Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: Jiggy on 3 April 2006, 01:35
-
On www.arcon5.com (http://www.arcon5.com/) it says that microsoft are gonna start putting stickers on new PC's to show if they're gonna be vista compatible or not. Are they not just going to tell us the minimum spec? what do u guys think about this?
-jiggy
-
Perhaps a direct link would be more helpful: http://www.arcon5.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=119&mode=&order=0&thold=0&tit=Windows%20Vista%20release%20pushed%20back%20to%20January%202007
Especially considering you've never posted before. We've had some - how should I say it - "very bad" experiences with first-time posters posting links to stuff that really isn't it. This one's clean, though.
Anyway, on topic - on MS's website they have a page now that links to AMD, Intel, nVidia, ATI, and a couple others describing what CPUs and GPUs will be certified. My computer, which I built two years ago, barely makes it (in fact, it's pre-500 series P4, so it may not at all, though it would work). Windows "requiring" 512MB RAM...scary thought.
-
It would be interesting if they had some test site to analyze your specs and see if Vi$ta will run it. But, really, I don't give a fuck cuz I wouldn't use Vi$ta if it were the last OS on the planet.
-
I'm pretty darned sure the the "vista ready" sticker has absolutely nothing to do with the minium spec.
MS has a history of tying unrelated MS interests to their "certifications."
Remember how software companies had to prove their sofware would run on Windows NT in order to use the "designed for Windows 95" logo?
My guess is the "vista ready" sticker means that the PC will have to have shitloads of hardware based DRM.
-
Remember how software companies had to prove their sofware would run on Windows NT in order to use the "designed for Windows 95" logo?
That makes no sense, as 95 and NT were completely different OSs.
-
That makes no sense, as 95 and NT were completely different OSs.
But both were Win32 platforms.
MS wanted to be able to sell WinNT to businesses. Nobody would buy it if there wasn't software for it. Few companies were going to develop software for a platform that was not popular, and the platform would not be popular if there were no applications. Both had the win32 API, but they were different OS, so it took extra work to make some pieces of software function on both platforms. In some cases, a serious amount of work.
The solution? Force the developers to make it work on WinNT by withholding Microsoft's "stamp of approval," even if it did work perfectly on Win95.
I can't believe you never heard of this before. It's part of the wordperfect lawsuit.
-
In a way that stratagy has worked out for the better or XP would be based on ME.
-
But both were Win32 platforms.
MS wanted to be able to sell WinNT to businesses. Nobody would buy it if there wasn't software for it. Few companies were going to develop software for a platform that was not popular, and the platform would not be popular if there were no applications. Both had the win32 API, but they were different OS, so it took extra work to make some pieces of software function on both platforms. In some cases, a serious amount of work.
The solution? Force the developers to make it work on WinNT by withholding Microsoft's "stamp of approval," even if it did work perfectly on Win95.
I can't believe you never heard of this before. It's part of the wordperfect lawsuit.
Yep. The old chicken/egg scenario. Good strategy by Microsoft...and good way to usher in NT and usher out the abominations that were the 'Win9x' series.
-
Well if the stamp said "designed for Windows 95", then WTF does NT have to do with it? You were right the first time toadlife, it makes no sense. At least to the people looking at the stamps.
MS should be got for that little trick misleading consumers (any wonder most of them are so empty-headed?).
-
Another reference: http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=72294&cat_id=580
I tore all those stickers off my machines as soon as i get them. And even some i don't own :)
MS should be got for that little trick misleading consumers (any wonder most of them are so empty-headed?).
MS should be taken out, shot, dismembered and have its various body parts burned and buried in seperate locations. Just for that.:mad:
None of my stuff will run vista if what i read is true. 512 MB? WTF?!? DirectX 9 graphics? Some of my stuff isn't compatible with 7
-
Another reference: http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=72294&cat_id=580 (http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=72294&cat_id=580)
I tore all those stickers off my machines as soon as i get them. And even some i don't own :)
I tore off the all "Designed for M$ Window$" stickers and put em on my Lexmark printer where they belong ... and I tore off the stickers with the product key on them and stuck em on the Window$ install CD case ... and I printed out some nice Linux and Red Hat stickers and stuck 'em on just for fun :)
-
My rig aint never going to be
Vi$ta compatible...