Vista - New OS needed?

Do we really need a new OS?

Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In other
words, can't you simply take XP and add on any support needed for the new
things that Vista are going to support in the form of patches, etc.?

Or is there something I'm overlooking as far as programming architecture
that mandates an entirely new OS?

I know Microsoft need their attrition of billions of dollars (wuteva).
Couldn't we just have XP and be charged minimally for major service packs
that bring us to the equivalent of Vista without all this stupid crap we all
go through to upgrade our OS's (new video cards, more memory, drivers,
program patches, etc.)

Ode to the Mac commercial where the older, socially lame guy is the PC and
going to get his Vista upgrade and may not be coming back, I'm beginning to
agree.

Thoughtfully,
Michael

Michael,

You can pretty well count on model-runs of roughly four years each.

For example, automobile manufacturers usually perform major redesigns of, or
altogether discontinue, models on a four-year cycle.

Windows -- cars; what's the difference..?


<nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
news:3Pidne5B8MNZcFXYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Do we really need a new OS?
>
> Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In
> other
> words, can't you simply take XP and add on any support needed for the new
> things that Vista are going to support in the form of patches, etc.?
>
> Or is there something I'm overlooking as far as programming architecture
> that mandates an entirely new OS?
>
> I know Microsoft need their attrition of billions of dollars (wuteva).
> Couldn't we just have XP and be charged minimally for major service packs
> that bring us to the equivalent of Vista without all this stupid crap we
> all
> go through to upgrade our OS's (new video cards, more memory, drivers,
> program patches, etc.)
>
> Ode to the Mac commercial where the older, socially lame guy is the PC and
> going to get his Vista upgrade and may not be coming back, I'm beginning
> to
> agree.
>
> Thoughtfully,
> Michael

yes... youre missing a lot. its a completely new os. many low level things
have been changed as far as memory management, where graphic/video intense
instructions are processed... the list is huge



<nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
news:3Pidne5B8MNZcFXYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Do we really need a new OS?
>
> Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In
> other
> words, can't you simply take XP and add on any support needed for the new
> things that Vista are going to support in the form of patches, etc.?
>
> Or is there something I'm overlooking as far as programming architecture
> that mandates an entirely new OS?
>
> I know Microsoft need their attrition of billions of dollars (wuteva).
> Couldn't we just have XP and be charged minimally for major service packs
> that bring us to the equivalent of Vista without all this stupid crap we
> all
> go through to upgrade our OS's (new video cards, more memory, drivers,
> program patches, etc.)
>
> Ode to the Mac commercial where the older, socially lame guy is the PC and
> going to get his Vista upgrade and may not be coming back, I'm beginning
> to
> agree.
>
> Thoughtfully,
> Michael

Time marches on. XP is from 2001, we're at 2007. A new model's come out.
Don't sweat it.

Saucy Lemon


<nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
news:3Pidne5B8MNZcFXYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Do we really need a new OS?
>
> Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In
> other
> words, can't you simply take XP and add on any support needed for the new
> things that Vista are going to support in the form of patches, etc.?
>
> Or is there something I'm overlooking as far as programming architecture
> that mandates an entirely new OS?
>
> I know Microsoft need their attrition of billions of dollars (wuteva).
> Couldn't we just have XP and be charged minimally for major service packs
> that bring us to the equivalent of Vista without all this stupid crap we
> all
> go through to upgrade our OS's (new video cards, more memory, drivers,
> program patches, etc.)
>
> Ode to the Mac commercial where the older, socially lame guy is the PC and
> going to get his Vista upgrade and may not be coming back, I'm beginning
> to
> agree.
>
> Thoughtfully,
> Michael

<nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
news:3Pidne5B8MNZcFXYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Do we really need a new OS?
>
> Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In
> other
> words, can't you simply take XP and add on any support needed for the new
> things that Vista are going to support in the form of patches, etc.?
>
> Or is there something I'm overlooking as far as programming architecture
> that mandates an entirely new OS?
>
> I know Microsoft need their attrition of billions of dollars (wuteva).
> Couldn't we just have XP and be charged minimally for major service packs
> that bring us to the equivalent of Vista without all this stupid crap we
> all
> go through to upgrade our OS's (new video cards, more memory, drivers,
> program patches, etc.)
>
> Ode to the Mac commercial where the older, socially lame guy is the PC and
> going to get his Vista upgrade and may not be coming back, I'm beginning
> to
> agree.

Vista has been built from the ground up, everything new. Yes some things
look the same but its brand new code.

I believe that the Vista is based off of Windows 2003 server, not XP.

<nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
news:3Pidne5B8MNZcFXYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Do we really need a new OS?
>
> Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In
> other
> words, can't you simply take XP and add on any support needed for the new
> things that Vista are going to support in the form of patches, etc.?
>
> Or is there something I'm overlooking as far as programming architecture
> that mandates an entirely new OS?
>
> I know Microsoft need their attrition of billions of dollars (wuteva).
> Couldn't we just have XP and be charged minimally for major service packs
> that bring us to the equivalent of Vista without all this stupid crap we
> all
> go through to upgrade our OS's (new video cards, more memory, drivers,
> program patches, etc.)
>
> Ode to the Mac commercial where the older, socially lame guy is the PC and
> going to get his Vista upgrade and may not be coming back, I'm beginning
> to
> agree.
>
> Thoughtfully,
> Michael

Beck wrote:
>
> <nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
> news:3Pidne5B8MNZcFXYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Do we really need a new OS?
>>
>> Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In
>> other
>> words, can't you simply take XP and add on any support needed for the new
>> things that Vista are going to support in the form of patches, etc.?
>>
>> Or is there something I'm overlooking as far as programming architecture
>> that mandates an entirely new OS?
>>
>> I know Microsoft need their attrition of billions of dollars (wuteva).
>> Couldn't we just have XP and be charged minimally for major service packs
>> that bring us to the equivalent of Vista without all this stupid crap
>> we all
>> go through to upgrade our OS's (new video cards, more memory, drivers,
>> program patches, etc.)
>>
>> Ode to the Mac commercial where the older, socially lame guy is the PC
>> and
>> going to get his Vista upgrade and may not be coming back, I'm
>> beginning to
>> agree.
>
> Vista has been built from the ground up, everything new. Yes some
> things look the same but its brand new code.

Nope, not everything. It has been about 60% rewritten. There is still
stuff in there from NT4 and mabey even from before then.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Nope. Just CLUELESS ****S LIKE YOU too stupid to work it out. Thank
the bittorent brigade."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

"Gary Mount" <gary_mount@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3C16774E-4AAE-4637-9F0B-B388B8C53E99@microsoft.com...
>I believe that the Vista is based off of Windows 2003 server, not XP.

It is build on the Core of Win2003 but the NT-Kernel has been developed even
further. From Nt 5.2 to 6.0.

You cannot compare Vistas Kernel to 2000 and only limited to the one in XP.

SJ / germany

Michael;
Some people need Vista for their computers, others don't.
Only you can decide base on your needs.

Replacing an operating system simply because there is a new OS is probably a
bad idea.
You should only upgrade/change if you expect some benefit.
This applies to operating systems, hardware, software etc from all
manufacturers not just Microsoft.

Windows XP will probably be supported for several years so if it meets all
your needs stay with it.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


<nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
news:3Pidne5B8MNZcFXYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Do we really need a new OS?
>
> Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In
> other
> words, can't you simply take XP and add on any support needed for the new
> things that Vista are going to support in the form of patches, etc.?
>
> Or is there something I'm overlooking as far as programming architecture
> that mandates an entirely new OS?
>
> I know Microsoft need their attrition of billions of dollars (wuteva).
> Couldn't we just have XP and be charged minimally for major service packs
> that bring us to the equivalent of Vista without all this stupid crap we
> all
> go through to upgrade our OS's (new video cards, more memory, drivers,
> program patches, etc.)
>
> Ode to the Mac commercial where the older, socially lame guy is the PC and
> going to get his Vista upgrade and may not be coming back, I'm beginning
> to
> agree.
>
> Thoughtfully,
> Michael

INLINE:

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:edwf7VuSHHA.5100@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Michael;
> Some people need Vista for their computers, others don't.
> Only you can decide base on your needs.
>
> Replacing an operating system simply because there is a new OS is probably
> a bad idea.


With Windows Vista, though, it is a good idea. It is well advanced over XP
and moving to Vista certainly should be considered, especially if security
is a concern. I'm not saying to not to look before leaping, but moving to
Vista is actually a good idea.


> You should only upgrade/change if you expect some benefit.


Of which Vista has many.


> This applies to operating systems, hardware, software etc from all
> manufacturers not just Microsoft.


Hm hm.


> Windows XP will probably be supported for several years so if it meets all
> your needs stay with it.


Hum .. no .. it [XP] probably does not meet all one's security needs in many
situations these days. It's hard not to recommend Vista when it comes to
security. Again, business etc. should not leap before looking, but a
sensible migration plan is probably in order most places, especially those
concerned with security.

'Have a nice one,
Saucy Lemon


> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> <nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
> news:3Pidne5B8MNZcFXYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Do we really need a new OS?
>>
>> Isn't Vista still based on Windows 2000 architecture like XP was? In
>> other<chop>