Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

[pkellmey]

Don't buy HD-DVD's, BlueRay's, Video on Demand, iTunes Songs, SACD's etc.

Wow, a voice of reason - you obviously have no business on this forum. :lol: Like you said, I have also played back content at 1920x1200 resolution with no issues in WMP so there is obviously a content/driver issue here. No issues when I play 1080P content - not even the slightest slow-down or stutter. This just points to HD-DVD/BlueRay/protected content/drivers issues and not Vista. I don't even get the expected CPU increase that everyone claims has to be there. I stay away from those techs like they're poison and I have had no issues. The old link may be valid criticisims for a very small amount of content that, overall, very few people are currently using, but current evidence is pointing toward it being complete bs. Update your BIOS/drivers/codecs, people, before you decide it's an OS issue.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

One of the funniest things in that 'Cost Analysis' bit is that he start off his article with SACD, now talk about a failed standard, he might as well have been talking about Betamax, or Minidisc...The point is, the market has the power to decide when enough is enough, not MS, and it is up to us to make sure this message gets across. Don't buy DRM protected stuff, simple as that. The guy in the article is painting a doom scenario where all content a few years from now is of the 'Premium' variety, but not if I can help it. If anything, the more restrictions they impose on legally purchased content, the more you will see honest people looking for alternatives (often of a less honest nature). If you don't want anything to do with DRM, don't buy any content that uses it and Vista will not mess with you (or XP, OSX and Linux for that matter). If you buy stuff that uses DRM, you are the one supporting it, so you will have to accept the consequences...You can't have both...

 

[mosquitoguy]

If you do not use HDDVD/BlueRay, or purchase any Protected Content, DRM will NOT interfere with your Playback in any way.

This is an assumption, not fact. I haven't seen the code for nvidia's graphic drivers, so I don't know for a fact whether the new Vista driver requirements for drm interferes with non-protected content.

If your WMP/MCE stutters horribly, then you are looking at a driver/codec problem, not DRM kicking in...

This is a matter of perception. VLC/WMP11 runs fine on XP. MCE runs fine on my MCE2005 PC. You call it a driver/codec problem. I call it a Vista problem.

*EDIT* I would like to add that if DRM is of a particular concern to you, the only way to fight it is by NOT buying protected content.

I don't touch DRM. Given that, the new security requirements of Vista for protected content is like buying a state-of-the-art sprinkler system for my fake lawn. The fact that my CPU is spending an extra cycle for it doesn't come without resentment on my part.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

Ok, let me put it this way;

My PC runs Vista Ultimate 32bit.

My PC does not use excessive CPU cycles to playback Video/Audio Content. WMV HD/Divx HD included.

On my PC playback of Video, Including 1080p HD content, does not result in stuttering, downgrading of signal or reduced audio fidelity, using both WMP or VLC.

My PC has DRM protected 'premium' content on it (iTunes purchased AAC filed), yet not once has my PC stopped playback of such (or other) files, nor has it ever reset Audio or Video subsystem.

My PC feels quicker running Vista (including most games) that it did running XP MCE. That is despite DRM supposedly crippling my Windows experience.

As long as you don't post any information about which processes are hogging your CPU, the assumption that 'it must be Vista' is wrong. Vista has just been released and a lot of graphics card lack proper support for hardware accelerated playback, and with the new desktop composition of the Aero interface, they cannot resort to XP methods for Hardware Overlay. If your PC has good enough hardware to playback (unprotected) 1080p content, then the issues you are describing point to a driver/software issue, and with companies like nVidia being very late with support/Drivers, blaming Vista's DRM seems unrational. Have you checked all other possibilities before you came to this conclusion? Go over to the nVidia forum and you will know in what shape the current drivers are, combine that with the fact that a lot of users lack the knowledge to properly install/configure their hardware (on more than one occasion GFX card issues were solved by installing Motherboard drivers, a possibility some users failed to see as a problem).

My system is doing fine with Vista, as it was doing fine with XP. I have encountered issues and problems since installing Vista (including bad playback, and playback artefacts) but all these issues have been solved by looking outside of the DRM-culprit (Divx will not playback properly, I am using Xvid instead, and Nero 7 lite played havock on WMP MPEG2 playback (god knows why!) and uninstalling Nero solved the issue there).

 

[mosquitoguy]

As long as you don't post any information about which processes are hogging your CPU, the assumption that 'it must be Vista' is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Just because YOU are not having any problems and hence in YOUR perception there's nothing wrong with Vista, doesn't make your opinion right.

It's true that I can pass the buck to Nvidia and say that this problem is all Nvidia's fault for not supporting Vista properly, but that's just playing politics. As an end-user, I really don't care whether Nvidia drivers are still in beta. If Nvidia takes 6 months to get their drivers out of beta, Microsoft is NOT blameless for it. I evaluate Vista as a whole, not as individual parts.

Lack of application and driver support is the reason why I DON'T run Linux, so why should I treat Vista any different? Does it matter that Linux is a great operating system by itself? If it doesn't do what I want, it's all moot.

 

[Zoron]

You can't blame Linux for lack of vendor support... so why blame MS for the same? It's not the fault of the OS (Linux) that ATi's drivers aren't what they should be... so how can it be Vista's fault if nVidia's drivers aren't up to snuff? How long have they had for driver development?

When something isn't done, people always look for someone else to blame. Both nVidia and ATi whined about Vista and shifted the blame to MS for their drivers not being fully ready at launch. It does your customers a great disservice when you start pointing fingers at others for your own shortcomings. I'm not denying that writing drivers for Vista may be more challenging than it was for XP... and while MS can be blamed for that much... it is still no excuse for vendors.

 

[mosquitoguy]

You can't blame Linux for lack of vendor support... so why blame MS for the same?

The lack of vendor support on Linux is simply because there's not enough profit in the end-user marketplace. The reason for that is simple: you can't play DirectX games on Linux. The reason for that is because Linux developers don't play games on Linux and there never has any momentum to develop an architecture that's friendly for gaming. DirectX has no competition because the "G" in GNU stands for Geek.

DirectX 10 is the only reason why people would leave XP permanently and upgrade to Vista, and is also the reason why Microsoft would never implement DX10 on XP. End users don't care about protected content, security issues, and all the hoopla that Microsoft is bragging about Vista.

When something isn't done, people always look for someone else to blame. Both nVidia and ATi whined about Vista and shifted the blame to MS for their drivers not being fully ready at launch.

A driver specification is nothing but hot air until someone implements it. The speed at which you can implement depends on the complexity of the specification. A specification that's more complex ends up in slower implementation time and slower performance. This is why Vista has higher hardware requirements, and why Nvidia drivers are still in beta.

Why does Vista need faster hardware? Is it so that I can have a better-looking alt-tab? A $200 task manager replacement with translucent windows (Aero) ? This is a thief's game when he visually distracts you with his right hand while his left is pulling out your wallet. This is why Microsoft dropped WinFS in favor of Aero, and why Apple computers look cute-- because the average computer users are dumb and easily distracted by nice looking things.

I'm not denying that writing drivers for Vista may be more challenging than it was for XP... and while MS can be blamed for that much... it is still no excuse for vendors.

Gee, I think you got it backwards. It should be the hardware vendors that dictates Microsoft, not the other way around.

I wish these vendors would get together and agree NOT to finish their Vista drivers, and start writing Linux drivers instead. Nvidia should sell two versions of their chips --- a Vista version with HDCP support and a non-Vista version at a lower price.

That would show Microsoft that you can't be on top without someone at the bottom supporting you.

 

[Zoron]

Gee, I think you got it backwards. It should be the hardware vendors that dictates Microsoft, not the other way around.

I never suggested that one should dictate to the other in either fashion; I merely suggested that if a new OS pops up, vendors should have their drivers in place at launch or very shortly afterward.

The lack of vendor support on Linux is simply because there's not enough profit in the end-user marketplace.

I'm tired of that excuse. Logitech forced down the throats of WinXP x64 for over 2 years before finally developing 64-bit drivers to coincide with Vista's launch. What changed all of a sudden? Did Vista's release somehow make XP x64 more "profitable"?

My point is that customers want their hardware to work. They don't want to hear a whole pile of excuses of why the drivers aren't ready... they want those drivers NOW! Playing the blame game doesn't get those drivers out the door any faster. Most people couldn't care less about all the politics behind the scenes... they just want their printer to work.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

mosquitoguy; I known it is very fashionable to bash MS, but for the love of god, use your head and be reasonable. Have you been around for any previous OS release (not only MS)? Have you even used Vista? Or have you just read a few FUD articles and decided to hop on the bashing bandwagon? I can show you a screenshot of a 1080p WMV clip running using an average of 15-17% CPU (with plenty of other aero windows open), but I doubt that could change you opinion. I can show you screenshots with Vista idling at 0-2%, but again I doubt you are really interested.
Your PC doesn't work right, so IT MUST BE VISTA. You tried it for 5 minutes, with some beta drivers and the wrong codec, it didn't work, so IT MUST BE VISTA'S DRM slowing you down. You are the prototype of people who should NOT make their career in the computer bussiness because you are either too lazy or too ignorant to go trough a process of elimination to solve a problem, instead blaming it on MS like everyone else.
Go inform yourself before you place the blame on something that, by using simple logic, is unlikely to be the main culprit. Again, if you think the only thing Vista has going for it is DX10, then you obviously haven't spent more than 5 minutes using it, because there are plenty of things that, when used properly, can dramatically increase productivity, reduce office downtime at increase application performance (sounding like a PR guy now, I know...). The aero interface alone, while also looking pretty, has really improved multitasking in my case (using a lot of graphical/3D apps). On top of that, pricing for Vista has been in line with every previous MS OS, and if you didn't know already, OSX doesn't come cheap either (and for the price difference that does exist between the two, Apple isn't shy in making that money elsewhere, ie by charging twice the money for the EXACT SAME HARDWARE that resides in my PC). Linux may be free, but I tend to use my PC to run apps/games, not just one 'incredibly efficient' OS with nothing to run on it.
If you think that Vista is the only OS that uses DRM, then think again, because Apple has made their great comeback not in small parts due to DRM (iTunes/iPod), and as long as people buy DRM infested HD media, any OS that want's to offer compatibility will have to employ that DRM.
Here's the ting; If I have a PC problem I tend to try and FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, so I can fix it, I don't go shouting on forums, quoting dubious articles in an effort to put blame on something that may not be the problem at all. If your PC is hogging resources, and if you REALLY wanted to solve that problem, then you wouldn't wipe the harddrive and install a (possibly illegal) different OS (for some reason the lack of WGA in XP64 cuts it a lot more slack in the (horrendous) driver support area, I wonder why) and call that a 'solution', only to cry foul on these forums. You would check which processes are running high CPU loads and update your apps/drivers/codecs to see if that improves the situation. If 'evaluating Vista as a whole' means; 'mmm, this doesn't work right, screw this, I am going back to XP and tell everyone Vista will mean the end of the world as we know it' then I think your opinion is worth squat. If you cannot accept other users' good intentions in helping you with your particular problem (providing alternative solutions), then I think your opinion is worth squat.
In the end of course it is up to you, but I get the feeling that your only interest is in 'debunking' other peoples' opinions, not in actually discussing the features and performance of Vista in a way that allows other people to help you improve your particular experience when using that OS.

 

[pkellmey]

Gee, I think you got it backwards. It should be the hardware vendors that dictates Microsoft, not the other way around.

Seriously, can you imagine the absolute chaos this would cause? 1 Keyboard maker decides on one set of standards, another uses a whole different set and, as an OS creator, you have to comply with both for literally tens of thousands of peripherals just to make a single OS work. I know that MS has a lot of employees, but imagine the code creation jobs surrounding just this idea alone. That alone would cause a standards competition that would rival the compatibility issues with HD-DVD and BluRay combined.

 

[mosquitoguy]

I can show you a screenshot of a 1080p WMV clip running using an average of 15-17% CPU (with plenty of other aero windows open), but I doubt that could change you opinion.

And I could show you a screenshot of 1080 MPEG2 TS clip at 30mbps bitrate with AAC audio and my CPU is at 60% CPU, but I doubt THAT would change YOUR opinion.

You're funny!

Your PC doesn't work right, so IT MUST BE VISTA.

It's running Vista, so gee!

You tried it for 5 minutes, with some beta drivers and the wrong codec, it didn't work, so IT MUST BE VISTA'S DRM slowing you down.

How presumptuous. A whole 5 minutes, you say? are you sure? How many post ago did I mention DRM?

Here's the ting; If I have a PC problem I tend to try and FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, so I can fix it, I don't go shouting on forums, quoting dubious articles in an effort to put blame on something that may not be the problem at all.

If everybody did that (i.e. fix their own Vista problems), then there'd be nothing negative left to say about Microsoft. Or is that what you want? (have some shares in Microsoft?) I expect *Microsoft* to fix my Vista problems and debug my driver issues. I have enough worries in my life.

Anyway, the rest of your rant appears to be a personal attack on my credibility, which tells me that I hit a nerve (maybe you really DO have a poster of Bill Gates in your bedroom?). This behavior is typical of politicians when they have nothing useful left to say in an argument, so I'll leave you alone now.

Seriously, can you imagine the absolute chaos this would cause? 1 Keyboard maker decides on one set of standards, another uses a whole different set and, as an OS creator, you have to comply with both for literally tens of thousands of peripherals just to make a single OS work.

How did you come to that conclusion? If there are 10 keyboard makers with their own standards, and 3 OS companies, the keyboard vendors would essentially be suitors. They would compete for the business of the OS companies, and those who didn't get a share will go out of business. You will end up with 3 OS, each possibly using a different standard for keyboard depending on the marketspace of the OS. If the OS is geared toward gaming, you'll end up with a gaming keyboard, otherwise you'll end up with a generic keyboard. In other words, you will have a CHOICE and perhaps not all keyboards would end up rectangular.

With Microsoft as is, Nvidia can't say, "this driver specification sucks and we won't implement it" -- because without Microsoft, they would go out of business since, afterall, virtually every PC game out there runs on Windows. Had there been competition, Nvidia could've easily said, "screw you. we'll vote for the other guy."

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

And I could show you a screenshot of 1080 MPEG2 TS clip at 30mbps bitrate with AAC audio and my CPU is at 60% CPU, but I doubt THAT would change YOUR opinion.

WMP doesn't play TS files without external codec (IE Purevideo), so you might wanna check that first.

It's running Vista, so gee!

And that is the only thing that is different? In other words, you have installed the same (XP) drivers, the same apps (without checking compatibility)? You are ignorant...

How presumptuous. A whole 5 minutes, you say? are you sure? How many post ago did I mention DRM?

Well, you were the one quoting the 'cost analisys...' article as reference.

If everybody did that (i.e. fix their own Vista problems), then there'd be nothing negative left to say about Microsoft. Or is that what you want? (have some shares in Microsoft?) I expect *Microsoft* to fix my Vista problems and debug my driver issues. I have enough worries in my life.

Well YOU were the one that mentioned that Vista came preloaded on your PC, so MS is NOT the one you have to look to for support, contact the OEM instead, as per License agreement. Oh, and fixing someone else's buggy drivers, I think that should really be Microsoft's responsability, don't you think? ( :tongue: sarcasm, in case you failed to grasp that).

Anyway, the rest of your rant appears to be a personal attack on my credibility, which tells me that I hit a nerve (maybe you really DO have a poster of Bill Gates in your bedroom?). This behavior is typical of politicians when they have nothing useful left to say in an argument, so I'll leave you alone now.

You lost credibility when you blamed Vista for a problem that you failed to research properly, and got all defensive about when asked for specifics in an attempt to help you solve it. Talking about politicians' behaviour, a certain war in Iraq, with WMD as an excuse come to mind here.

How did you come to that conclusion? If there are 10 keyboard makers with their own standards, and 3 OS companies, the keyboard vendors would essentially be suitors. They would compete for the business of the OS companies, and those who didn't get a share will go out of business. You will end up with 3 OS, each possibly using a different standard for keyboard depending on the marketspace of the OS. If the OS is geared toward gaming, you'll end up with a gaming keyboard, otherwise you'll end up with a generic keyboard. In other words, you will have a CHOICE and perhaps not all keyboards would end up rectangular.

There is plenty of choice out there for OS, and if it bothers you that much, you can always go to OSX, Linux, Unix, Sun Solaris etc. OSX dictates their hardware architecture to hardware vendors (a lot more tightly than MS, I might add), and so do the others. If you remember the 1980's that you would know that a hardware vendor pushing its own standard is a nightmare compared to universal standards and guidelines provided by the OS. And since a big part of the bussiness of ATI/nVidia is playback of HD media/content (according to their advertising), I would doubt that they will be the ones to protest.

With Microsoft as is, Nvidia can't say, "this driver specification sucks and we won't implement it" -- because without Microsoft, they would go out of business since, afterall, virtually every PC game out there runs on Windows. Had there been competition, Nvidia could've easily said, "screw you. we'll vote for the other guy."

As a matter of fact, both nVidia and Ati owe their existance largely too MS and its DirectX standardization, so what makes you believe that ATI/nVidia would vote 'for the other guy'? Moreover, Apple's recent succes can be largely attributed to their move away from proprietary hardware, and their move to generic PC parts like nVidia/ATI/intel. And with Open standards out there like OpenGL, OSX should be just as capable as a gaming platform as Windows. Then why don't they all 'Vote' for the other guy and 'cast off these schackles' and live happy and free with 'the other guy'? The competition is there, but so far it has failed miserably to offer a good alternative to a gaming environment, is that the fault of MS? Or ATI/nVidia maybe? No wait, it must be Sony and Nintendo with their diabolical PS3/Wii, wo are making it impossible for the competion to offer a good platform...Or maybe, just maybe, they just aren't interested in offering a gaming platform, but yet are complaining about a MS monopoly.

 

[pkellmey]

They would compete for the business of the OS companies, and those who didn't get a share will go out of business.

Why are you intent on running companies out of business? Why not say that as long as you follow the rules, everyone can play in the sandbox? Your restrictive model leads to less innovation (in this case because everyone is out of business), not more. If I meet the minimal standards, it still leaves me the ability to add functionality without a required re-write of the OS. So if I am a small company with a small market and have unique functionality for gaming, I can compete with the big guys who would otherwise literally out-produce me to extinction in every market (which is what every OS would naturally cater to). Everybody wins - in this case, the numbers reach into the tens of thousands of winners.

 

[Alpha_Magnum]

They would compete for the business of the OS companies, and those who didn't get a share will go out of business.

Why are you intent on running companies out of business? Why not say that as long as you follow the rules, everyone can play in the sandbox? Your restrictive model leads to less innovation (in this case because everyone is out of business), not more. If I meet the minimal standards, it still leaves me the ability to add functionality without a required re-write of the OS. So if I am a small company with a small market and have unique functionality for gaming, I can compete with the big guys who would otherwise literally out-produce me to extinction in every market (which is what every OS would naturally cater to). Everybody wins - in this case, the numbers reach into the tens of thousands of winners.The facts of life are clear at this time. Microsoft is a MONOPOLY and until it is broken apart, torn asunder, thrashed into oblivion and reduced to fine particles nothing at all will change. This post is about some sort of dream state.

The GOVERNMENT is allowing corporations to have more power now than at any other time. Microsoft dominates operating systems, office suites, DirectX, browsers, etc. Apple relied on Microsoft for 150 Million smackers back in 97 and Gates can't even allow Jobs to have his own area with the iPod. Microsoft intends to dominate everything by OWNING the SANDBOX. Microsoft has already fouled up the works with rebrands of standards. If they could HTML would be known as MSHTM to have things as cloudy as possible.

Microsoft now sits on top of ACCS LA and can dictate the rules to all vendors. Microsoft has made PARTNERS of Intel, IBM/AMD/ATI, Sony, etc. so that pretty much wraps the whole thing up as a new stream of mega bucks. Microsoft even intends to implant Vista into a Zune phone and Gates wins regardless of you getting a Zune or iPod. The DMCA has created what amounts to a MEGGA CORPORATION of all of the members.

The objective of all of this is to get you to waste as much of your money as possible and to be dependent on the MS MEGGA CORP for all things DIGITAL. The only way this can be nullified is to STOP BUYING ALL OF THEIR CRAP. Many people are disgusted by corporate America and Microsoft’s power grab at our expense.
Having standards would be great but we consumers need to send a message since our standards should be greater than even Microsoft’s. The best and only true weapon that a consumer has in this type of situation is to spend the money earmarked for any AACS LA/DRM/Vista/Hollywood sort of product on a nice warm Bahamas vacation (or anything else). This would at least force some lower prices but people are in a rush to BURN up their money and fail to contemplate what may happen by supporting things that we don’t need, don’t want and should not even have to think about!

PS: Last night I formatted my trial Vista system and setup an XP Pro/Mandriva dual boot system. I didn’t even bother doing the Vista 30 DAY RE-ARM. I added Beryl environments to 64 bit Mandriva, Open Office, Thunderbird, Firefox, etc. and now when I close a window or quit an application my windows burst into flames. There is a gadget bar and motion wallpaper that I could use if that sort of thing “did it for me” but I need a secure operating system that allows me to run my applications. The applications are what I want to do on my computers not jerk around with an operating system.
Think about it; you spend extra cash on Vista Ultimate so that you can #1 have a media cop and #2 have a lame MS application like WMP11 or IE7 or Media Center or Product Activation or Dream Scapes or……
See what I’m saying??

 

[mosquitoguy]

Why are you intent on running companies out of business? Why not say that as long as you follow the rules, everyone can play in the sandbox? Your restrictive model leads to less innovation

Whose rules? In this case, Microsoft makes the rules, and others have to follow them. Innovation only exists if the rules encourage competition on a wide scale. Nvidia and ATI are interchangeable brands because they both implement their drivers exactly the same way according to Microsoft's specifications. They're doing exactly as they're told, so there's NO innovation here.

Graphic chip makers know their hardware best, so ideally, it is Nvidia and ATI who should be coming up with the driver specifications, designed specifically AND optimally for their hardware. If Microsoft wants graphics to be encrypted with AES, NVidia/ATI should have the freedom to say, "this will kill performance and decrease our profit margins, so we won't do it." -- i.e. graphic chip makers should do what they do best (period) and NOT be concerned or dragged down with political/social issues like protected content/drm. If Microsoft wants a graphic card with encryption, they can build one themselves with the billions they have in the bank.

The fact that Microsoft is essentially saying, "we present Vista! but what? you want *stable* drivers? you gotta ask Nvidia for that!" is a big "screw you" to the Vista customer. Ensuring driver stability is Microsoft's responsibility because it's THEIR operating system and *proper integration* with the differing hardware vendors is THEIR responsibility, not the end-users.

As far as companies going out of business, that's all theory anyway. Practically, smaller companies who are innovative & perform well are typically bought by bigger competitors.

 

[pkellmey]

If Microsoft wants a graphic card with encryption, they can build one themselves with the billions they have in the bank.

Oh, I get it - you essentially want everyone to go back to "only runs on IBM if made by IBM". Great idea, that nearly killed Apple and did kill several other OS competitors to get us to where MS is the lonely top gun on the market today because they allowed diversity. Give me this OS that maintains standards, is not reduced to BSODs because of bad hardware implementation, yet most hardware manufacturers on the market are supported, thank you very much. If you want to say that the whole market is some part of a MS conspiracy, I'm sure someone will listen to you somewhere - however, your market is limited which is what you apparently want.

 

[mosquitoguy]

Oh, I get it - you essentially want everyone to go back to "only runs on IBM if made by IBM".

I don't see your point. Whether my graphic card is made by Nvidia or Microsoft, DirectX only runs on Windows -- at least if you exclude the pathetic porting attempts on Linux. The effect is the same then and now since Microsoft dictates everything to everyone wrt Windows.

What you're saying is already true to a large extent when it comes to Apple--- only runs on Apple if made by Apple. The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that when you buy a MAC, it WORKS, Period. You don't need to muck around with drivers and whether that video chip is fully compatible with the latest MacOS. In other words, you don't *waste your time* fixing your computer.

BTW, as far as Vista goes, you don't need a bad hardware implementation to BSOD. Just install iTunes !!

 

[riser]

Microsoft dominates operating systems, office suites, DirectX, browsers, etc.

In 2000, what other Operating Systems were readily available for users to go to the store, purchase, and put onto their computers?

What about office type suites? Lotus 123 was horrible and thus pulled.

DirectX? Do some research on DirectX and you'll figure out why Microsoft controls it.
Hint:

Before co-founding Catalytic, Engstrom spent 8 years at Microsoft as a General Manager. During his tenure at Microsoft, Mr. Engstrom co-invented DirectX, the technology that brought games to Windows and inspired the Xbox.

Browsers.
What was available in 2000 for browsers? Netscape died down because of their own errors. I liked netscape. I didn't like the crap they were doing in their browser. The hidden messages left in their code hit the news and thus brought forth their ultimate death.
What other browsers were readily available? How did you get a browser if you didn't already have a browser?
I remember going out and grabbing CDs at stores to get the new version of IE.
AOL.. hey, they were good but they kept adding too much to their interface.. but not everyone use their proprietary software.

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft makes their software widely available. Seems everyone else is trying to make a buck off it before you can even use it.

Come on.. do some research before you start spewing stuff forth.

 

[riser]

Your argument against Mac and Windows is flawed.

Mac computers have a strict hardware requirements. You can't go out and pick out your own motherboard, video card, NIC, etc. You buy what they give you.

Microsoft is open to any hardware. When you have problems with drivers and BSOD after you installed that video card, its not Microsoft's problem. They work to resolve it but you need to understand that Microsoft had nothing to do with it.

Here's how it works. Microsoft creates an OS, hands it out to hardware vendors. Gives them the code, all that great stuff. They say "hey, now make your drivers work with our software."

When drivers error out on Windows, its not the fault of Microsoft. Its the fault of the hardware vendor not doing a good job in creating their drivers. But everyone faults Microsoft because its the cool thing to do. Fault your hardware company for rushing.

Last time I tried, I never had a problem when using Microsoft drivers on any computer. I only experienced problems when trying to use hardware vendor drivers.

Hmm.. Any time someone has a problem with an Nvidia video card, first thing I recommend is downloading Microsoft's certified driver. You know what? That's solved every problem I've ever experienced in that area.

Its really not commonly known though.. Microsoft wants hardware vendors to keep putting out new hardware. Both make money off that. Hardware companies want to look good, Microsoft can take the blame.

How often does Nvidia update their driver? Do you ever read the release notes to see what they're fixing? Probably not too often but you'll see all the problems they're fixing in previous versions to make it work.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to get out of a speeding ticket. Ignorance when it comes to computer hardware, software, or even Microsoft, is the norm and socially accepted way of life.

 

[Alpha_Magnum]

Point by point you had to know...

Microsoft dominates operating systems, office suites, DirectX, browsers, etc.

In 2000, what other Operating Systems were readily available for users to go to the store, purchase, and put onto their computers?

BeOS who were put under by MS the MONOPOLY

What about office type suites? Lotus 123 was horrible and thus pulled.

Lotus 123 was put under by MS the MONOPOLY

DirectX? Do some research on DirectX and you'll figure out why Microsoft controls it.
Hint:

Before co-founding Catalytic, Engstrom spent 8 years at Microsoft as a General Manager. During his tenure at Microsoft, Mr. Engstrom co-invented DirectX, the technology that brought games to Windows and inspired the Xbox.

MS OWNS DX and DX adds to MS’s MONOPOLY POWER

Browsers.
What was available in 2000 for browsers? Netscape died down because of their own errors. I liked netscape. I didn't like the crap they were doing in their browser. The hidden messages left in their code hit the news and thus brought forth their ultimate death.

NS was put under by MS the MONOPOLY

What other browsers were readily available? How did you get a browser if you didn't already have a browser?
I remember going out and grabbing CDs at stores to get the new version of IE.
AOL.. hey, they were good but they kept adding too much to their interface.. but not everyone use their proprietary software.

Federal court ruled MS as a damaging MONOPOLY. MONOPOLIES by their existence prevent competition

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft makes their software widely available. Seems everyone else is trying to make a buck off it before you can even use it.

So you say. This is BS on your part for several reasons. Microsoft ships IE with each and every copy of Windows sold so it is not FREE since you must have Windows. MS faced the DOJ and lost the BROWSER war since IE contributed to the demise of Netscape. Lastly AOL's browser was a joint effort between MS and AOL. AOL was IE5 all branded to look like AOL.

Come on.. do some research before you start spewing stuff forth.

Should I do some research now? Maybe I already did the research or maybe I already lived all through MS’s rise to MONOPOLY GLORY? You support the notion that MS is simply "doing good business" and that makes you just as much of a danger as MS!

 

[riser]

In style:

BeOS? MS put them out? I think not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS

Lotus 123 was pulled because they wanted to focus more on Lotus Notes capabilities and Notes 123 had too many problems, came out too late, and lacked functionality. IBM pulled it because they didn't want to venture into that market. Check out Notes some time. You'd be amazed by what that program can do.
Lotus is slow to embrace Windows.
By the time Lotus jumped to Windows, Office was already popular and had a better graphical user interface. This was poor business in a time when technology was in a revolution.

(By the way, so far you're only said it, you haven't provided any links or proof yet. Where do you get this stuff?)

DirectX. Um, Microsoft basically created DirectX. IT IS THEIR PROGRAM. YES THEY OWN IT genius. Should they give up what they create? The guy later on started his own company to make money. Capitalism at its finest.

Netscape:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars
Netscape was purchased by AOL. Netscape held the market until their product failed. At this time, Microsoft wasn't the monopoly you speak of today. So in fact, the better product of the day won out. Not because Microsoft had more money to put out Netscape.

MS was called a Monopoly, part of it was later overturned, they did what was asked of them. So, according to your statement and the US Justice Department, Microsoft isn't the Monopoly you claim them to be.
Again, I'll site Wiki because its good information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Um, AOL's browser is based off Netscape. Please reference links above.


MS is doing good business. Bill Gates is a billionaire, his employees are paid well, his company is successful, Windows is dominate across the world, Microsoft really opened up the internet to a lot of people back in the early start of broad internet access.

Please, show me a single link that says Microsoft is not "doing good business" and its from a legit site.

Now its time for you to listen. You're quick to reply back with your opinion. You put out no links to support yourself or your claims. If you're going to spit out your opinion and expect people to eat it up, you better start posting reference material to back your claim up. Otherwise, you'll continue to have everyone questioning your knowledge, questioning what justifies your stance.

Its a simple thing to do. I'm sure a quick Google will find something to support you.. right? I hope?

 

[Alpha_Magnum]

AOL USES IE

DEATH OF OPEN SOURCE WAY BACK PRE BeOS DEATH

BeOS AGAIN AND THIS RELATES TO THE DOJ PRIOR TO THE LAST ONE

Gates and company had an ace up their sleeve, too: The company's spreadsheet, Excel, was designed from the ground up to be Windows-compliant. Conversely, Lotus ... LOTUS 123

DX is GAMING thusly games run on Vista so no free market exists so this perputuates MSes MONOPOLY (no link needed since I never disputed that MS owned DX. I pointed out that MSes monopoly is stronger due to DX)

Ellison: Oh my God, Microsoft killed Netscape!

US vs MICROSOFT one can only imagine what happened thanks to Bush and the Neocons.

 

[dasickninja]

DX is GAMING thusly games run on Vista so no free market exists so this perputuates MSes MONOPOLY (no link needed since I never disputed that MS owned DX. I pointed out that MSes monopoly is stronger due to DX)

You do know that there are games that can run on both the Open GL system, and DirectX? But the standard is DirectX. Most games are built for DX. Explain that.

 

[riser]

From your link:

So how did the onetime software behemoth end up on the wrong end of the market-share meter? After seizing a dominant position among finance and accounting folks and other early spreadsheet software users, Lotus management took its eye off the ball, recalls Simon Hayward, a vice president and research director for Gartner Research.

In the late '80s, Lotus turned its attention to the next killer app — this time, electronic mail. But Lotus management's focusing on its Notes groupware product left an opening for Microsoft Corp. — and Bill Gates rarely lets a businesses opening go by the board.

Gates and company had an ace up their sleeve, too: The company's spreadsheet, Excel, was designed from the ground up to be Windows-compliant. Conversely, Lotus came out of the DOS universe. As Gartner's Hayward recalls, Lotus "had a horrible period" around 1990 when it was struggling to move its product from DOS to the Microsoft Windows 3.0 operating system.

As I said, Lotus moved on to mail and didn't focus on their 1-2-3 which is why it failed. Microsoft developed something better, Lotus didn't respond, thus they lost their market share.

Your other links proved worthless in reading. The one guy sounds like a fricking conspiracy theorist.

AOL used Microsoft's browser AFTER the DOJ breakup which Microsoft released their code to everyone. So, fault AOL for that one, not MS, they did as told.

I'm really not impressed.. it does look like you scrambled to find anything that remotely held a candle to your ramblings.

Whatever.. We should give you the nickname Spider Monkey, courtesy of the "noob" who showed how poor your research truly is.

 

[Alpha_Magnum]

From your link:

So how did the onetime software behemoth end up on the wrong end of the market-share meter? After seizing a dominant position among finance and accounting folks and other early spreadsheet software users, Lotus management took its eye off the ball, recalls Simon Hayward, a vice president and research director for Gartner Research.

In the late '80s, Lotus turned its attention to the next killer app — this time, electronic mail. But Lotus management's focusing on its Notes groupware product left an opening for Microsoft Corp. — and Bill Gates rarely lets a businesses opening go by the board.

Gates and company had an ace up their sleeve, too: The company's spreadsheet, Excel, was designed from the ground up to be Windows-compliant. Conversely, Lotus came out of the DOS universe. As Gartner's Hayward recalls, Lotus "had a horrible period" around 1990 when it was struggling to move its product from DOS to the Microsoft Windows 3.0 operating system.

As I said, Lotus moved on to mail and didn't focus on their 1-2-3 which is why it failed. Microsoft developed something better, Lotus didn't respond, thus they lost their market share.

Your other links proved worthless in reading. The one guy sounds like a fricking conspiracy theorist.

AOL used Microsoft's browser AFTER the DOJ breakup which Microsoft released their code to everyone. So, fault AOL for that one, not MS, they did as told.

I'm really not impressed.. it does look like you scrambled to find anything that remotely held a candle to your ramblings.

Whatever.. We should give you the nickname Spider Monkey, courtesy of the "noob" who showed how poor your research truly is.You should take a long walk off of a short pier too.

1) BeOS: You said, "BeOS? MS put them out? I think not." You linked to Wikipedia and that didn't seem to mention much except the final Palm Pilot thing. That article didn't even mention Jean-Louis one single time. HERE is an alternate article that follows the issues. BeOS could never get a foot hold since MS was and still is a MONOPOLY. They attempted to move to imbeded devices but by then it was to late. BeOS was murdered.

2) AOL: You said Netscape was the heart of AOL! It is not and has not been since version 3. AOL aquired Netscape and used it for AOL for the MAC. So here you were wrong Riser and you brought both Netscape and AOL up. You said that, "AOL.. hey, they were good but they kept adding too much to their interface.. " I don't even know what AOL used before version 3 but the following ones were all IE. So your wrong about AOL and BeOS.

3) Netscape: MS based IE on Netscape Navigator way back when. So Netscape was sunk. Netscape is purchased by AOL but at the same time AOL agrees to use IE for 7 years. MS became partners with AOL and now is even deeper since Warner Brothers is a partner in AACS LA

4) DX is a big issue and you do know why. Since MS owns it no company can compete with MS for PC games. At best Linux can use Wine Emulation but the games are not the same. You are all looking to a bright future filled with DX10 video cards yet this pushes Linux further to the rear.

5) Lotus 123:

jcatcw writes "At the Comes vs. Microsoft antitrust case, last Friday's testimony included evidence that James Plamondon, a Microsoft technical evangelist, in a 1996 speech referred to independent software developers as 'pawns' and compared wooing them to trying to win over a one-night stand. Last week's proceedings also included testimony by Ronald Alepin, a former CTO at Fujitsu Software Corp. and currently an adviser to the law firm Morrison Foerster LLP. He said that Lotus 1-2-3 was killed, in part, by Microsoft encouraging Lotus's programmers to use the Windows API even though Microsoft's own developers found it too complicated to use." The plaintiffs have created a site that includes transcripts of testimony presented in the case.

6) Good Business: Good business can be two things. Good as in good for all parties or good as in it's good to be MS. MS is a monopoly so until they are taken down they will enjoy basking in the riches of the beast they created. Sure they pay OK and they also higher H1-B VISA programers by the truck load. (Don't worry I will double check all quotes from now on) Gates claimed the limit of 65K workers a year was too small... ARTICLE I don't see how that helps America but I'm sure that you can twist that around Riser. Regardless if being a monopoly and having the BILLIONS is good business then so be it. Is it good business?