia_Center

Additionally, the rumor that 32-bit systems will be incapable of playing HD content is false -- it's really up to the studio putting out the media. That said, I've played back and even made (and then played back) several HD WMV clips. Not that it matters, as it's common practice for OEM PC makers to bundle software like PowerDVD or WinDVD with their pre-built machines. If you don't do the pre-build thing and prefer to build your own systems, a lot of OEM optical drives ship with bundled copies of the same programs. If you are STILL without a DVD decoder, I encourage you try the K-Lite Mega Codec Pack, available freely here ( http://www.free-codecs.com/download/K_Lite_Mega_Codec_Pack.htm ).



Hmm. How strange. Again. I'm running Microsoft Office 2003 -- fully updated to Service Pack 2. I'm beginning to smell FUD.



Actually... Windows Vista began development right after the Windows XP launch, which took place on October 26th, 2001. Vista's initial feature set was far too ambitious for it's originally-slated 2003 release date, and so Jim Allchin, then-product manager for Windows decided to start all over with the project. Finally, availability of betas that really began to resemble the final product didn't really show up until the beginning of 2006, so really...

...hardware and software companies had between one and four years to get their stuff together. Microsoft, between MSDN, the availability of programming SDK's and technical documentation, provided these companies with more than adequate documentation. If Vista is less than stellar on your machine, I would largely encourage you to write an angry-yet-motivational e-mail to the company responsible. If that happens to be Microsoft, than so be it. But make sure it isn't ASUS, Nvidia, or Creative, or some other lazy drag-ass hardware company that just now decided to put some cash in it's Vista development team.



Okay, for one... software in general is made by human beings. If you ever expect a "perfectly working OS," you better just bite the bullet and keep your criticisms to yourself rather than posting them on the internet, because there isn't such thing.

Second, Windows Vista is better than XP in every way. I cannot seriously think of a way that Windows Vista is worse than XP. It takes the lessons learned from the XP era and incorporates them on a kernel level... hence the massive focus on usability, stability and perhaps more importantly... security. Windows Vista is easily more stable than XP. All I had to do to make XP crash was hibernate my laptop, and it never worked well. I'd usually return to XP to a cacophony of error messages, or I'd simply not boot back in to XP. Vista doesn't do this.

Thirdly, I feel compelled to point out that if you feel Vista was a miniscule improvement over XP, then you probably felt even worse about Windows when XP came in to replace 2000 and ME, despite the fact that it offered very little over either of those versions. A bigger driver library, a GUI overhaul, and both the Home and Professional versions were NT-based is about all that XP had to offer. Windows Vista offers a much bigger driver library, a much more significant GUI overhaul, a massively reworked kernel (new networking stack, new audio/video hardware communication, EFI support, DirectX 10), a multitude of security features (UAC, Address Space Layout Randomizer, PatchGuard, Protected Mode/ActiveX prompting in IE7, BitLocker Drive Encryption, the two-way firewall, and digital driver signing), and interface enhancements
(Aero, user-customizable file browser links, instant search, scalable icons, resolution independence, breadcrumbs address bar).

About the only features here that you can't use with Windows Vista Home Basic are BitLocker Drive Encryption and uh... Aero. That's it.



No, XP does not have a bigger driver library, it simply supports some older hardware that Microsoft chose not to support with Vista. Additionally, Windows Vista actually finds and downloads drivers off the internet, unlike XP, which "searched" the internet for drivers whenever you were looking for them. With the exception of my Mobility Radeon X1900, Vista had drivers for every piece of modern hardware I've ever used with it. And the only piece of old hardware that I used with Vista that didn't work was an old Creative Sound Blaster 16. I'm hard pressed to fault Microsoft for that, as Creative themselves announced that they would provide no drivers for any Sound Blasters before the Audigy.



The memory imprint isn't much larger than that of Windows XP, unless you're counting the amount of memory used by SuperFetch, a feature which precaches your most frequently used programs in the memory. System restore points use a minimum of 300 MB, and a maximum of 15% of your disk space. It also flexes around YOUR use of the hard drive.



Games running in DirectX 9 mode run maybe 10% slower in Vista than they did in Windows XP. There is a slightly higher hardware overhead in Windows Vista than there is in XP, so this slight loss of performance is going to happen. Deal with it. It happened in from Windows 2000- Windows XP, and it's happening again. The only difference is that Windows Vista adds considerably more to the Windows family than Windows XP did to Windows 2000.



How about a realistic comparison, where GM releases a vehicle that's slightly less efficient, but has a built-in GPS, headlights that turn around the corner with the motion of the car, impact warning sonar, and the highest crash test ratings in the industry? You of all people should appreciate that UI doesn't tell the whole story of an operating system, or any piece of software for that matter.



512 MB is plenty.



Do you ever frigging RESEARCH before opening your faces? ARGH. Previous versions of DirectX weren't exclusive, right? And previous versions of DirectX were also built directly on top of one another's code. That is, DirectX 9 was built directly on to DirectX 8's code, and DirectX 8 came from DirectX 7's code.

Whoa! DirectX 10 doesn't do that? And it's also exclusive to Windows Vista, the first version of Windows that radically changes the way it talks to audio and video hardware? HMM. GEE. I WONDER. DirectX 10 builds directly onto the way that Windows Vista communicates with audio and video hardware. If DirectX 10 had been built using old DirectX code, which communicated with audio/video hardware the old way, it wouldn't have made use of the new audio/video hardware stack in Vista. Since it DOES, however, it won't work on older versions of Windows which utilize the old method of communicating with audio/video hardware.

What. A. Concept. Microsoft did that for a reason, and all anyone can whine about is how DirectX 9 games run 10% slower, max. I'm going to quote Steve Ballmer here, "just you wait" until DirectX 10 games hit the market.



You've never used it before. Speaking from experience, a luxury you don't have (yet you feel compelled to lambast it as though you had), it is as fast if not faster than XP in many areas. Gaming? FRAPS says it's slower, but my human eyes can't tell the difference. I guess we're back to that old argument that stupid gamers hate to hear: It doesn't matter how many frames per second FRAPS says you're getting, it matters how many frames per second your eyes are actually getting. Chew on that for awhile.



As well you should be. You haven't presented a single point that hasn't been almost immediately refuted, and now you're telling those of us that HAVE used Vista that we "don't seem enthusiastic" about our user experience? Did you NOT read where Dublin, on the first page, said: "I honestly couldnt imagine going back to XP."



Well, on that day, when you feel utterly retarded for denying yourself a fantastic operating system for such a long time, we'll be here to make fun of you. Just FYI.



I think Microsoft did the best they could, given the circumstances. They tried to make too ambitious an operating system in too short a time by a company suffering from management and execution issues. I guess you're right, though, I would've rather received a pile of half-written code that barely earned the title of "Alpha." Jim Allchin is such a douche for starting over in 2003 and shipping this operating system instead.

Seriously? ME was a failure because it sucked. It crashed. A lot. And a lot of it came from the 9.x kernel. I have yet to see a Windows Vista blue screen. I haven't turned off my laptop in two days and 21 hours, it just sleeps and re-awakens. Instantly. Perfectly. That's something XP could never do with that kind of grace.



Hmm. XP wasn't at all the sea of change anyone was looking for, in part because IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. ME was only for home users, those in the business world were loving Windows 2000. Windows XP improved on ME because it didn't crash -- that's it. ME has, quite literally, the same featureset as Windows XP -- it's just not NT-based like XP. Windows Vista doesn't do stuff like that. Windows XP became a star because it was out for so long, and Microsoft really refined it over time.

Vista is the culmination of dedicated refinement of XP. It's all the stuff they couldn't do to XP with simple Windows Updates. You think they seriously threw the lessons learned through XP out the window? Get real. Windows Vista is putting those lessons to real use, as well as getting even with Mac OS X, which has come a long way in it's life too.



Don't bet money on that. You'll lose it.

I'm done with this thread, for now. I'm gonna go get some dinner, and then play some games on my lappy. Or maybe do some 3D animation using 3D Studio Max 7. There's so much to choose from, being that all of my apps migrated to Windows Vista so seamlessly.

Oh well. G'night.

Good post Pickle, I'm so happy I'm not the only one arguing that actually uses Vista.

BTW, a lot of people seem to have very short memories.

XP transistion (especially from those with Win 98 & its variants) was absolute hell for the most part. Software would just literally refuse to run, at all. Hardware was not compatible for ages (until the manufacturers got their act together).

XP was a LOT worse when it launched, yet most of you here could not imagine being without it.

BTW, I was running Vista with an A64 @2.3 1gb ram for nearly a year (various betas etc) and playing the likes of BF2 and BF2142 without a hitch.

People just seem to want to jump on the bandwagon of naysayers. I have no idea why. The worst ones are those who have either never even used it, or only used it for a very short period of time.

Guess what, I still havent felt compelled to boot into XP.

Lets cut to the chase here, Vista is not all singing and dancing and yes it is exspensive and it should have been much better received but its still a better OS then XP. Yes it might be slower now but IMHO its only a service pack away from being much more efficent if done correctly.

A_Pickle: Check and mate.

A_Pickle said:
Prey works for me 100% with the latest patch installed. I launch the game, and it works great. So dark41, the problem is not with Windows Vista, it is either with you or the install. (no offense)



I agree 100%.


Im running Office 2003 with no SP installed and again, it works 100% fine.


This is what I have been trying to get across. Either I did a poor job of it, or people are refusing to believe it.




I disagree with this because on my machine, it eats 600MB on a fresh install.



I second this statement. If you have no experience behind the OS, you should not have the right to hate it and bash it the way you have been. If you have actually tried it, then I wouldnt mind you complaining about the OS as much. In all honesty, I coudlnt imagine going back to XP myself either. As a matter of fact. I am going to format my XP partition on one of my days off next week and put Vista on it. Just eliminate the dual boot.

Merc
My guess is that in two years you will see an entirely new OS, based on Longhorn, and Vista will go down in history as the Windows Me of the 2000's. Flawed, buggy and laughably overhyped.



That you will Merc. In my experience, I do not see any flaws, no bugs and IMO, it was not overhyped.

What really gets me is that people keep saying "wait 6 months or until the first service pack". That 6 months is just a number that people keep pulling out of their ass. Its just a number with no reasoning behind why they chose it.

Like I have been saying (or have been trying to). Windows Vista is just like any other previous Windows OS. It has to be configured to yoru liking. Everyone configures XP the way the like it much like everyone has to do the same thing with Wnidows Vista. The bloat can be disabled. Who siad it was necessary to run it all? No one. Everyone here has a fairly good computer background so its a no-brainer for us to know how to trim some of the fat.

So when someone tells you to wait six months to buy Vista, dont listen to them. Find out what programs that YOU use work with Vista and find all necessary drivers. Once you have all the information you need, XP will be a thing of the passed and I can almost guarantee 100% that you will not go back to XP. I know I wont be.

Yea, great post A_Pickle.. filled with inaccuracies.

All of the features you mention are only available on Vista Ultimate Edition. Reading your reply, its as if all versions of Vista include everything. They don't. Some of these features are cut out of Business Edition, most are cut out of Home Premium, and almost all are cut out of Home Basic.

At any rate you've completely missed the point. If a person's business or personal use requires software or hardware that is not currently supported in Vista, then all the eye candy and security in the world doesn't change the fact that Vista is useless to this person to do what they need to do. The exception would be people who are willing to pay for a 2nd OS to run in dual boot mode so that they can still have access to the programs and hardware that they need. Very few people will consider this as an option, whether it be in the home or business world.

Games:

I have Vista installed on several computers and have tried every one of the games I mentioned on each of these systems. Civ III and IV (the only versions I have of the game) both install and play on 2 systems, but are slow/laggy. Not the OS? Funny that on 2 identical systems the games freeze as soon as they go to the game screen (all 4 of these systems have E6300, 7300GS, Intel DP965LT, and 2x512 DRR2 800.. every piece of hardware and drivers is identical). Not the OS? I have the same result (games freeze) as the latter 2 systems on my dual boot system (in sig), where everyone of these games work fine on XP Pro and Home on every one of these systems. But we've already established that its not the OS.

Check out Civilization Fantatics forums. Its filled with issues with Vista. Even the ones who have it working claim that its slow compared to XP. I'm far from the only one who's unable to get this game to work correctly on Vista.

Every one of the other games I've listed also install on Vista, and freeze after about 5 seconds of game play. I'm told this is a driver issue, which remains to be seen. Either way, Vista is worthless to me at this point if my favorite games don't work on it now.

You've found what the issues were and fixed them:

You do not represent the average computer user. Its great for the people who care to take the time to tweak the OS or whatever else needs tweaking to work with the OS. Very few of my customers will know how to do that, let alone care to. A plug & play OS should work without tweaking anything.

It doesn't matter what compatibility charts say if I can't duplicate their results. I work on and build computers for my living. When I want to play a game, its to relax and forget about computer problems. The last thing I want to do is google around trying to find a fix for every game that I own. I do so because I may have to guide a customer through the process at some point. Guess what? There are currently no fixes for any of the games I've mentioned.

Windows Vista comes with a built-in DVD and HD-DVD decoder:

Since we've already established that you must be using Vista Ultimate, here's a news flash for you. Only Home Premium and Ultimate editions include a DVD decoder. Home Basic and Business need a 3rd party codec installed separately.

MS Office Updates:

Most likely you're smelling your own ignorance about MS Updates vs Office Updates. If you have SP2 for Office 2003 on your Vista system, I guarantee its not because you logged onto MS's Office Updates site, did a scan of your system, and were provided a list of what updates you needed to install the way it does with XP. No version of Vista is compatible with MS Office Updates.

You may have gotten SP2 through Window's Automatic updates, which is not the same thing as office updates. You may have manually downloaded SP2 for Office 2003 and installed it.

I turn Windows updates off because on more than one occasion updates that were not supposed to be there were and caused problems.

Features shmeatures:

I also turn off UAC, Windows Defender, Gadgets, and Search. IMO, these are unnecessary features that do nothing more than slow my machine down. Aero is only available on some versions of Vista, and only then if your video card supports it. Again, it depends upon which version of Vista you run as to which features Vista offers. Many people who have Vista are turning off many of these so called features.

Dribble:

It really doesn't matter that MS had to change direction for Vista. Its still the same basic OS that they've been working on since before XP was released, minus the most appealing feature (new file structure).

Anyone considering voiding their XP key by upgrading to Vista (only available from XP Home to Vista Basic, and only available for XP Pro to Vista Business) should carefully consider what they'll be living without vs advantages over XP. IMO, the upgradable versions offer very little to entice someone to upgrade, and even moreso if their current hardware is inadequate.

Obviously anyone running Vista Ultimate isn't real concerned about a few hundred extra dollars here and there (Ultimate retails for $800 in Australia, roughly the price of a complete system with XP Pro on it). But the majority of users will never use Vista Ultimate. Thus, the majority of users will only get some of the eye candy that you've mentioned, some of the security that you've mentioned, and still have their share of problems with games, software, and hardware at this time.

What makes Vista even more of a ridiculous investment is that the new file structure (which was supposed to be included with Vista in the first place) is expected to be included in MS's next OS release. In other words, all the software that everyone just bought to run with Vista will not work with the new OS. MS predicts 3 years, which in is 'Vista speak' is closer to 6-7.

One of the things an operating system is supposed to do is manage memory properly. Allocating enough memory to currently running programs, while keeping enough memory free so that you can effectively operate your computer and add new tasks. Obviously, this changes depending on the amount of RAM you have -- and you have 2 GB. One of Vista's features, SuperFetch (which puts significant runtime files of your most commonly accessed programs in the memory), also biases the memory amount to a huge level, so people immediately think that the high memory readings that the Task Manager are all for the operating system. They aren't.

I assure you, you can run Vista very well on 512 MB of RAM. You can even play some games with it -- I know, because I did it on my old test computer a ways back in this thread ( http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/57550/?o=20 ). I feel inclined to add that, in that thread, I was using a custom-built computer running Windows Vista Build 5384 (Beta 2). As the Inquirer jumps on any chance to knock Microsoft one, they wrote the article here ( http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30128 ) and it tells the story of just how much RAM Windows Vista Beta 2 used on a system with 1 GB of RAM. As you have just stated, Vista uses 600 MB on your system with 2 GB of RAM. A lot of progress, I'd say -- it uses less memory on a system with more available memory now, where once it consumed more memory on a system with less available memory.

And I was running it on a system with 512 MB of RAM, a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4, and a Radeon 9600 XT with 128 MB of RAM. It still played Grand Theft Auto III without a hitch, and Half-Life 2 (and Lost Coast) with lowered settings.



Too bad I listed that. To be completely honest, only the frilly features are omitted from Home Basic. With Home Basic, you still get instant search, you still get the redone, much enhanced and MUCH better Windows Explorer, you still get most of the security features like UAC, Windows Defender, Internet Explorer 7 Protected Mode and on-prompt ActiveX controles, Address Space Layout Randomizer and PatchGuard (with a 64-bit system). You even get DirectX 10. That's an upgrade from XP -- the only things omitted from Home Basic are the DVD & HD-DVD decoders, Media Center, Remote Desktop, BitLocker Drive Encryption, and Aero.

You still get exactly what you got previously with XP, and more. To say Vista is worse is pretty ignorant.



You're absolutely right. Now sift through my post, and tell me where I ever said I took any time working with the OS? This computer, actually, was the first computer that I ever received from the factory and didn't format -- because it had virtually no bloatware and worked just fine. With all of my games. And Microsoft Office 2003. Weird.

I feel compelled to add, I got a virus on Windows Vista and had to reformat. It was easy and quick, and Vista had or found drivers for all of my laptop's hardware if not immediately, then it did so once I got online (which was easy, because it had the driver to my wireless card).

I feel compelled to add, Windows XP was the operating system that I DID have to tweak and work with to my satisfaction, because it was really obtuse and a relic of a bygone era by comparison. That was the operating system which I had to use TweakUI to customize my "Places Bar" so that I could put a maximum of FIVE different frequented locations where I wanted. That's the operating system that, well, it simply didn't work when you tried to hibernate, and it's the one that I had to tweak and rely on third party programs to make it halfway modern.



You're right. I'll quote myself to cover for that one:



Good post, A_Pickle! How true is that?



You. Have got. To be kidding me. You're saying that Office Update is incompatible with Windows Vista. Microsoft minces no words about this, for one ( http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/FX101859091033.aspx ), and secondly, you can update Office 2003 through Windows Vista's built-in Windows Update feature. You have to enable "Microsoft Update," which will in-turn update all Microsoft software on your system.

I know, I know. Updates that cause problems! Fortunately, Windows Update in Windows Vista is a tremendous improvement over the update process of previous versions of Windows -- you can select updates that you want, and deselect updates that you don't want. And to prevent those updates from bothering you ever again, you can right-click it and select "Hide Update."



That's personal preference, but don't call them unnecessary. Windows Defender and UAC are some of the best things to have happened to the Windows family. If only we could get a good, easy-to-use, two-way firewall, and an effective anti-virus built-in.



Oh are they now? Do you go house to house asking them if they have? Every Vista feature, save for Aero and maybe UAC, is for the better. Aero definitely is, but I can see why people might want to turn it off.



The upgrade copies of Vista work great. For one, Vista is an image -- not a bunch of assorted files, like with XP. Install failure rate is significantly decreased because of this. Also, Vista upgrade copies perform clean installs, all they do is move the old Windows stuff into a folder called "C:\Windows.old," and all of your stuff is preserved. Drivers *might* be an issue, but... Vista is pretty good at finding those immediately online, unlike XP, which asked if you wanted it to search online, but even if you said yes, it wouldn't find anything.

Yep, XP sure is looking better and better...



The user using Windows Vista Home Basic will miss out on Aero, the eye candy. They still get the revamped Windows Explorer (instant search, user-customizable filesystem links, vector icons), and the enhanced Windows shell (file copy dialog, move and replace, etc.) They still get DirectX 10. They still get Address Space Layout Randomizer, Windows Defender, IE7 Protected Mode and on-prompt ActiveX, UAC, and even PatchGuard if they run a 64-bit system (which is pretty secure in and of itself, as there are few 64-bit pieces of malware).



There are "WinFS-compatible" applications out now? Man, tell me where? Better yet, tell Microsoft where, because they a.) aren't remotely done with WinFS yet, and (it hadn't reached Beta 2 stage by June of last year: http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx AND http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/ ) b.) WinFS was officially out of Windows Vista in 2004 ( http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040828-4139.html ). All the new software that everyone just bought to run Vista will work just fine, and I'm inclined to ask why they didn't just use their old software, because it probably works just fine, too.

Microsoft admits Vista failure
http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=39087

Couldn't agree more, exactly how I feel!

Best regards,

Yeah. I saw that myself too. It's possibly the worst pile of steaming feces I've read in quite awhile. The Inquirer and it's anti-Microsoft fanaticism can go to hell -- they've lost my readership. I'm hoping their zeal and total lack of credibility will knock a good deal of other people off the habit.

Vista's only flaw is that it's overpriced, Microsoft needs to bring it's operating system down to levels that compete with the likes of Linux and Mac OS X.

A_Pickle,



You're joking right? That's one just of it's many flaws.

Best regards,

No. I'm not joking. It's a damn good operating system, far better than XP. I've yet to see a legitimate point presented by you or anyone else here that would lend credence to Vista's shortcomings.

A_Pickle said:
Everyone who as tried to make a point has failed to do so. Everytime someone attempts it, it gets shot down by a Vista user.

The main reason why people hate it so much is pretty much because they either 1)Cant afford the OS 2)Dont have the power in their rigs to run it 3)Hate Microsoft, but yet continue to use their software 4) A combo of all the above.

Its mainly number 2.

I agree with A_Pickle on the many points he has made. I will state it again going along side with A_Pickle. Actually, Ill quote him. "It's a damn good operating system, far better than XP. "

Yes Microsoft has dropped its plan to implement WinFS into Vista. However, in Windows Vienna, its supposed to be a revamped OS. New GUI WinFS, better features, and the whole 9 yards. Windows Vienna will the the OS above all others. Then again, that is just my opinion.

http://www.windowsvienna.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_%22Vienna%22

Hmmm...just ran across this little news tid bit.

Dell Brings Back XP On Home Systems
Amid significant customer demand, the computer maker said on Thursday that it has returned to offering the older Windows version as an option on some of its consumer PCs.

Like most computer makers, Dell switched nearly entirely to Vista-based systems following Microsoft's mainstream launch of the operating system in January. However, the company said its customers have been asking for XP as part of its IdeaStorm project, which asks customers to help the company come up with product ideas.

"We heard you loud and clear on bringing the Windows XP option back to our Dell consumer PC offerings," Dell said on its Ideas in Action page. Users get to vote on various suggestions, and the notion of bringing back XP got 10,000 "points," making it among the most popular requests but well below top picks such as adding Linux or OpenOffice.org to its PCs.

continued: http://snipurl.com/1hayj

I am surprised Microsoft said they would release Windows Vienna by 2009. Microsoft usually releases a new OS approximately every 5 years. Knowing Microsoft, I am not expecting it to be released until at least 2010.

Direct X 11 anyone?

Brendan Gonsalves said:
DX11 isnt coming out that damn soon. You and I both know that.

As far as Microsoft releasing a new OS every 5 years, I thought it was every 15-19 months?

Yea I am not counting on Direct X 11 anytime soon.

Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 = 3 years apart

Windows 95 -> Windows 98 = 3 years apart

Windows 98 -> Windows 2000 (a failure) = 2 years apart

Windows 2000 -> Windows XP = 1 year apart

Windows XP -> Windows Vista = 6 years apart

Therefore I'm estimating that it should take Microsoft at least 5 years to produce a new OS programmed from scratch (like the article mentioned).

Could have swore it was like 15-19 months apart. Guess not.

Brendan Gonsalves said:

You missed Windows Me.

Wait. I just noticed this. How can you say Windows 2000 was a failure?