Is dos superior to windows me and vista

[Rii]

And I'll just roll my eyes at the Vista bashing. I think everybody forgets that XP didn't become what it is overnight. Lots of people stuck with 9x for years after XP was released, because they were scared of upgrading.

The uncomfortable truth is that the majority of consumers won't upgrade the operating systems on their existing PCs for any reason whatsoever. That most of Vista's ~200 million sales have come from OEM licenses packaged with new PCs comes as no surprise. It was true for XP, and it'll be true for Windows 7.

 

[Deks]

I would like to add the main issue with Vista is that you need to have a new generation computer in order to gain XP performance (with all Vista features activated) while gaining very little (negligible) novelty in terms of functionality.

What's the point of having an OS that requires 50% of your new computer power/resources to run as it should, particularly when you take into consideration that a user has CPU/RAM intensive applications along with it?

While I agree with the fact that new OS's will be more demanding in terms of CPU power/RAM amount, Vista essentially tripled those demands in comparison to XP while delivering very little in return (at least in my opinion and experience).
If Vista was a radically different OS in comparison to XP, then the extra hardware demands would have been worth it, but as it is, I just don't see the point in switching to it.
Certainly not for everyday use, gaming, work, or programs such as 3dsMax, Photoshop and the likes.

One other thing ... you would think that by now Microsoft would release an OS that doesn't need major overhauls and bug fixes right at the beginning.
Some small fixes and possibly a large overhaul a year or two down the line (or sooner to accommodate technological change).
Also why make a GUI that uses obscene amount of resources?
We can replicate the look of Vista in XP for the most part without increasing resource use at all.
If their goal is to force people to buy new computers, well, the low Vista sales shot their little plan into the water.
But now, they are forcing Vista on people by putting it as the only pre-installed option (even on desktops/laptops that really aren't suitable for running the said OS).
And even that is not working since a lot of those people are reverting back to XP.

For those of you who had a nice experience with Vista, I see no reason why you shouldn't use it if you desire it and meets your needs without a problem. And it's a nice thing to know there are good experiences with the said OS.
My sisters laptop is unsuitable for Vista because of it's specs and yet the OS came pre-installed.
*sigh*
For the most part it's working fine, but it's very slow.

 

[Ronald Held]

Lindley, I have been known to try DOS commands while in a UNIX shell.

 

[Brolan]

I would like to add the main issue with Vista is that you need to have a new generation computer in order to gain XP performance (with all Vista features activated) while gaining very little (negligible) novelty in terms of functionality.

What's the point of having an OS that requires 50% of your new computer power/resources to run as it should, particularly when you take into consideration that a user has CPU/RAM intensive applications along with it?

While I agree with the fact that new OS's will be more demanding in terms of CPU power/RAM amount, Vista essentially tripled those demands in comparison to XP while delivering very little in return (at least in my opinion and experience).
If Vista was a radically different OS in comparison to XP, then the extra hardware demands would have been worth it, but as it is, I just don't see the point in switching to it.
Certainly not for everyday use, gaming, work, or programs such as 3dsMax, Photoshop and the likes.

One other thing ... you would think that by now Microsoft would release an OS that doesn't need major overhauls and bug fixes right at the beginning.
Some small fixes and possibly a large overhaul a year or two down the line (or sooner to accommodate technological change).
Also why make a GUI that uses obscene amount of resources?
We can replicate the look of Vista in XP for the most part without increasing resource use at all.
If their goal is to force people to buy new computers, well, the low Vista sales shot their little plan into the water.
But now, they are forcing Vista on people by putting it as the only pre-installed option (even on desktops/laptops that really aren't suitable for running the said OS).
And even that is not working since a lot of those people are reverting back to XP.

For those of you who had a nice experience with Vista, I see no reason why you shouldn't use it if you desire it and meets your needs without a problem. And it's a nice thing to know there are good experiences with the said OS.
My sisters laptop is unsuitable for Vista because of it's specs and yet the OS came pre-installed.
*sigh*
For the most part it's working fine, but it's very slow.

Anyone that been computing a few years knows Microsoft's method of operation when it comes to operating systems. You mearly ignore the new OS until 2 or more years have gone by since the release date. That way someone else has found all the bugs and the many drivers that you need for your devices have (most likely) been updated for the new OS.

That's why my copy of Vista Ultimate is still sitting on my bookshelf and not running my computer. In January it may actually be ready for install.

 

[Deks]

Oh I am well aware of how Microsoft works, but you would think that after XP SP2 came out, they learned a few things.

In any case, even I will consider switching to Vista if at some point it becomes warranted.
Right now, that OS gives me nothing better in comparison to XP.
There is a pretty good possibility I will simply wait until Windows 7 comes out.
XP is far from obsolete and in my opinion is a better option compared to Vista.

 

[Rii]

There are more "under the hood" differences between Vista and XP than between XP and 2K. Hell, the NT version numbers alone will tell you that much.

 

[Bak_and_Blue]

I would like to add the main issue with Vista is that you need to have a new generation computer in order to gain XP performance (with all Vista features activated) while gaining very little (negligible) novelty in terms of functionality.

What's the point of having an OS that requires 50% of your new computer power/resources to run as it should, particularly when you take into consideration that a user has CPU/RAM intensive applications along with it?

While I agree with the fact that new OS's will be more demanding in terms of CPU power/RAM amount, Vista essentially tripled those demands in comparison to XP while delivering very little in return (at least in my opinion and experience).
If Vista was a radically different OS in comparison to XP, then the extra hardware demands would have been worth it, but as it is, I just don't see the point in switching to it.
Certainly not for everyday use, gaming, work, or programs such as 3dsMax, Photoshop and the likes.

One other thing ... you would think that by now Microsoft would release an OS that doesn't need major overhauls and bug fixes right at the beginning.
Some small fixes and possibly a large overhaul a year or two down the line (or sooner to accommodate technological change).
Also why make a GUI that uses obscene amount of resources?
We can replicate the look of Vista in XP for the most part without increasing resource use at all.
If their goal is to force people to buy new computers, well, the low Vista sales shot their little plan into the water.
But now, they are forcing Vista on people by putting it as the only pre-installed option (even on desktops/laptops that really aren't suitable for running the said OS).
And even that is not working since a lot of those people are reverting back to XP.

For those of you who had a nice experience with Vista, I see no reason why you shouldn't use it if you desire it and meets your needs without a problem. And it's a nice thing to know there are good experiences with the said OS.
My sisters laptop is unsuitable for Vista because of it's specs and yet the OS came pre-installed.
*sigh*
For the most part it's working fine, but it's very slow.

But Vista is so preeetty
You need to turn off all of the bell and whistle features and it will run at a half way decent speed.
I will never bash Vista again-- for this reason...
My daughter's hard drive crashed and I took it out and plugged it into my external hard drive enclosure. I first plugged it into my PC with XP and got nothing: not even recognition. I thought, oh well, I need to access the internet so I can upload a file recovery program. So I plugged the hard drive into my PC with Vista.
Vista recognized the drive right away and, miracle of miracles, asked me if I wanted it fixed!!!
Vista fixed the damn thing. I put it back into my daughters computer and it works just fine.
So, Vista isn't all bad.

 

[Santaman]

DOS is in some cases superior to any other OS, depends on what you use it for, I know some machines who run embedded DOS with some specialised control programs and they have been running hapilly since the mid 80's, never a crash, never a reboot, as a single tasking OS DOS is nigh unbeatable.

As a consumer OS it has had its days but sadly those are in the past, I am however in the posession of many 8088/8086 machines, a 286, a 386 and also a 80486 and the combo DOS/Win 3.11 is working extremely well on that last one.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Vista's biggest fault is that Microsoft went into it with too much ambition. They ended up cutting a lot of the truly useful features (the new file system being a big one). A lot of things were changed under the hood to improve security, stability, and reliability. Unfortunately, they also added a lot of overhead. People wonder where all this overhead came from. It's not just the new interface--pretty as it is--but also that the Win32 API has been deprecated in favor of .NET and WPF. If anyone has ever had to actually program with the Win32 API, you might agree it's time to bury it in favor of more flexible, object-oriented interfaces. But the Win32 API, if nothing else, was pretty fast. .NET, as a language that relies on a virtual machine, is going to be slower by definition. The advantages it provides are largely on the developer side: cleaner, simpler code, less maintenance, easier debugging. On the user side, however, it does offer some benefits, such as more graceful exception handling, and detailed error reporting. .NET programs can also have a smaller footprint since they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time--the most useful functions are built into the language already.

Personally, I think Vista could have benefited from being kept in development a couple more years, so that the originally-intended features could be implemented, making it a more worthwhile upgrade. Comparisons to Windows Me look valid on the surface, but the situation with Vista is not really like Me at all. I used Me, and I can tell you I'd much rather get "stuck" with Vista than have to touch a system with Me on it. And, as has been said elsewhere, Me was a stopgap between 98 and XP (even though I didn't think there was anything wrong with 2000). Anyone who asked me about Me at the time, I pointed them to 2000. Me just had no reason to exist. Vista, on the other hand, is the harbinger of Windows' future. It's less of a stopgap and more of a "transitional" release. I hope they work the kinks out for the next version. I'll use Vista if I get a machine with it, but all the features I'm genuinely interested in are in Windows 7.