Alan Wake = Vista Only

[manveruppd]

It's more likely they spent millions ensuring it DIDN'T!

 

[Ace Modder]

I'm sure they're receiving a hefty chunk of cash from Microsoft to compensate them for the undoubtedly poor sales their game will make due to it being only supported on an OS with <10% market share. Remedy are neither idiots nor suicidal.

Wghere is the proof that is < 10% market share??
Private useage that is.....Businesses, aye but not private

 

[Things change I've changed]

read this and read it good,

This whole debate is going around in circles tbh, VISTA OFFERS NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL OVER XP, the whole idea is that it's supposed to be an UPGRADE, windows 3.11 to Windows95, was an upgrade, windows95 to windows98, was an upgrade, windows98 to XP, was an upgrade, XPsp2 to Vista, WTF, this is a sidestep at best, and with it M$ have LIED to us, the very people that are making them rich, they said time and time again that Vista only software was absolutely not back-wards compatible with XP, not only did we find that they were lying their arses off but we also found that the software ran even better on XP, how on earth people can forgive M$ for that is beyond me, why can people not understand that this is nothing like the transition from 98 to XP, I don't care what anyone says, there was never this much resistance going from 98 to XP, if you think there was then your deluded, FACT,

I have Friends that work for Toshiba that tell me Vista has been nothing but problems with their laptops on a grand scale, they tell me that they get thousands of complaints on a weekly basis due problems with Vista on their systems and are inundated with calls from customers asking if it's possible to unistall Vista and install XP instead, Dell had the same issues, they had so many complaints in the end that they was forced into extending the option to be able to purchase a new system with XP installed, http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=9079, did the same thing happen with the transition from 98 to XP, as if lol,

whats even funnier is if you read the quote from M$ from the bottom of the above link,

“It is standard practice for original equipment manufacturers, retailers and system builders to continue offering the previous version of Windows for a certain period of time after a new version is released. Dell is responding appropriately to a small minority of customers that had this specific request, but, as they have said before, the vast majority of consumers want the latest and greatest technology, and that includes Windows Vista.”

what a load of cows dangly bits, Dell has never had been forced into having to offer an older operating system before, and do you really think it was really just a minority, that Dell, a multi-million dollar corporation is going to be dictated to by a small minority, or course not, because it blaitenly wasn't a minority, Dell was looking after their best interests because they knew that consumers where not taking to Vista as well as they hoped (or rather M$ hoped) and it was reflecting badly on their company and their revenues, also M$ say that the vast majority of consumers want the latest and greatest technology, and that includes Windows Vista, the thing is they (the consumers) don't even have a choice in the matter, neither do the suppliers even tbh, they are only licensed to sell XP oem licenses for as long as M$ say they are and it's a well know fact that M$ always put pressure on company's by trying to cut short the support of their previous operating systems early to enable them to usher in their new operating system in via large volume oem licenses through company's that mass-produce prefabricated systems that come pre-installed with an OS,

this is the best way to introduce a new OS because the new OS gains a large user base and a foot hold into the market place without even the consumers having a choice, mix this with multi-million dollar advertising campaign that try's to fool people into thinking that Vista is the second coming (which most people will believe as they are computer illiterate) and whack a few million retail copy's on the shelve and what do you have, an operating system that was forced into the market place, usually there will be a few disgruntled people because of the change but overall many accept the change, even I do usually because I can see that the new OS has potential and feels like an upgrade compared to the previous OS I've left behind, then why don't I and many other people feel the same about Vista then, I felt it with all the previous OS's and I happily coughed up my hard earned cash to purchase them so I really don't feel that I'm being biased toward Vista,

even M$ themselves yes MICROSOFT has been forced twice now to extend the retail shelf life of windows XP, latest extension here, http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/10441/11465/XP-shelf-life-increased-Microsoft.phtml, an interesting quote from the article here,

"Microsoft's problems with Vista adoption rates were highlighted recently when it was revealed that a scheme that lets Vista Business and Ultimate Edition users "downgrade" to XP on request was proving popular".

Give us a good operating system that justifies the expense that it entails and I'll upgrade, most users that purchase pre-fabs may be forced/duped into owning Vista but as an end-user I still have freedom of choice as to which OS I choose to use and I choose XP.

 

[m4cc45]

But should they release the next blockbuster only on Blu-Ray and prevent the 99% who use DVD from watching it?

They will start doing this. This is the only way they can get people to move away from DVD.

If everything came out on DVD and was loaded with as many features as Blu-ray, comparable in quality, etc. then why would anyone buy it (as it's a more expensive medium).

Towards the end of this year it wouldn't suprise me if we saw Blu-ray only movies.



M.

 

[m4cc45]

Actually you forgot about Windows 98 to ME as well as Microsoft Windows 2000.

There was a hell of a lot of opposition going to XP. It was an NT operating system unlike Windows 95/98/ME. There was a lot of compatibility problems in the early days as well as some games not working on there. It was the same with Windows 2000 (remember the compatibility fixes for games?).

From experience (and I've been using XP from beta) Vista is a lot more stable. It just doesn't crash. The updates are applied better rarely requiring a restart. The way the resources are handled is better. If you don't call that substantial then I don't know what is. The most people moan about is the fact that Windows has crashed or Windows has a virus. From a Systems Engineer point of view with User Account Control we can set group policies up for the tiniest thing which is very useful. The main reason businesses haven't upgraded yet is the emergence of Server 2008 as group policy will be upgraded so we can control Vista properly.

It's not a massive update ala 3.1 to Windows 95 but then again nothing in the future is ever going to be as vastly different as that. They have a forumla which millions of users around the planet enjoy using so why break it?

All OEM's will support XP while it is prudent to do so. Why would you not support something. With Vista they are trying to force the OEMs into making drivers that are digitally signed and work well with the operating system. The only problem you'll have is if you have unsupported hardware or the game as buggy as hell (i.e. crysis). But the support will waver as it has done for Windows 2000.



M.

 

[manveruppd]

Actually I never doubted that, following a service pack or two, a bit of brain surgery and a sulphuric acid enema, Vista will turn out to be a better OS than XP - it's the lies, dodgy marketting practices and the placing of artificial restrictions on games perfectly capable of running on XP in order to turn them into promotional tools that I object to.

 

[Final8y]

erm because xp was expensive ? have you missed the point here i think you have things confuzzled

My point is the cost of Vista is not a reason for people to dislike Vista, nore a reason to pirate Vista as XPPro cost allot when i bought it.
Im saying that they are just making excuses and the people who moan about the cost of Vista who are using XP must have gotten XP preinstall with the PreBulit PC they bought because they would have moan about the cost of XP & stuck with Windows98.
The people who pirate will pirate no matter what the cost with the few exception where money is an issue, WiindowsOS in a serious bit of software & it costs money.

 

[m4cc45]

Actually I never doubted that, following a service pack or two, a bit of brain surgery and a sulphuric acid enema, Vista will turn out to be a better OS than XP - it's the lies, dodgy marketting practices and the placing of artificial restrictions on games perfectly capable of running on XP in order to turn them into promotional tools that I object to.

Like every other item in the world. Everything is promoted even a loaf of bread. You have adverts on TV saying Sainsburys are cheaper than Asda, etc.

Everyone lies it's a marketing toy.

All I can remember about the Vista marketing was that it was going to have Aero in it (which it does) that it was going to be more secure (inbuilt two-way firewall, windows defender, AUC, etc.) faster to boot (on mine it is though that's unfair as I upgraded my hardware at the same time) and more reliable (again which it is).

I'm not saying everyone should upgrade, it's a personal decision. But to blame it on Microsoft is plain stupid really (i.e. I'm not upgrading because Microsoft Marketing lied and the latest and greatest games are Vista only is no kind of argument for not upgrading).


M.



M.

 

[m4cc45]

P.S. XP Pro cost roughly the same for me as Vista did. People pirated XP Pro more because of the VLK's and the lack of activation. I personally have got legal version of both operating systems. Again it's not an argument to say that the item you bought 4-5 years ago cost a lot so I'm pirating Vista. Ridiculous in fact.


M.

 

[Things change I've changed]

Actually you forgot about Windows 98 to ME as well as Microsoft Windows 2000.

Bringing up ME hardly helps your case as many people refer to Vista as 'Me all over again', a face lift and thats about it, nothing of any great value, a stop gap.

There was a hell of a lot of opposition going to XP. It was an NT operating system unlike Windows 95/98/ME. There was a lot of compatibility problems in the early days as well as some games not working on there. It was the same with Windows 2000 (remember the compatibility fixes for games?).

Yes I agree there was many people that were opposed to XP, that's something no-one can deny, but, noway was there as many people opposed then is there is today in regards to making the transition from XP to Vista, the forced shelf life extensions prove that.

From experience (and I've been using XP from beta) Vista is a lot more stable. It just doesn't crash.

that ridiculous, I've used Vista across numerous systems and have had nothing but problems, including crashes, you will be hard pushed to beat the stability that XPsp2 has to offer, it's one of the main reasons why people don't want to upgrade, why should you make the switch to a completely new architecture when the one they already own is rock solid.

The updates are applied better rarely requiring a restart.

That hardly warrants a whole OS upgrade, I really don't mind resetting my PC once in a blue moon, it gets turned on and off every day anyway and usually the updates get installed at the same time.

The way the resources are handled is better. If you don't call that substantial then I don't know what is.

You say that the resources are handled better, but what does that actually offer me in real terms of performance over XP, I've got 2 gig installed and a 2.7 core duo and nothing apart from games stresses them, so tbh I'm really not fussed about resources, thats what I've got my cpu and memory for, my OS (XP) hardly sits there churning away at it's resources, coincidently thats something you normally hear Vista doing, in fact most users end-up disabling features like, superFetch, windows Search/Indexer etc to stop the disk thrashing which drove me up the wall, so yeah I agree it may be a substantial change but hardly a good one.

The most people moan about is the fact that Windows has crashed or Windows has a virus.

You say most people but the only people I usually find this happening to is people that don't protect their operating system properly, I myself have AVG installed with XP's built-in firewall and I've not had a virus in years.

From a Systems Engineer point of view with User Account Control we can set group policies up for the tiniest thing which is very useful. The main reason businesses haven't upgraded yet is the emergence of Server 2008 as group policy will be upgraded so we can control Vista properly.

A small plus but hardly ones that going to change my life.

They have a formula which millions of users around the planet enjoy using so why break it?

I'm not saying they should break it but I do think that a company like M$ with all the money/power/resources that they have they should be able to at least come up with something a little bit more innovative, god even Ubuntu has an easier to use and more impressive graphical user interface than Vista and it's a completely free OS, in-fact people that have seen it running on my laptop have said "I thought Vista was going to be like that", really lol.

All OEM's will support XP while it is prudent to do so. Why would you not support something.

OEM distributors will only support an older OS as long as they are allowed to do so, it's in M$'s interest that this is the case, simple as.

 

[Final8y]

Bringing up ME hardly helps your case as many people refer to Vista as 'Me all over again', a face lift and thats about it, nothing of any great value, a stop gap.



Yes I agree there was many people that were opposed to XP, that's something no-one can deny, but, noway was there as many people opposed then is there is today in regards to making the transition from XP to Vista, the forced shelf life extensions prove that.

The only a facelift comes from lack of understanding of the underling functions.
The opposed change is greater because there has been a bigger delay between XP & vista than the others before & has had more time to be deeply ingrained.

Your other comments come down to personal circumstances as many more don't suffer the problems than do, just like when XP first came out.

 

[Combat squirrel]

Microsoft were not fine about it - you simply didn't tell Microsoft what you were doing.
Your installation of Vista is no more legal than somebody who downloaded a pirate copy via a torrent.
So you didn't really need to spend your £70 - you might just as well have downloaded it.
Your OEM license was legal for the first motherboard it was installed on only.
You've just proved the point really on people, piracy and not being able to get around the need to actually legally buy their OS.

Oh and it's MS if you must use the shortened version....unless you really are 12?
And the smilie I'm assuming is just you way of saying "Look at me, pirating and illegal use is cool"?

Utter rubbish, do you know my new years resolution was not to engage in conversation who talk utter rubbish ? and again

There totally aware of it, reason was the 1st 2 mainboards broke within a week of buying the OS, M$ (!) listened to that id built a new system, and while having similar mainboards I obviously didnt get the same one that broke. Alas they said thats fine, its the same chipset, you cant help if broke so here is your shiney new licence key sir, thanks for your custom, and I said thanks for putting the customer 1st.

Iv said to many many people, dont jump to conclusions, and this is a case of that, abit of a light hearted post there got jumped on quite needlessley, oh and id appreciate it if you would stop calling me a thief.

 

[rubberduck]

They will start doing this. This is the only way they can get people to move away from DVD.

If everything came out on DVD and was loaded with as many features as Blu-ray, comparable in quality, etc. then why would anyone buy it (as it's a more expensive medium).

Towards the end of this year it wouldn't suprise me if we saw Blu-ray only movies.



M.

I don't think this will happen. At the moment HD film sales are still very much a niche market and the amount of money that a studio would lose by releasing titles only on blu-ray/HDDVD would be staggering.

I see 2 ways the market can develop.

1) Studios try to push HD media and make it replace DVD... To achieve this they will have to be very competative with pricing. This will not really benefit the studio as by the time the DVD is replaced HDDVD/BR prices will need to be simlair to DVD prices now i.e. we are essentially back to square one but with an improved format.

2) DVD and HD media sit together and compliment each other. HD media will continue to expand from its niche/enthusiast market and become more mainstream thus providing a product with a bigger profit margin. DVD still exists however as a cheap alternative for those that are not prepared to pay the premium.

I think the 2nd is more likely.

 

[m4cc45]

I wasn't bringing up ME - but you missed several operating systems out on your list making it sound like they were all upgrades except XP to Vista is a sideways step?

I don't get how you can say that? XP worked perfectly well on mine with no crashes, it did, however, get very sluggish after being on for several days. That's why I bought up the resources. In Vista you can leave it on and you won't get a slow down it seems to release the resources when needed to keep the system running quickly much better than XP did. The longest I've had it on for is 15 days without a restart and there were no problems. The only reason I now switch it off is because I'm not doing anything with it overnight now (i.e. downloading).

After using it for a couple of weeks I'm sure most people will see this operating system as a major step forward.



M.

 

[m4cc45]

I don't think this will happen. At the moment HD film sales are still very much a niche market and the amount of money that a studio would lose by releasing titles only on blu-ray/HDDVD would be staggering.

I see 2 ways the market can develop.

1) Studios try to push HD media and make it replace DVD... To achieve this they will have to be very competative with pricing. This will not really benefit the studio as by the time the DVD is replaced HDDVD/BR prices will need to be simlair to DVD prices now i.e. we are essentially back to square one but with an improved format.

2) DVD and HD media sit together and compliment each other. HD media will continue to expand from its niche/enthusiast market and become more mainstream thus providing a product with a bigger profit margin. DVD still exists however as a cheap alternative for those that are not prepared to pay the premium.

I think the 2nd is more likely.

Sorry this was only an example though I still think there will be major pushes from Sony (rather than Toshiba) to have Blu-Ray only films later on this year. I did read it somewhere but for the life of me I can't remember where.



M.

 

[Things change I've changed]

The only a facelift comes from lack of understanding of the underling functions.

I have a XPsp2 installed on my computer, it runs rock solid, it runs all my programs perfectly, please tell me what are these "underling functions" are that are going to benefit me on vista ? because I hope your not referring to the stuff like, the inbuilt two-way firewall, windows defender, AUC, etc, the very stuff that most end users disable.

The opposed change is greater because there has been a bigger delay between XP & vista than the others before & has had more time to be deeply ingrained.

I can understand your point there but that is not the sole reason why people are reluctant to change over to Vista, mainly it's do to the fact that XP(sp2) is a stable OS that gives them everything that they need, on face value Vista really doesn't offer allot more, ok you can go on about all the architectural changes under the hood but that doesn't mean nothing to the average user, tbh it doesn't really mean much me me unless it going to make my programs run noticeably better.

I don't get how you can say that? XP worked perfectly well on mine with no crashes, it did, however, get very sluggish after being on for several days. That's why I bought up the resources. In Vista you can leave it on and you won't get a slow down it seems to release the resources when needed to keep the system running quickly much better than XP did. The longest I've had it on for is 15 days without a restart and there were no problems. The only reason I now switch it off is because I'm not doing anything with it overnight now (i.e. downloading).

After using it for a couple of weeks I'm sure most people will see this operating system as a major step forward.

tbh this is a moot point really as I'm sure many XP users will contest against your opinion based on your personal experience, I run 3 systems in my place, usually at least one of them is on sometimes for weeks/months at a time without a single reset, as long as you look after them and defrag them regularly and keep the registry clean they will run for years without the need for a reinstall.

 

[unwashed potato!]

that ridiculous, I've used Vista across numerous systems and have had nothing but problems, including crashes, you will be hard pushed to beat the stability that XPsp2 has to offer, it's one of the main reasons why people don't want to upgrade, why should you make the switch to a completely new architecture when the one they already own is rock solid.

god everything you are saying is going out the window purely from what you said above. This guy has said from personal experience that vista is more stable then xp and you call him ridiculous? why when thats what he has experienced? no wonder you think xp is better as by the sound of it every time someone says oh i have had better expeirence with vista you call them ridiculous.

 

[Final8y]

I have a XPsp2 installed on my computer, it runs rock solid, it runs all my programs perfectly, please tell me what are these "underling functions" are that are going to benefit me on vista ? because I hope your not referring to the stuff like, the inbuilt two-way firewall, windows defender, AUC, etc, the very stuff that most end users disable.



I can understand your point there but that is not the sole reason why people are reluctant to change over to Vista, mainly it's do to the fact that XP(sp2) is a stable OS that gives them everything that they need, on face value Vista really doesn't offer allot more, ok you can go on about all the architectural changes under the hood but that doesn't mean nothing to the average user, tbh it doesn't really mean much me me unless it going to make my programs run noticeably better.

1st My reply was to."Bringing up ME hardly helps your case as many people refer to Vista as 'Me all over again', a face lift and thats about it, nothing of any great value, a stop gap." Many People not you personaly.

2nd Apple & Oranges, compare released XP to released Vista, compare XP(sp2) to Vista(sp2) its like being negative to a new born baby because it supposed to be the next generation but its not blatantly obvious from birth besides being better looking than the parent so theres no point.

 

[Things change I've changed]

god everything you are saying is going out the window purely from what you said above. This guy has said from personal experience that vista is more stable then xp and you call him ridiculous? why when thats what he has experienced? no wonder you think xp is better as by the sound of it every time someone says oh i have had better experience with vista you call them ridiculous.

thats why I said it was a moot point that time , and anyway I didn't say that he was ridiculous, I was referring to his statement, if I want to call someones statement ridiculous then I'm free to do so just as he can form his own judgments about my own experiences, you would make a good journalist for the daily mail.

 

[Final8y]

I wasn't bringing up ME - but you missed several operating systems out on your list making it sound like they were all upgrades except XP to Vista is a sideways step?

I don't get how you can say that? XP worked perfectly well on mine with no crashes, it did, however, get very sluggish after being on for several days. That's why I bought up the resources. In Vista you can leave it on and you won't get a slow down it seems to release the resources when needed to keep the system running quickly much better than XP did. The longest I've had it on for is 15 days without a restart and there were no problems. The only reason I now switch it off is because I'm not doing anything with it overnight now (i.e. downloading).

After using it for a couple of weeks I'm sure most people will see this operating system as a major step forward.



M.

Exactly the same as what i have noticed no sluggishness from when i first installed.
With XP i noticed sluggishness as soon as i started to install my usual software it did not even take a day to slowdown & im using the same hardware now as i did then.
But then you just get accustomed to the responsiveness & think nothing of it & quickly forget how fast it was at fresh install before you put software on it.