# Technology Analyst: Get Over Vista Hate



## zekrahminator (May 25, 2008)

A reporter and technology analyst for the Washington Post recently took a rather strong point of view regarding Windows Vista and XP. He accepts that Vista has it's flaws, such as "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products." However, he points out that the current market behavior, which is something along the lines of "don't upgrade until Vista gets better, and beg to keep XP on shelves" is not doing Vista or Microsoft any good. He points out that XP is not a historic monument in need of preservation, and is more like an old car: it's had a good run, but in view of some XP flaws when compared to Vista strongpoints, it's time to move on. The analyst also pointed out that fundamental supply/demand economics is keeping Vista from rising to greatness. As long as the market holds on to XP, and refuses to move on to Vista, software makers will not see a very good reason to adopt or support Vista, which causes most of the problems Vista has today. You can read more details at the source link.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## DrPepper (May 25, 2008)

That was well said.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 25, 2008)

If it's not one fanboy it's another.  I must question why it's so important to make articles like this.  The only true issue to get over is the fact that people have perceptions, ideals, opinions and beliefs.  Once they accept this as truth (which is part of what makes human beings what they are) will they start to care-less what other people think about some random OS purchase.

On a side note, belittling those who:
-don't know about Vista
-don't care about Vista
-simply opposed to buying Vista 
-not willing to pay for it 
-etc
doesn't help validate or recognize that point of view.  It not only turns people off even more but it shows poor sportsmanship when things don't go their way.


----------



## jocksteeluk (May 25, 2008)

For myself XP was a true software upgrade, Vista on the other hand is a sidestep with very little benefit or improvement over xp and no doubt the majority of PC users would agree which is why Vista isn't doing so well.


----------



## pbmaster (May 25, 2008)

I really don't care which OS I use. I just don't have the money right now to buy Vista.


----------



## magibeg (May 26, 2008)

Vista has been alright on this end, i don't regret buying it at all in fact. Every once in a while on the forums you'll see someone switch to vista from xp and get a surprise that its not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. In fact it tends to be pretty good.


----------



## DrPepper (May 26, 2008)

jocksteeluk said:


> For myself XP was a true software upgrade, Vista on the other hand is a sidestep with very little benefit or improvement over xp and no doubt the majority of PC users would agree which is why Vista isn't doing so well.



 I thought of it just like a hardware upgrade ... like moving from AGP to PCIE


----------



## newconroer (May 26, 2008)

jocksteeluk said:


> For myself XP was a true software upgrade, Vista on the other hand is a sidestep with very little benefit or improvement over xp and no doubt the majority of PC users would agree which is why Vista isn't doing so well.



Rather that was an initial impression, which was ballooned across the air waves, and those that don't know otherwise bought into it, especially those who are anti-MS, which is a ridiculously high amount of end-users.

If you learn how Windows is built, you would see where Vista differs quite a bit. You would also understand the differences and supposed minimal differences that result in this 'very little benefit' attitude that you and others seem to have, because you're such knowledgeable and informed computer engineers...

Vista runs like ass when it's not properly maintenanced and slimmed, because Windows, true to it's heritage, is bloated for the basic home user or gamer; because it's NOT Unix, and it's not suppose to be. The same is true of XP. It's just lighter on the resources, so thus 'slimming' and 'maintenancing' are less required. 

Basically it comes down to "I don't know how to take care of my XP, but it still runs fine, so why bother?" Then the user runs Vista, doesn't get the same performance and says "Vista sucks."


The author of the article was absolutley right. The more idiots hang-on to XP based on unfounded claims and myth-based reasoning, the more difficult it is for Vista to replace it, and subsequentley for developers to make use of it.


----------



## DrPepper (May 26, 2008)

I like vista alot and even though people complain about driver crashes it happens on xp too, anyway usualy I put up with it until there is a fix.


----------



## jocksteeluk (May 26, 2008)

newconroer said:


> Rather that was an initial impression, which was ballooned across the air waves, and those that don't know otherwise bought into it, especially those who are anti-MS, which is a ridiculously high amount of end-users.
> 
> If you learn how Windows is built, you would see where Vista differs quite a bit. You would also understand the differences and supposed minimal differences that result in this 'very little benefit' attitude that you and others seem to have, because you're such knowledgeable and informed computer engineers...
> 
> ...



So your argument is that the majority of PC users are stupid because they are not knowledgeable enough to  know how to "slim down" Vista to run good on their modest spec systems?  Wasnt Vista meant to be more user friendly than XP? The Majority controls the market, Vista is flawed because the majority are not pc software geniuses.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 26, 2008)

Im not even sure how to respond to this. Ive used Vista and pretty much use it on a daily basis. My wife compares her laptop use (which has Vista) to my home gaming rig (which uses XP 64 bit) and likes mine better. Of course, I try to explain to her my desktop is alot more powerful than her laptop, so that tends to be a major reason of her liking the desktop. On the other hand though, she likes XPs user friendly features (becauses shes used to it) alot more than Vista, but does like how Vista has Media Center integrated as well as other nuances (aero, etc).


----------



## imperialreign (May 26, 2008)

zekrahminator said:


> A reporter and technology analyst for the Washington Post recently took a rather strong point of view regarding Windows Vista and XP. He accepts that Vista has it's flaws, such as "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products." However, he points out that the current market behavior, which is something along the lines of "don't upgrade until Vista gets better, and beg to keep XP on shelves" is not doing Vista  or Microsoft any good. *He points out that XP is not a historic monument in need of preservation, and is more like an old car: it's had a good run, but in view of some XP flaws when compared to Vista strongpoints, it's time to move on.* The analyst also pointed out that fundamental supply/demand economics is keeping Vista from rising to greatness. As long as the market holds on to XP, and refuses to move on to Vista, software makers will not see a very good reason to adopt or support Vista, which causes most of the problems Vista has today. You can read more details at the source link.
> 
> Source: Daily Tech






bad analogy on the analysts part . . . why?




because, in the long run, it's cheaper to keep and properly maintain an older car than it is to go buy the newest dealer-lot model; and if you haven't noticed, newer models come with a lot of bling, bells & whistles, and other useless "fluff" and flair that aren't worth the money you're charged to have them.

In light of this analogy, I'll keep my "classic" model (otherwise known as XP), and continue to maintain it thanks to it's faithful service so far


----------



## DrPepper (May 26, 2008)

So XP is like a dodge charger  rough on the edges but at least it can drive, while vista is like a Hummer: it takes a big engine to get it going anywhere fast and you need to stop every 3 miles to refuel ? I don't know I'm not familiar with cars.


----------



## jocksteeluk (May 26, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> So XP is like a dodge charger  rough on the edges but at least it can drive, while vista is like a Hummer: it takes a big engine to get it going anywhere fast ? I don't know I'm not familiar with cars.



I think it would be fairer to compare Xp to a Porche and Vista to a Hummer.


----------



## imperialreign (May 26, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> So XP is like a dodge charger  rough on the edges but at least it can drive, while vista is like a Hummer: it takes a big engine to get it going anywhere fast and you need to stop every 3 miles to refuel ? I don't know I'm not familiar with cars.



I reckon, it'd be like saying that XP is an aging Cadillac Fleetwood where Vista is like an Acura MDX - they've both got all the options; but the aging Fleetwood is a nice drive, comfortable, decent on mileage - and the MDX does all the same, but comes with better theft protection, the built-in mp3 player, bluetooth, nav system, DVD player, backup camera, heated/cooled seats, etc, etc - there's really nothing wrong with the Cadi, good vintage year, solid, reliable if you keep up with the maintenance, and not too many luxury options to distract you from the road; but the MDX is still new to the markup, so you might encounter an engineering hiccup, and how many people will make use of all the luxury options, and how many more will end up t-boning someone cause they were busy starting at a NAV screen instead of the road?


----------



## acperience7 (May 26, 2008)

Why should I go buy Vista when Windows 7 is now on the horizon? The author can't forget that most people who get computers buy them pre-built and don't know a Stream Processor from an ROP, and could care less. Most computer users just want something that works for what they are going to use it for. When that computer starts having serious problems running that person's applications they move on. XP has no serious problems so why should they buy this OS, then just a few years later buy another OS? I don't know what kind of company that author keeps, but if I could buy a new car every 5 years I still wouldn't. Has he ever traveled on a normal road? The kind that's not filled with anything but sparkilng cars that are fresh off their first oil change. He needs to stop living in a fantasy land.


----------



## nanohead (May 26, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> If it's not one fanboy it's another.  I must question why it's so important to make articles like this.  The only true issue to get over is the fact that people have perceptions, ideals, opinions and beliefs.  Once they accept this as truth (which is part of what makes human beings what they are) will they start to care-less what other people think about some random OS purchase.
> 
> On a side note, belittling those who:
> -don't know about Vista
> ...



Well said, my point of view precisely.....

I had the "I'll wait till SP1" attitude also.  I'd played around with Vista for the past year, but stuck with XP for everything (8 computers in the house, not including 2 servers).   But as soon as Vista SP1 came out on Technet, I built up a new test system with it, and started messing around with it on the side.   

What I found was quite amazing.   First, the thing is amazingly stable.   It NEVER crashed on me.   Second, what people hate about it (what I hated about it) can be turned off.   All that dopey DRM and security stuff can simply be removed, just like it could be in XP (remember the incredible noise people made when they did XP SP2 and everything stopped working?)

I spent a couple of weeks messing around with it, changing service settings, video settings, playing with drivers, etc, and Voila, its solid as a rock, and quite friendly and nice too.  (Thanks Black Viper!)

Microsoft built some nice software, but did an absurd job packaging it, and initial setup for most people makes it a hateful experience.   They blew it there for sure, but not on the product itself.   Simply turning off User Access Control and Security Center makes it instantly livable.

I've now moved 3 machines (my main system, my gamer rig, and 1 of my kids, getting ready to move my wife too) onto Vista.   I really like it, including the stability and the improvements to the file system, networking and stability.  Aero is really nice too.  No turning back now for me.

Incidentally, what I found on the gamer rig, was most interesting.   It is SUPREMELY more stable than XP ever was, and I've always had edgy, modded, and nearly spontaneously combusting gaming rigs.   The OS NEVER crashes now with games that have issues, Vista contains it, and gracefully closes it, and then recovers as much memory as it can.  That NEVER happened on XP, where it was always BSOD city with misbehaving games, and all that nasty interaction with GPU and sound drivers.

Too bad this thing is so emotional with everyone.    People get really mad over this like it really matters.....


----------



## Triprift (May 26, 2008)

All can say is like ive said before i hope for xp fanbois sake that Windows 7 does turn out to be the greatest os of all time cus if it doesnt then the petitions to have xp extended will be out again boring.


----------



## imperialreign (May 26, 2008)

I have Vista, but I'm still holding out on it -

for starters, I don't have any DX10 games that have urged me to move over yet (although, STALKER: Clear Sky) will prob do me in;

and I can't stand how audio is handled in Vista - stoopid, stoopid 


those are the only two things that have stayed my upgrade - I'll more than likely try it out for DX10 when a certain game is released . . . but if I don't feel it's worth it, I'll prob go back.

Now, if MS comes and fixes the audio architecture - I'll move on up the minute I hear word on that.


----------



## Haytch (May 26, 2008)

zekrahminator said:


> He accepts that Vista has it's flaws, such as "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products."QUOTE]
> 
> Thats right, Vista sucks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 26, 2008)

i use vista for dx10 gaming. if you arent gaming in dx10 you might as well be gaming in DOS. sorry, had to say it.


----------



## AsRock (May 26, 2008)

I've had load more problems with Vista in 2 months  than i have had with XP x64 in over 2 1/2 years.


----------



## phanbuey (May 26, 2008)

jocksteeluk said:


> So your argument is that the majority of PC users are stupid because they are not knowledgeable enough to  know how to "slim down" Vista to run good on their modest spec systems?  Wasnt Vista meant to be more user friendly than XP? The Majority controls the market, Vista is flawed because the majority are not pc software geniuses.



very well said... 


the OS failed to meet expectations.


----------



## farlex85 (May 26, 2008)

I feel like if so many people didn't jump on the vista hate bandwagon, dx10 would be catching on quicker w/ developers. I think a big reason dx10 is moving so slowly and we still haven't had a game built natively for it is they would get hell for it, b/c so many people are still resisting vista for whatever reason (usually not a very good one imo). This is partly microsoft's fault for making dx10 a vista only requirement, and for having enough problems at the outset to set the market against them (although word of mouth has gotten pretty ill-informed sometimes on the interweb in this regard), but damn, when consumers start hurting progress, something is amiss.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> So XP is like a dodge charger  rough on the edges but at least it can drive, while vista is like a Hummer: it takes a big engine to get it going anywhere fast and you need to stop every 3 miles to refuel ? I don't know I'm not familiar with cars.



haha, more like a hummber h2, looks nice, but is mostly made of plastic and when the plastic blings removed it looks very pathetic......very very pathetic.......

i prefer my x64pro, very nice


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

I agree with the analyst. People need to get over it. Vista is not a bad OS, and XP is getting long in the tooth. It's time to move on, so the developers do too.


----------



## btarunr (May 26, 2008)

newconroer said:


> Rather that was an initial impression, which was ballooned across the air waves, and those that don't know otherwise bought into it, especially those who are anti-MS, which is a ridiculously high amount of end-users.
> 
> If you learn how Windows is built, you would see where Vista differs quite a bit. You would also understand the differences and supposed minimal differences that result in this 'very little benefit' attitude that you and others seem to have, because you're such knowledgeable and informed computer engineers...
> 
> ...






Why should one care about what Vista is made of? I don't care what it's made of, I don't want such steep requirements, I don't want erratic behavior, I want all my DirectSound apps which were hardware accelerated in XP to work just the same. If Vista doesn't give me that, I won't go back to it. I'm not an idiot to go back to XP, all my apps work faster. I would be an idiot to let all my apps run slower just because the OS wants to show me pretty emo/gay graphics, animation, etc. 

It was deliberate of MS to not release Direct X 10 for XP because then there's no real reason for me to upgrade. 



newconroer said:


> The author of the article was absolutley right. The more idiots hang-on to XP based on unfounded claims and myth-based reasoning, the more difficult it is for Vista to replace it, and subsequentley for developers to make use of it.



Let XP have DirectX 10, let users tell the difference.

The OS shouldn't be the most decisive factor, it should be something that's negligible and lets people run any compatible application on it. All Microsoft wants is $200 from each one of us every 2 years or so, so their bosses could take kids on a sail to Monaco. Who knows, there could just be a DirectX 11 that forces every user to spend $200 more and upgrade their OS in about a couple of years time. 

People don't buy computers to run an OS, they buy it to run applications.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Why should one care about what Vista is made of? I don't care what it's made of, I don't want such steep requirements, I don't want erratic behavior, I want all my DirectSound apps which were hardware accelerated in XP to work just the same. If Vista doesn't give me that, I won't go back to it. I'm not an idiot to go back to XP, all my apps work faster. I would be an idiot to let all my apps run slower just because the OS wants to show me pretty emo/gay graphics, animation, etc.
> 
> It was deliberate of MS to not release Direct X 10 for XP because then there's no real reason for me to upgrade.
> 
> ...



now see, you could have condenced that down to "vista sucks" and " microsoft are a bunch of greedy bastards who suck" but it wouldnt have had neerly the impact and infact would have looked a bit silly 

i would bet you they put out dx11 with windows 7, even though they could support it with vista, just as you said simply to sell more units......


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I agree with the analyst. People need to get over it. Vista is not a bad OS, and XP is getting long in the tooth. It's time to move on, so the developers do too.



ok so we should all shell out 200-300bucks to get vista, then if it runs slow on our systems shell out a few hunderd more to upgrade, oh not to mention the few hundred on top of that to replace possable vista incompatable hardware like 3 printers i own out of 3 one has "beta" drivers for vista and i dont see them ever becoming full drivers.

so yeah, everybody, Wile E says and microsoft say dump xp its shit, move to xp, and if your running server 2003 or xp x64, dump that as well, for servers you should move to server 2008 because 2003 is long in the tooth, and x64 since its based on 2003 is as well.

blah, ms fucking GAVE me vista ultimate, i tryed it, and have tryed it a couple times since as a dual boot, i honestly dont get why or how people can say its so much better then 2003/x64pro.......oh yeah areo......wait i dissable that useless shit............if i want areo effects under xp/x64 i got 5 ways i can get that with 1/10th the system requierments and performance impact........so without replacing hardware i can get that oh so pretty vista feel, then dissable it after a week or 2 when it gets boring


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Why should one care about what Vista is made of? I don't care what it's made of, I don't want such steep requirements, I don't want erratic behavior, I want all my DirectSound apps which were hardware accelerated in XP to work just the same. If Vista doesn't give me that, I won't go back to it. I'm not an idiot to go back to XP, all my apps work faster. I would be an idiot to let all my apps run slower just because the OS wants to show me pretty emo/gay graphics, animation, etc.
> 
> It was deliberate of MS to not release Direct X 10 for XP because then there's no real reason for me to upgrade.
> 
> ...


The performance hit with Vista is vastly over-exaggerated, and in many cases, completely non-existent. That's no longer a valid excuse, yet it's the first one that haters mention.

And who cares that MS releases an OS to make money? They're a business, that's what they do. Releasing DX10 to XP would make no sense what so ever from a business standpoint. The whole computer industry is built on forced obsolescence, why should MS be any different?

Lets face it, most haters don't want to buy Vista just because they don't like it. And that's fine. It's their choice. But the FUD about it needs to stop.


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> ok so we should all shell out 200-300bucks to get vista, then if it runs slow on our systems shell out a few hunderd more to upgrade, oh not to mention the few hundred on top of that to replace possable vista incompatable hardware like 3 printers i own out of 3 one has "beta" drivers for vista and i dont see them ever becoming full drivers.
> 
> so yeah, everybody, Wile E says and microsoft say dump xp its shit, move to xp, and if your running server 2003 or xp x64, dump that as well, for servers you should move to server 2008 because 2003 is long in the tooth, and x64 since its based on 2003 is as well.
> 
> blah, ms fucking GAVE me vista ultimate, i tryed it, and have tryed it a couple times since as a dual boot, i honestly dont get why or how people can say its so much better then 2003/x64pro.......oh yeah areo......wait i dissable that useless shit............if i want areo effects under xp/x64 i got 5 ways i can get that with 1/10th the system requierments and performance impact........so without replacing hardware i can get that oh so pretty vista feel, then dissable it after a week or 2 when it gets boring


Aero has no performance impact. It's already been proven.

And you don't like a fancy UI. That's fine. Nobody said you had to. Vista still has the Classic UI as well.

As for printers, not having drivers is not the fault of Vista. It's the fault of whoever made them. Pester the manufacturer about it. But don't sit there and say Vista sucks because of it. How much hardware never got proper support in the ME to XP transition? 

And this isn't about server grade OSes. I never made that claim, nor did I ever suggest that mission critical applications should switch to 08 or Vista. That's not the scope of this article. Desktop users are the scope of this article.

So far, all I ever see out of the haters is FUD. Hell, a good majority of the haters haven't even tried the OS, let alone actually know something about it.


----------



## btarunr (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The performance hit with Vista is vastly over-exaggerated, and in many cases, completely non-existent. That's no longer a valid excuse, yet it's the first one that haters mention.
> 
> And who cares that MS releases an OS to make money? They're a business, that's what they do. Releasing DX10 to XP would make no sense what so ever from a business standpoint. The whole computer industry is built on forced obsolescence, why should MS be any different?
> 
> Lets face it, most haters don't want to buy Vista just because they don't like it. And that's fine. It's their choice. But the FUD about it needs to stop.



It's not only about performance hits, its about lack of hardware acceleration for DirectSound applications/games. So they remove a critical feature from the original DirectX 10., force people with hardware-accelerated sound-cards to use software acceleration, high latencies, etc. So I'm talking about a genuine issue. 

Secondly, if they're in a mood to force us to upgrades, the best retaliation is already delivered, that I'm not interested in an upgrade just for the sake of pretty UI and DirectX 10, I'd rather buy a PS3. The reason people are clinging on to XP  is because Microsoft didn't deliver the upgrade as a hospitable upgrade like Windows 98 -> XP where 98 was capable to run DirectX 9, and the latest hardware then carried drivers for both 98 and 2000/XP and so gradually people moved on to XP with upgrades in hardware. Now, they're forcing an upgrade. "No Vista, scr** off, no latest games for you." 

If I'm just another Office software user, and I have the latest Office suite installed and third-party security software installed, there's simply no reason for me to switch to Vista, an OS that's heavy on the resources. The CEO of NVidia was damn right in saying "If you want the fastest machine for Excel, you've already made it two years ago".


----------



## Megasty (May 26, 2008)

I have so many people in my house using so many different setups its a shame. I update their rigs according to their needs & obiviously the kids' rigs are more similar to mine then the adults'. One thing is a constant with all the rigs: they all have vista. I don't have time to hear all the darn complaints about slow crashing desktops & laptops. The only thing I made sure of is that the systems could completely handle vista. I have my own problems with vista & I deal with them as they come up but if a house with 13 vista users can switch over from XP with minimum difficulty then I don't see what's all the fuss is about.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Aero has no performance impact. It's already been proven.
> 
> And you don't like a fancy UI. That's fine. Nobody said you had to. Vista still has the Classic UI as well.
> 
> ...



first, i have had old printers that didnt have spicific drivers under 2k/xp, BUT i could install an epson printer driver(the basick one from windows) and could print text, vista wouldnt let me to that, and since all i tend to print is text i would have been happy, it kept telling me i needed a spicific driver, dispite using a printer port NOT USB(i could understand the usb thing, but ltp port.....should have a basic text compatable print driver built in for old printers alot of busnesses still use like dotmatrix,inkjet and even old laser printers that nolonger have a company behind them( i have an ANCIENT laser printer in the other room thats the size of a small copy machien, can get toner for it, its steller for text, but vista dont got a text only print driver)

and your saying i haven tryed vista because i dont like it and how it works?

and the "proof" that areo has no impact has from what i have seen only been done on higher end machiens, yet you and many other vista advocates would have ppl installing it on systems with nvidia fx line or intel GMA chipsets where, to be kind it would suck the life out of the system...i have seen what areo runs like on an fx5500 card, u know xp when your using the basic vga driver, how windows studder when you move them, thats about what it felt like, and yes thats with "up to date" drivers for the videocard, i dont even wana imagin areo on intel GMA chipsets they are so bad......

there are ways to get the same fx that areo gives without need for dx9 hardware with effectivly no perf impact.

oh, u know what i dont get, why didnt ms just dump dx9 support fully on vista, force you to dual boot xp so you could play dx9 games, and requier dx10 gfx card to get areo, i mean its good that they want to make as much $ as possable off people, so they could force OEM's to sell people xp and vista dubbling their licence sales per system!!!!

they should have done that, i guarntee there would be people on here saying it was the koolist best move ms ever made as they ordered another xp licence for 150bucks and a vista licence for 200.


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> It's not only about performance hits, its about lack of hardware acceleration for DirectSound applications/games. So they remove a critical feature from the original DirectX 10., force people with hardware-accelerated sound-cards to use software acceleration, high latencies, etc. So I'm talking about a genuine issue.
> 
> Secondly, if they're in a mood to force us to upgrades, the best retaliation is already delivered, that I'm not interested in an upgrade just for the sake of pretty UI and DirectX 10, I'd rather buy a PS3. The reason people are clinging on Vista is because Microsoft didn't deliver the upgrade as a hospitable upgrade like Windows 98 -> XP where 98 was capable to run DirectX 9, and the latest hardware then carried drivers for both 98 and 2000/XP and so gradually people moved on to XP with upgrades in hardware. Now, they're forcing an upgrade. "No Vista, scr** off, no latest games for you."
> 
> If I'm just another Office software user, and I have the latest Office suite installed and third-party security software installed, there's simply no reason for me to switch to Vista, an OS that's heavy on the resources. The CEO of NVidia was damn right in saying "If you want the fastest machine for Excel, you've already made it two years ago".


Most of the latest hardware now carries drivers for both XP and Vista. The situation here is no different than the 98/ME->XP transition. In fact, as I remember it first hand, 98/ME->XP was even worse than this transition as far as driver support. I don't remember "hospitable" being one of the words used to describe it for me. lol.

As far as DX, I still don't get your argument. MS had every right to lock DX10 to Vista. It was a business decision, and one that will pan out for them in the long run. People need to get over it. Either choose to have DX10, or don't. But quit bitching about it, because it isn't coming to XP.

And again, Vista's resource usage is vastly over-exaggerated. It takes nowhere near the performance hit that the community makes it out to.

The only valid argument so far is the lack of audio acceleration. Which, I agree, is very upsetting. I would much rather have it hardware accelerated. I, personally, don't find that a big enough flaw to make me pass on Vista completely, but that's one of those "to each his own" things.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Megasty said:


> I have so many people in my house using so many different setups its a shame. I update their rigs according to their needs & obiviously the kids' rigs are more similar to mine then the adults'. One thing is a constant with all the rigs: they all have vista. I don't have time to hear all the darn complaints about slow crashing desktops & laptops. The only thing I made sure of is that the systems could completely handle vista. I have my own problems with vista & I deal with them as they come up but if a house with 13 vista users can switch over from XP with minimum difficulty then I don't see what's all the fuss is about.



you really got no idea how stupid the avrage user is.

homes with that many pc's DO NOT HAVE AVRAGE USERS, try dealing with "rich" people who think they know it all, but cant even understand that if something on their task bar is blinking they need to click it.

or who think they know alot and that they want the best, then who run out and buy referb compaq's simpley because they are so cheap(omg 150 bucks for a computer!!!!1111) 

then try teaching them to switch from xp to vista, jesus, you have ZERO idea how hard it is to switch people to vista who have NO FUCKING CLUE about how to do even common everyday things most of us do, like copy and paist without using the edit menu........

vista also gives them fits when they buy a new printer, my father had to call dell and have dell remote desktop install his new color laser printer(i could have but theres a reasion i told him to get a dell) the HP drivers wouldnt install, it WAS NOT THE DRIVERS FAULT, vista was blocking them, even the dell guy took 3 trys to get it working, and he had done it before........

why make things so complicated/hard?

i tryed hard to like vista, i know some of you will say i have never used it, but honestly i really did try and like it, im not a noobie, i dont lack experiance with working around weirdness in windows or debuging settups, i was one of the first people running server 2003 as a workstation for example, i just couldnt take how vista acts, and performs compared to server 2003/x64pro, its slower, buggyer, and gives me problems with more apps.....how is that better?

oh yeah forgot, areo.........


----------



## btarunr (May 26, 2008)

I anticipate a "but you can play Crysis on XP" post. Let me clear the air:

Remedy Entertainment (the guys that made _Max Payne_) have announced more than six months ago that:

1. Their upcoming game _Alan Wake_ will only run on Vista (and there will be an Xbox360 version). 

2. They demonstrated the game during IDF 2007 to kiss Intel's arse and promoting Core 2 Quad saying "it runs best on quad-core, you can dedicate a whole core to physics processing....blah" but what's most funny is that the  machine which demonstrated the game in the IDF was running an OC'ed GeForce *7900 GTX*! (a card that isn't even SM 4.0 compliant).


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> first, i have had old printers that didnt have spicific drivers under 2k/xp, BUT i could install an epson printer driver(the basick one from windows) and could print text, vista wouldnt let me to that, and since all i tend to print is text i would have been happy, it kept telling me i needed a spicific driver, dispite using a printer port NOT USB(i could understand the usb thing, but ltp port.....should have a basic text compatable print driver built in for old printers alot of busnesses still use like dotmatrix,inkjet and even old laser printers that nolonger have a company behind them( i have an ANCIENT laser printer in the other room thats the size of a small copy machien, can get toner for it, its steller for text, but vista dont got a text only print driver)
> 
> and your saying i haven tryed vista because i dont like it and how it works?
> 
> ...



There was something wrong with your test system if Aero affected performance. Aero runs fine on my neighbor's GMA equipped lappy.

And MS could've done that with DX9. You should be grateful that they didn't. My point is that there's no point in bitching about DX10 being Vista only.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Most of the latest hardware now carries drivers for both XP and Vista. The situation here is no different than the 98/ME->XP transition. In fact, as I remember it first hand, 98/ME->XP was even worse than this transition as far as driver support. I don't remember "hospitable" being one of the words used to describe it for me. lol.
> 
> As far as DX, I still don't get your argument. MS had every right to lock DX10 to Vista. It was a business decision, and one that will pan out for them in the long run. People need to get over it. Either choose to have DX10, or don't. But quit bitching about it, because it isn't coming to XP.
> 
> ...



ok first, all your systems are above avrage m8, quad core, or ur old setup was what a 6400be?  again well above perf of the avrage puter people own or what vista is sold on infact.
check the specs of most puters sold with vista, they come with 512mb-1gb ram.....way to little, enought to use for buisness under XP but not vista.......

as to your pointing at 98/me to xp, well if people would have learned to READ, they would have known that 2k drivers worked on xp, and most hardware from when XP came out had mature 2k drivers, infact every peice of hardware i owned other then a magneto optical drive had mature drivers( panasonic only supported that drive using a wraped unix driver that was beta under 2k, it worked on xp as well but was slow on both, unix it was about 3x as fast  )

whats the lowist system you have swaped over to vista? full specs.


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> ok first, all your systems are above avrage m8, quad core, or ur old setup was what a 6400be?  again well above perf of the avrage puter people own or what vista is sold on infact.
> check the specs of most puters sold with vista, they come with 512mb-1gb ram.....way to little, enought to use for buisness under XP but not vista.......
> 
> as to your pointing at 98/me to xp, well if people would have learned to READ, they would have known that 2k drivers worked on xp, and most hardware from when XP came out had mature 2k drivers, infact every peice of hardware i owned other then a magneto optical drive had mature drivers( panasonic only supported that drive using a wraped unix driver that was beta under 2k, it worked on xp as well but was slow on both, unix it was about 3x as fast  )
> ...


3800+ X2, 1GB ram, X300, 40GB IDE HDD. Swapped the X300 for an X1800XT a few weeks later, and played games at the same settings as XP.


----------



## btarunr (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Most of the latest hardware now carries drivers for both XP and Vista. The situation here is no different than the 98/ME->XP transition. In fact, as I remember it first hand, 98/ME->XP was even worse than this transition as far as driver support. I don't remember "hospitable" being one of the words used to describe it for me. lol.



I would call it better because they did release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/Me. And that XP was for the win right away since it proved right away to be more stable than its predecessor and that I could run it smooth on a 400 MHz Celeron + SiS 630 onboard graphics system. I really can't run Vista smooth on a 2.4 GHz P4.


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> I would call it better because they did release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/Me. And that XP was for the win right away since it proved right away to be more stable than its predecessor and that I could run it smooth on a 400 MHz Celeron + SiS 630 onboard graphics system. I really can't run Vista smooth on a 2.4 GHz P4.



There are people running Vista on P3's. It will run fine on a 2.4Ghz P4. And while it was better than ME, XP was far from stable at it's release. It wasn't a great OS until late SP1 and SP2.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> There was something wrong with your test system if Aero affected performance. Aero runs fine on my neighbor's GMA equipped lappy.
> 
> And MS could've done that with DX9. You should be grateful that they didn't. My point is that there's no point in bitching about DX10 being Vista only.



no, u dont get it, i wish they had, because it would have been the death of vista period, i cant think of a singel sain person i know who would have bought vista then, because none of their currnet games would play, and games would be the ONLY thing that would get them to buy vista.

and the GMA i used was from an early 775 dell, also tested on a buddys OLD first gen pentium-m dell with GMA (intel onboard video sux) 

weird thing vista says it has 32mb ram, when the bios only offer 1mb 4mb or 8 mb as options   must be some driver based forced boost, since i know areo requiers more video memory.

the fx5500 strangely enought ran windowblinds6 fine......no perf impact at all.......

i honestly wish ms had made vista its own product, dumping dx9 and lagacy app support, force everybody to buy new software and hardware, would have been a great way to force people to buy all new software when they got a new pc, or force OEM's to sell dual boot systems, or hell both.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> 3800+ X2, 1GB ram, X300, 40GB IDE HDD. Swapped the X300 for an X1800XT a few weeks later, and played games at the same settings as XP.



musta tweaked the shit out of vista then, from all but a few reports i have seen vista dosnt like less then 1.5gb ram.

as to cpu, thats above what many ppl have, x300, again is above what many people's systems have, i know alot of ppl that think they are gamers who have gf4mx cards or 9200 cards still( i know....it makes me lulz as a shake my head.....) 

as to vista on a p3, yeah, and i could run xp on a 386 if i wanted, but it will WILL run like ass, infact for the lulz i did use nlite to remove the requierments from xp's installer and put it on a 386 dx40(with cyrex math unit) with 64mb of 32pin memory and a 4gb hdd, oh and the cd drive used was one of the ones pluged into a creative isa sb16 card 2x baby.

it only took like 4hrs to fully install, and ran horribly but it did run, in vista fanboi's eyes that means anybody with a 386 should be install xp since it will run.......rofl


oh and i installed vista on my old duron 1gz, 768mb pc133 ram, 12gb hdd, 32x scsi cdrom, it only took it a little over 3hrs to fully install, oh the videocard was an fx5200 agp with 128mb memory, and yes it ran poorly at 800x600 but it ran, so i guess that means that system should be running vista as well........its on vector linux now since that runs like lightning on damn neer any system with 200+mb ram.


----------



## Megasty (May 26, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> you really got no idea how stupid the avrage user is.
> 
> homes with that many pc's DO NOT HAVE AVRAGE USERS, try dealing with "rich" people who think they know it all, but cant even understand that if something on their task bar is blinking they need to click it.
> 
> ...



Oh god you just struck a nerve 

My mother is the most computer illiterate person you can find. It took me *8 gd yrs* to teach her to use one properly. My 81 yo grandmother is more adapt than her. You don't seem to get that people with those problems have more of a _WTH is the screen doing - did I f' it up_ response when the screensaver comes on rather than _why is vista making my pc so slow_.

This analyst is more toward those who can upgrade but won't or tried it & said it was garbage. To each its own. If you hate vista then hate it. But to 9 of the folks in my circle, vista is just another pretty desktop screen. They don't even know its called vista & the 3 teenagers don't care as long as it works


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> I would call it better because they did release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/Me. And that XP was for the win right away since it proved right away to be more stable than its predecessor and that I could run it smooth on a 400 MHz Celeron + SiS 630 onboard graphics system. I really can't run Vista smooth on a 2.4 GHz P4.



you could run it smooth on that 2.4, if you overclock the 2.4, add ram, and tweak vista properly 

as to more stable then its predicessor, wrong, nt4 and 2k where and still are more stable then xp, XP was/is more reliable then 98/me tho since im sure thats what your refering to


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Megasty said:


> Oh god you just struck a nerve
> 
> My mother is the most computer illiterate person you can find. It took me *8 gd yrs* to teach her to use one properly. My 81 yo grandmother is more adapt than her. You don't seem to get that people with those problems have more of a _WTH is the screen doing - did I f' it up_ response when the screensaver comes on rather than why is _vista making my pc so slow_.
> 
> This analyst is more toward those who can upgrade but won't or tried it & said it was garbage. To each its own. If you hate vista then hate it. But to 9 of the folks in my circle, vista is just another pretty desktop screen. They don't even know its called vista & the 3 teenagers don't care as long as it works



its not about slow, its about making it harder to use compared to what they already know how to use, and yes i have delt with ppl like that for years, i use to work in computer shops, years and years worth of that, you get tons of that stuff, once had somebody come in because their internet stoped working.......it worked fine......turns out he somehow moved the icon for netscape over a row(his desktop was FULL of shit) and he couldnt see it.......

take an avrage xp user(aka moron) and move them to xp after years of all they have used being xp, they WILL bitch about things they cant get working how they are use to them working, i got a family friend that i finnely gave up and wiped her new HP and GAVE her a copy of xp because i was tired of her calling about not being able to get new hardware she just got working, i mean brand new stuff like epson/cannon photo printers, scaners, it goes on and on, she called and spent hours getting the photo printers working with epson and dell, then on restart it stoped working again.......(no shit 1 reboot and the drivers nolonger where there.....) 

i just got tired of fixing it, now that shes back on xp, she can install her own drivers, and configuar her printers herself, as well as update all the system drivers herself, shes not a moron user, she just couldnt get vista to do what she wanted whenshe told it to, even after dissabling UAC(ms told her to re-enable it when she called them for support....rofl)

edit: for got to say, my 86yo great grandfather knew more about puters then my father or mother b4 he died, he lived with uus and asked me to teach him to look up news because he liked to read storys about world events and such, it was a long road, but he learned alot, and even started figuaring things out himself, but i wouldnt have ever considered vista for him, he would have hit me with his cain


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> musta tweaked the shit out of vista then, from all but a few reports i have seen vista dosnt like less then 1.5gb ram.
> 
> as to cpu, thats above what many ppl have, x300, again is above what many people's systems have, i know alot of ppl that think they are gamers who have gf4mx cards or 9200 cards still( i know....it makes me lulz as a shake my head.....)
> 
> ...



No, it ran fine on 1GB, even with gaming. It was untouched. And I never said that everyone should go Vista. You are putting words in my mouth. There's obviously limits. I only brought up the P3's running Vista as an example of how everyone completely over-exaggerates Vista's impact on performance. Vista runs fine on 1GB, even with some gaming. Vista runs fine on P4. Vista runs fine on GMA950. And by fine, I mean 100% usable, without lag, like you are insinuating. Vista may have had a few performance hiccups in the beginning, but those are pretty much taken care of now. And the hiccups it did have were primarily attributed to crappy drivers.

I still haven't seen one credible anti-vista argument here, other than the audio api.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> No, it ran fine on 1GB, even with gaming. It was untouched. And I never said that everyone should go Vista. You are putting words in my mouth. There's obviously limits. I only brought up the P3's running Vista as an example of how everyone completely over-exaggerates Vista's impact on performance. Vista runs fine on 1GB, even with some gaming. Vista runs fine on P4. Vista runs fine on GMA950. And by fine, I mean 100% usable, without lag, like you are insinuating. Vista may have had a few performance hiccups in the beginning, but those are pretty much taken care of now. And the hiccups it did have were primarily attributed to crappy drivers.
> 
> I still haven't seen one credible anti-vista argument here, other than the audio api.



how about it blocking recording of tv shows when using its media center fetures?

http://www.betanews.com/article/EFF_says_Microsoft_is_complying_with_NBC_broadcast_flags/1211217801

a feture that was ruled ILLEGAL, and ms is using it to screw people using vista.......nice....guess MORE drm is a good thing tho, since the more drm they add the more it will limmit what your allowed to use their computer for....oh wait i mean your computer.....or wait.......basickly ms owns the system when ur in vista since they at will can fully dissable the OS leaving you with a large paperweight/brick......(check the licence, ms CAN do this and you cant sue for it)


----------



## Wile E (May 26, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> how about it blocking recording of tv shows when using its media center fetures?
> 
> http://www.betanews.com/article/EFF_says_Microsoft_is_complying_with_NBC_broadcast_flags/1211217801
> 
> a feture that was ruled ILLEGAL, and ms is using it to screw people using vista.......nice....guess MORE drm is a good thing tho, since the more drm they add the more it will limmit what your allowed to use their computer for....oh wait i mean your computer.....or wait.......basickly ms owns the system when ur in vista since they at will can fully dissable the OS leaving you with a large paperweight/brick......(check the licence, ms CAN do this and you cant sue for it)


And the DRM is easily defeatable. Not only that, but we deal with crummy drm on any of the OSes. So that's not an argument either.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> And the DRM is easily defeatable. Not only that, but we deal with crummy drm on any of the OSes. So that's not an argument either.



so if i tell you that xp,2k,2k3,x64pro, and any version of linux/unix would record that program without a problem your gonna say thats not vistas fault.

and no there wasnt a work around, i did a little research, the only "fix" is to find 3rd party software to use, and why would you buy a vista media system then want to buy 3rd party software in order to beable to use it for what you bought it for?

and ms CANT leigaly brick a pre vista machien at will, you can sue and will win if they do. 
read your vista EULA closely, ms can do whatever they want to you and your system once you move to vista, not that it would stop me from moving if i saw the VALUE in doing so, or if their where more positives then negitives for me.

and as i have said b4, im not linux lover, but saddly, ms is driving more and more people to crappy linux distros like noobuntu and linspire by their acctions with vista.

no pre-vista windows had DRM built into it as part of its core design, do a bit of research, if the mpaa/riaa dont like your videocard/video drivers/sound card/sound drivers they can tell ms to dissable them, this can be a partial dissable or full on block of the driver reverting you to VGA mode/no sound OR they could also dissable it in such a way that you just get no image on your screen......fun.

vista can lower the quility of output on your audio and video subsystems if ms/mpaa/riaa deside your system dosnt meet their standreds, again, no other version of windows or os for that matter has this "feture".

wouldnt you be happy if your 8800 or 2900/38*0 just stoped being able to play movies one day because somebody desided that it wasnt suitable to playback HD content?
of if they degraded it to 320x240 res quility on all content you tryed to play?
or ur sound stoped working or degraded the quility to 32kbps mp3 levels?

these are all things vista CAN DO, and you dont even have to run windows update for this to happen, as the update that happened  to the windows update files showed, ms can force an update any time they want, without letting you know they are doing it.

for that last update info, im sure it made these forums, i remmber how big a rough it was, people wherepissed when they found out that ms had snuk in an update to the windows update service files without permission, personaly i didnt care since it was to close a seirous hole in the update service that could have let somebody hax you easly.

but it shows how easly ms can access a windows system, especly vista where by installing it you give them permission to give you a sore ass if they feel like it.


----------



## kylew (May 26, 2008)

Haytch said:


> zekrahminator said:
> 
> 
> > He accepts that Vista has it's flaws, such as "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products."QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Black Hades (May 26, 2008)

Well yes as a conclusion to what many said on this thread, vista is mostly being plagued by the lack of quallity drivers. 
Others do not like the negative impact it has on most game's fps..

But come see and listen to what the guru has to say:
Bill Gates says Vista sucks

I like Vista, I can always turn of what I dont like, but I dislike companies that do not make decent drivers for it. Like my Aetheros chipset WiFi that works whenever it pleases.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 26, 2008)

I use vista and i record tv using the media centre.

i agree the only bummer is the sound thing,but i've ran vista for a long time now and i have no problems with it.i even got my new sata hdd caddy to hot swap while windows is running.It connects to my onboard sata connectors while its in the machine and usb when i use it portable.I like vista and nothing anyone else says will change my mind.

i think this thread is funny,sooo much vista hate.If you dont like it,fair enuff but why spend so much time in this thread trying to convince people its crap.some people like it and some dont.

And wile e,dont waste any more of your time in this thread mate,your flogging a dead horse.


----------



## kylew (May 26, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> musta tweaked the shit out of vista then, from all but *a few reports i have seen vista dosnt like less than 1.5gb ram*.
> 
> as to cpu, thats above what many ppl have, x300, again is above what many people's systems have, i know alot of ppl that think they are gamers who have gf4mx cards or 9200 cards still( i know....it makes me lulz as a shake my head.....)
> 
> ...



That's your problem, you act like you won't accept something unless you've seen it yourself, but then say reports on the internet affect your opinion on something. I have ran vista on a 2800 sempron with 512mb RAM and an x800 GPU, it ran good enough for me, but I later added another 512MB and it was smoother and just right. Obviously a higher spec PC would do better with vista, but that's missing the point really. Even a low spec PC is pushing it in XP depending on what you want to do. No one has high spec PCs to just look on the internet and type a few word documents. A low end PC will run vista fine, if you're just doing simple tasks, internet, email, word, and the occasional video or MP3s. In reality (which you don't seem believe exists) a low end PC is what it is, and will always have limited usage. Get over it seriously. As for "tweaking the shit out of vista", I used a vista ultimate installation, and applied NO tweaks.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

kylew said:


> Haytch said:
> 
> 
> > It's people like you that make a difference when it comes to an new OS, imagine how many other people are doing the same as you, you should sell your customers what they want, not what you want them to have. I can only imagine that some of them have wanted vista but you've been dead against it. I saw the same thing happen when XP came out. A certain local independent PC store wouldn't sell people XP even if they wanted it, as they thought it was a useless piece of crap. I bought a PC from them, I wanted XP, but they insisted that 2000 was much better, even made up lies about it to support it being better. I was about 13 at the time so I didn't know much or anything about computers, but I bought one anyway, I had it for a week and had it returned. So much for 2000 being solid as a rock. The computer was terrible, I had to learn to re-install windows and did so 5 times in the space of a week. I'm not blaming 2000, I'm blaming them, but  they obviously didn't know what they were doing. Another thing, you say you think a customized XP pro would make it run over 20% better? I think that's rubbish really. I'm sure you'd complain if some said, why not customize the vista install too would you think "well it shouldn't need to be customized in the first place"? I've used vista my self on daily basis since it was released, and I also use XP on a daily basis at work, and I know which one is more productive my self. People really need to get over this vista vs XP crap. It's an OS, stop acting like MS is trying to take your kids away from you. All these people who "Hate" it, I bet haven't even used it properly before. :shadedshu
> ...


----------



## kylew (May 26, 2008)

Black Hades said:


> Well yes as a conclusion to what many said on this thread, vista is mostly being plagued by the lack of quallity drivers.
> Others do not like the negative impact it has on most game's fps..
> 
> But come see and listen to what the guru has to say:
> ...



That's something people either don't want to understand, or simply can't grasp. They think lack of drivers is microsoft's fault. I have a USB audio interface for my guitar, and it doesn't work on vista X64 because it doesn't have any drivers for it yet, I have been waiting over 6 months for them too, but the company that makes the audio interface are dragging their feet, they even stated they don't think it's worth their while to make 64bit drivers yet as they believe no one actually uses vista 64bit, even though there's a load of people on their forums requesting support for 64 bit. This means I'm stuck using my guitar software and audio interface on my laptop that has vista 32bit. A lot of these people bashing vista would say it's a vista or MS problem, where as anyone in their right mind would know it isn't, especially seeing as the manufactuer has said they haven't done 64bit drivers yet. Another point is that the XP drivers worked for the 32bit vista. Other than this, everything else I have works in vista, both 64bit and 32, even an old somewhat obscure video editing card from years ago has 64 bit drivers.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

kylew said:


> That's your problem, you act like you won't accept something unless you've seen it yourself, but then say reports on the internet affect your opinion on something. I have ran vista on a 2800 sempron with 512mb RAM and an x800 GPU, it ran good enough for me, but I later added another 512MB and it was smoother and just right. Obviously a higher spec PC would do better with vista, but that's missing the point really. Even a low spec PC is pushing it in XP depending on what you want to do. No one has high spec PCs to just look on the internet and type a few word documents. A low end PC will run vista fine, if you're just doing simple tasks, internet, email, word, and the occasional video or MP3s. In reality (which you don't seem believe exists) a low end PC is what it is, and will always have limited usage. Get over it seriously. As for "tweaking the shit out of vista", I used a vista ultimate installation, and applied NO tweaks.



2800sempy xp is acctualy a tbred-b athlon xp renamed, if its aa64 model its eather 128k or 256k l2, eather way the a64 version sucks.

and whats the point of vista if the persons using the computer as an internet applyance?  stick something that is made to run or fly on that hardware on there insted of crippling the system with vista........only a real fanboi noobert would load a basick old work box down with the latist greatist os from ms........why not stick vista on a 433celeron with 256mb of pc66 ram and a 8gb ata33 hdd whal ur at it?

and i have delt with alot of systems with vista installed, infact i have had alot of people pay me a few bucks to make them a windows disk so the could use the key off their old system to install xp on a new OEM system they bought, i have yet to hear any of them say that vista ran faster or had less problems........

why if vista is THE SHIT, and THE BEST WINDOWS EVER, and SO MUCH FASTER, do local computer shops make bank advertising that they will remove vista for people and install xp to replace it?

i know of at least 8 shops around here that have sold thousands of copys of xp since vista came out to people who wanted vista off their system, in many cases these people payed 300bucks to have the shop for a ligit copy of xp, have vista wiped and xp installed........yeah that tells me that vista must just be the best windows ever and that everybody should use it because, well its better then xp,2k, 2k3,x64pro........i mean its new and shiney, so its gotta be better right?

an ms rep GAVE me vista ultimate, GAVE IT TO ME, hoping i would use it, love it, and get more people to buy it (450bucka a pop OEM at the time) i used it for a month, i spent more time wrestling with it to get it to do what i wanted then i did acctualy doing anything with it......, and yes thats with uac off, i mean common apps like adoby reader and scrobat wouldnt work, photoshop only worked partialy, and this was 32bit vista because i KNEW if i went with 64bit i would have even more problems.....just as x64pro had problems when it came out.

but i guess ur right i should go back to vista because after all, it is better then xp/2k3/x64pro, it must be, its newer.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> I use vista and i record tv using the media centre.
> 
> i agree the only bummer is the sound thing,but i've ran vista for a long time now and i have no problems with it.i even got my new sata hdd caddy to hot swap while windows is running.It connects to my onboard sata connectors while its in the machine and usb when i use it portable.I like vista and nothing anyone else says will change my mind.
> 
> ...



why spend so much time telling people who dont like it that they are wrong, or that they are stupid for not liking it, or that their reasions for not liking it are invalid?

thats how these "arguments" start, people cant just accept that people have valid reasions for not liking vista, and feel they need to tell them they are wrong and how great vista is.

i counter why he likes vista, he counters me with "thats not a valid argument" it may not be valid to him, but it is to me.......


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 26, 2008)

I havent read all the comments yet since there are so many but i though id make this post in light of issues with vista.

- the other day I picked up a fairly big project from one of my mothers friends who had a few problems with their 2 computers & wanted them fixed.

no prizes if u can guess what O/S they were using....vista

- also on the same day. One of the lodgers/guests staying at my mothers friends place also had a problem with their laptop & Internet.

I managed to get their internet working but their laptop was a totally different story I cant even begin to tell you whats wrong with their laptop because it baffles me completely.

what O/S were they using??? = Vista.


not trying to slag/bash vista. but a great majority of average users arent familiar with vista.

some would say its how vista inhibits the straight forward functionality of the O/S

some would say its utter tripe anyway.

im not taking any sides - im trying to remain neutral...

everyone likes new tech. vista is one &  cant bash a company with trying to come out with something new.

& its not because most retailers are forcing consumers to run with vista since vista comes pre installed on 90% of all pcs/laptops - but i have been asked by people to fix their vista related issues & even revert their vista to XP for them

I have done about 10 or more downgrades to XP form vista for friends & family

its not that us more advanced users are quick to critasize when something doesnt work. but if is genuinely FAIL then theres nothing more that can be said about it.

& you would think that the sap who was telling people to let go of XP & move to vista would understand.


People hold on to XP for a reason. its simple, basic, straight forward no BS approach while also hogging less resources. - IT WORKS!!!! (the most important thing)

Vista - ok....where do i start? 'whats _*"NOT"*_ wrong with vista?' IMHO its just a pretty face.

she may look like an angel but can she cook??


If the analyst blames the consumers for holding back progress - its not our problem. we all have the right to decided weather we want to run with XP or Vista. 

its not that we dont have the balls to use Vista but the fact is M$ never had any in the first place

--------------

I have tried to keep a totaly unbias approach to my post, I am not mindlessly bashing
- my facts/points are gatherd from events/things that actually happend or are still happening

I will not reply to trolls/flames/flame baits etc

however if you do wish to discuss the topic in a more civil manner please dont hesitate


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 26, 2008)

My cpu is overclocked,my ram is overclocked,I never have any problems.I think people who have problems dont have their machine/software configured correct.I have not had any crashes for a long time on vista.Its obviously not sensetive to overclocking,and all my software runs fine.

Well i like it and thats all i can say,if i did have anything bad to say i would,but i dont.Vista has caused no problems for me at all.I will be sticking with it.

Its a case of each to his own i guess.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I havent read all the comments yet since there are so many but i though id make this post in light of issues with vista.
> 
> - the other day I picked up a fairly big project from one of my mothers friends who had a few problems with their 2 computers & wanted them fixed.
> 
> ...


HAHAHA love that line 

I dont need to "bash" vista, there are plenty of facts that "bash" vista, including bill gates own words.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 26, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kql8cWqiv8


rofl


----------



## Steevo (May 26, 2008)

Vista doesn't require slimming any more than XP required shaving.


The "bloatware" is the mass rabid installation of crap from horrible software vendors, and from many better known software vendors. 

Things Vista gets but didn't ship with. All boottime hijackers, all taking extra resources, all crap.

Adobe
Sun Java
Quicktime
Divx
A copy of Office 97 with three startup items.
All the keyboard, mouse, printer, camera, monitor, etc... software that is present on OEM systems, and installed as "it was in the box...." kind of way.
Yes, for a OEM running on a totally integrated motherboard with 512MB of RAM. Or on a computer that someone hijacked their friends copy of Vista for their mom's HPetc.....



I just did a cleanup of a vista system, upgraded it to 2Gb of RAM, a 22" Samsung, and a HD3450 for him to run two monitors on. Now at least he can start it and begin using it in a couple minutes, before it took 15. That was a partial list of the crap that started up, other things like, HP update, HP mouse driver, HP printer driver, AOL setup, etc... were other things put on by HP to annoy the fuck out of users. 

Was it Vista? No.
User was totally to blame, for first purchasing a $500 piece of shit computer, then for installing so much crap.


----------



## AsRock (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I agree with the analyst. People need to get over it. Vista is not a bad OS, and XP is getting long in the tooth. It's time to move on, so the developers do too.



Vista is fairly nice.  once the bugs are out should be a pretty nice OS.  I remember having those XP issue's. People need to stop saying XP suck Vista sucks as it's just so dam annoying.

Everyone's need are different along with expectations. I like Vista more than i did when beta's were out so it's getting there. Would i replace it with Vista cannot see that happening at this time.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 26, 2008)

jocksteeluk said:


> For myself XP was a true software upgrade, Vista on the other hand is a sidestep with very little benefit or improvement over xp and no doubt the majority of PC users would agree which is why Vista isn't doing so well.



What did Windows XP have that Windows 2000 didn't? Uses far less system resources than Windows XP does too.



Rebo&Zooty said:


> how about it blocking recording of tv shows when using its media center fetures?
> 
> http://www.betanews.com/article/EFF_says_Microsoft_is_complying_with_NBC_broadcast_flags/1211217801
> 
> a feture that was ruled ILLEGAL, and ms is using it to screw people using vista.......nice....guess MORE drm is a good thing tho, since the more drm they add the more it will limmit what your allowed to use their computer for....oh wait i mean your computer.....or wait.......basickly ms owns the system when ur in vista since they at will can fully dissable the OS leaving you with a large paperweight/brick......(check the licence, ms CAN do this and you cant sue for it)



Who uses Windows Media Center? Wouldn't it be a good idea to use the software that comes with your TV card? Hmmmmm...


----------



## jocksteeluk (May 26, 2008)

Wile E said:


> and who cares that MS releases an OS to make money? .



Who care? The Consumer cares!


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 26, 2008)

this just in....windows vista requires a faster cpu and more ram to run effeciently than windows xp! in other news...windows xp requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 2000! and in related news...windows 2000 requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 98! coming up on tpu news brief...windows 98 and 95 both require faster cpus and ram than dos 6!!! consumer outcry heard around the world!


----------



## kylew (May 26, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> What did Windows XP have that Windows 2000 didn't? Uses far less system resources than Windows XP does too.
> 
> 
> 
> Who uses Windows Media Center? Wouldn't it be a good idea to use the software that comes with your TV card? Hmmmmm...



When will people get over the system resources? WHY have RAM if you moan when it gets used? Seriously, these days you can pick up 4GB of RAM for under £50, you have NO reason to complain about it actually getting used. As for using software that comes with the TV card, I haven't found one yet that betters windows media centre. Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean a lot of others don't.


----------



## Megasty (May 26, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> this just in....windows vista requires a faster cpu and more ram to run effeciently than windows xp! in other news...windows xp requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 2000! and in related news...windows 2000 requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 98! coming up on tpu news brief...windows 98 and 95 both require faster cpus and ram than dos 6!!! consumer outcry heard around the world!



& yet the cycle continues...

But even still you know ppl will bitch about vista 2.0 when it does come out in 2-3 yrs. Hopefully by then ppl will have enough vista experience to not compare it to XP as well


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 26, 2008)

Here's an example of Vista doing something really good. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...s_despised_uac_nails_rootkits_tests_find.html
And to the ppl hatin on Vista because your hardware sucks\lacks drivers, that's not the fault of MS. I got one XP machine for a reason - to use Sony Acid Pro 6 and to use my AIW. Everything else is on my Vista rig.

EDIT: I TOO WAS A VISTA HATER UNTIL I TRIED IT.


----------



## kylew (May 26, 2008)

beyond_amusia said:


> Here's an example of Vista doing something really good. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...s_despised_uac_nails_rootkits_tests_find.html
> And to the ppl hatin on Vista because your hardware sucks\lacks drivers, that's not the fault of MS. I got one XP machine for a reason - to use Sony Acid Pro 6 and to use my AIW. Everything else is on my Vista rig.
> 
> EDIT: I TOO WAS A VISTA HATER UNTIL I TRIED IT.



Oh, wow, atleast you admit it. I wonder how many of the vista haters have actually used vista them selves?


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 26, 2008)

kylew said:


> Oh, wow, atleast you admit it. I wonder how many of the vista haters have actually used vista them selves?



Oh, I bet most have not used Vista... And those who have prolly used it on a demo PC at a store or on a low end POS with Home Basic.

And to ppl that installed Vista and hated it because it seemed slow - disable indexing and Windows Search. Also, it speeds up after a couple days of use.


----------



## farlex85 (May 26, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> this just in....windows vista requires a faster cpu and more ram to run effeciently than windows xp! in other news...windows xp requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 2000! and in related news...windows 2000 requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 98! coming up on tpu news brief...windows 98 and 95 both require faster cpus and ram than dos 6!!! consumer outcry heard around the world!



Haha, exactly. Its called progress. Its the same thing w/ everybody complaining about crysis. True, it wasn't perfect (graphically that is), but it is still the best looking thing you can run on your computer. I for one, am glad to know that some would rather push the boundries of what we can do rather than sit back and let things remain the way they are b/c some people whine they have to upgrade their systems. Resistance to change is an ugly thing sometimes.


----------



## jocksteeluk (May 26, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> What did Windows XP have that Windows 2000 didn't? Uses far less system resources than Windows XP does too.



you cans compare an office OS to a home user OS, a fairer comparison would be windows 98 to windows millennium as both were made for one market sector, Windows Xp to Vista is an Upgrade comparable to Windows 98se to Windows Millennium.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 26, 2008)

beyond_amusia said:


> And to ppl that installed Vista and hated it because it seemed slow - disable indexing and Windows Search. Also, it speeds up after a couple days of use.



i agree. when i first installed vista i did not like it. the interface felt awkward and it was pretty slow to respond to commands. but after a couple of days it speeded up. and yes, disable indexing and windows search also helps. the speedboost thing is supposed to help in some cases but i didnt recognize a difference.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 26, 2008)

kylew said:


> Oh, wow, atleast you admit it. I wonder how many of the vista haters have actually used vista them selves?



Ive used it for over a week.


----------



## Black Hades (May 26, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> i agree. when i first installed vista i did not like it. the interface felt awkward and it was pretty slow to respond to commands. but after a couple of days it speeded up. and yes, disable indexing and windows search also helps. the speedboost thing is supposed to help in some cases but i didnt recognize a difference.



Well I disable indexing on XP too  It's a waste of resources for most

 Also remove the hibernation function, turn off sys restore on all but the windows partition, uninstall the msn explorer, windows messenger, defrag my meta files/MFT/pagefile, etc


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

AsRock said:


> Vista is fairly nice.  once the bugs are out should be a pretty nice OS.  I remember having those XP issue's. People need to stop saying XP suck Vista sucks as it's just so dam annoying.
> 
> Everyone's need are different along with expectations. I like Vista more than i did when beta's were out so it's getting there. Would i replace it with Vista cannot see that happening at this time.



but they both really do suck, just one sucks more then the other currently.



jonmcc33 said:


> What did Windows XP have that Windows 2000 didn't? Uses far less system resources than Windows XP does too.
> 
> 
> Who uses Windows Media Center? Wouldn't it be a good idea to use the software that comes with your TV card? Hmmmmm...



xp had LUNA and system restore, thats about it, and luna as i said in the xp beta days makes me think "fisher price: my first pc" every time i see it.

and alot of cards today that come out "vista ready" pretty much FORCE you to use vista's bult in media center because it saves the  card maker $ they would spent bundling a vista compatable 3rd party app(many times the xp version dosnt work on vista or only works 1/2 way)  so yeah IF the card came with good VISTA COMPATABLE software thats one thing, but also why should you have to use or buy 3rd party software when one of the selling points for vista is that its got mediacenter built in?

thats like expecting people to HAVE to install opera or firefox for web browsing because ie refuses to load some webpages thanks to an illegal tag the page maker added.

or expecting the user to install 3rd party media player because wmp refuses to play videos because they are 720p/1080p and your videocard or its drivers are not certifyed by the mpaa for HD content(vista can do this.....wait and see they will endup forcing u to crack vista to fix it....and it effects 3rd party vista software not just wmp) and that 720p/1080p content could be HOME VIDEOS if somebody got a nice shieny new hd camcorder...........


my point is, why should the user have to hack their own system to get fetures that are advertised as selling points of the os?  if its got media center built in, then media center should work and follow the LAWS OF THE COUNRY ITS BEING USED IN!!!!



jocksteeluk said:


> you cans compare an office OS to a home user OS, a fairer comparison would be windows 98 to windows millennium as both were made for one market sector, Windows Xp to Vista is an Upgrade comparable to Windows 98se to Windows Millennium.



acctualy by the time XP came out ms had been "marketing" 2k as a home user alternitive for a while, mostly because ME was such a peice of shit and they had to do something.

xp is just 2k with alot of extra bloat piled on top, if you cant find 2k drivers for something, xp drivers work, if you cant find xp drivers for something 2k drivers work, just as 2003 uses xp or 2k drivers, same driver model and to me thats a good thing in my book, it means that i dont gotta feel like im having my nutz slamed in a cardoor every time i try and use some peice of hardware i have had around a couple years(vista dont like ALOT of hardware and dosnt have even generic drivers to support text printing on LTP printers.....every os pre vista has that even windows 3.0......... i know one buisness neer here had to have xp put back on their POS(point of sale) system because vista wouldnt work with their dot matrix printer, they used a generic epson driver from xp to set it up, its used with recepts that pring both a main recept and a carbon copy at same time, its sort of REQUIERED that it work, and a new dot matrix printer thats vista compatable, you wont belive the price, around $3000.00(yes 3k us dollers for an old ass dot matrix printer design thats got vista support) 

blah, what a crock.........see why buisnesses dont want to move to vista?  alot of them dont wana have to rebuy their hardware just because vista dosnt come with proper support for stuff they have.


----------



## Nitro-Max (May 27, 2008)

Im not buying it sounds like a pathetic plea for people to buy more until im happy with vista i wont instal it.
the move for alot of people means slower systems and more ram usage who in there right mind would welcome that?

why cant they carry on support for both systems? its what the public wants.


----------



## farlex85 (May 27, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> Im not buying it sounds like a pathetic plea for people to buy more until im happy with vista i wont instal it.
> the move for alot of people means slower systems and more ram usage who in there right mind would welcome that?
> 
> why cant they carry on support for both systems? its what the public wants.



For the same reason they don't continue support for the xbox, the ps1, n64, 1993 Chevy Silverado (model just came to mind), ect. They want your money, make no mistake. Welcome to the free market. And pushing technology forward is the norm for the pc market, and mostly, its a good thing it is. Enjoy the progress, be glad your not still playing original xbox quality games b/c users complained they had to upgrade to a new system to play the new stuff.....:shadedshu


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> For the same reason they don't continue support for the xbox, the ps1, n64, 1993 Chevy Silverado (model just came to mind), ect. They want your money, make no mistake. Welcome to the free market.




yes, they want your money. but they also don't have the resources to continue to innovate AND continue to support the older technologies.


----------



## Megasty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> yes, they want your money. but they also don't have the resources to continue to innovate AND continue to support the older technologies.



Exactly, it would take away from the progression of the newer tech as well. So its a 2-way street. I would rather see the new tech being improved instead of a dying horse being kept on life support.


----------



## farlex85 (May 27, 2008)

Megasty said:


> Exactly, it would take away from the progression of the newer tech as well. So its a 2-way street. I would rather see the new tech being improved instead of a dying horse being kept on life support.



Me too, me too.


----------



## Triprift (May 27, 2008)

Megasty said:


> Exactly, it would take away from the progression of the newer tech as well. So its a 2-way street. I would rather see the new tech being improved instead of a dying horse being kept on life support.



I coudnt of put it better myself xps had a great run just let it go gracefully.


----------



## Haytch (May 27, 2008)

XP needs a major overhaul.  Too many features to mention that should be implemented, all user selected ofcourse! A new operating system altogether was bound to happen, and i honostly believed the greater majority anxiously awaited its arrival.

The end result is that a ' dying horse ' is still outrunning the ' maturing hourse '. End users reserve the right to hold onto that which is working more stable, more secure & more efficient for aslong as it takes for Microsoft to get their act together.

I was on the phone to MS the other day, to validate my XP operating system after a hardware change. I inquired about a new operating system and was told that a new one would be out soon!
Like Windows ME came out after 98se, it couldnt compare to the older operating system.  Windows ME was the most pathetic resource hungry failure that was quickly replaced.

When i look at Vista, all i see is XP with half the resources being used for no reason and a really crappy theme. Gadgets that need to be removed, annoying messages, no user friendliness, and a pathetic media centre that is better replaced by 3rd party software.  Hardware & Software incompatibility, poor counterfeit protocols and so on.  Actually, Vista only has ONE good thing about it,  Direct X10, which is bullshit anyways. ( okais its not bullshit, because you can really see extra particles and the flames really move! )

MS really screwed up again, its a habit, maybe traditional, who cares.   Like we should drop XP, they should drop Vista. They both suck for the era we are in.

Im all for progress, so i say,  NEXT!


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> yes, they want your money. but they also don't have the resources to continue to innovate AND continue to support the older technologies.



not true, ms has 2-3 programing teams working on windows at a time, one working on patching older windows, 1 working on current windows, and one working on the next windows, now many times there are multi teams on each project, but its easyer to explain it as old-current-new then to explain that ms also has teams on IE patches and the new version of IE, Media Player, messenger apps, it goes on and on.

It dosnt harm the current windows for ms to give proper support to older versions, infact many times the security patches need done for both newer and older versions since ms is horrible about not fixing shit when its reported only when it becomes a problem(see the blaster and lovesan worms) 

really ms has plenty of resorces to develop 4+ versions of windows at the same time, the problem is that they spend to much time on shit like areo insted of acctual innovation and improoving the core os.....


im hoping strongly that with windows7 this changes, because if it dosnt, i see mac gaining alot of users, as well as linux/bsd and other alt os's, vista has already driven alot of people to noobuntu,linspire and xandros, its only gonna get worse if they keep headed in that same dirrection........

guess this is good news for the opensauce community, they are gaining users and market share due to ms's pusing out os's that many users dont want, and forcing them to buy xp again if they want to stick xp on the system insted of vista.........many ppl see 140-150 for OEM xp, and think "humm maby its time to try something new, i keep reading about noobuntu and linspire"


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> not true, ms has 2-3 programing teams working on windows at a time, one working on patching older windows, 1 working on current windows, and one working on the next windows, now many times there are multi teams on each project, but its easyer to explain it as old-current-new then to explain that ms also has teams on IE patches and the new version of IE, Media Player, messenger apps, it goes on and on.
> 
> It dosnt harm the current windows for ms to give proper support to older versions, infact many times the security patches need done for both newer and older versions since ms is horrible about not fixing shit when its reported only when it becomes a problem(see the blaster and lovesan worms)
> 
> ...



maybe in a perfect world. but the truth is money does not grow on trees. microsoft has shareholders to satisfy, therefore they dont have the resources to continue support on older technologies. they must innovate! that means they have to pull resources from older technology to new ones. it is basic business.


----------



## btarunr (May 27, 2008)

Yeah, innovation. Making and selling a tire tube with a thousand cuts, selling patches, if patches don't work, promise people the next tube they make is better, force them to buy the next tube, but turns out still has cuts, people are forced to live on with it. Reason being there is no compelling alternative to Windows, the way Phenom 9850 is to Q6600. So in a way we're slave to Microsoft, we have to pay for their software just as we pay taxes.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> maybe in a perfect world. but the truth is money does not grow on trees. microsoft has shareholders to satisfy, therefore they dont have the resources to continue support on older technologies. they must innovate! that means they have to pull resources from older technology to new ones. it is basic business.



but ms CANT do that, they would and will be sued if they fail to support xp, they can EOL sales, but buisness relys on extended support(support after sales end) check how long 2k or nt4 where supported after they where outmoded.

fact is ms HAS to support their older os's, if they dont large businesses that rely on that support will sue, then they will leave ms for unix/linux or mac, thats basic business, if you piss off your customer base, you dont have a customer base.

ms has more then enought $ to support xp+vista+develop windows 7, yes in the short term it will cost them $ but in the long run it makes them $, and i dont see ms as being quite so short sited as to shoot themselved in the nuts with a shotgun by dumping xp support.

there are alot of businesses that CANT move to vista, they use apps that WILL NOT WORK ON VISTA or hardware that WILL NOT WORK ON VISTA, many of those apps are custom apps that do not have upgraded versions OR if they have upgraded versions they arent compatable with backups/saves from older versions(more common then you would think, mostly done when a company also wants to sell their services converting a database for those who upgrade) 

if they dumped xp support, those clients would use xp till they couldnt use it anymore, as they looked for alternitives.

for example a local money management company around here recently started the move to linux, they are using WINE to run their old account management software, vista WOULDNT run it, and the company that made the softwares been out of buisness for years, it would cost alot to replace a system thats still plenty powerfull for what they do, so insted they asked some experts what they could do, a few options like keep xp and buy more licences and install it on the new systems you buy then pay for extended support after the support period from ms has officialy ended came up, BUT one of them said, why not try running your program in wine, it worked, a little tweaking and it worked flawless, now they have a custom build that they are slowly replacing windows with, its based on slackware's latist build, has all the apps they need built into the disk, oh yeah, and it will run smooth as silk on their current systems, so no need to upgrade old boxes.

oh and yes vmware/virtual pc was considered, but the cost of vmware was restrictive and virtual pc wasnt reliable with it, cant remmber then name of the program they use, but it was made for them spicificly by a software firm that nolonger excists( they closed down and where bought up by another company like 4-5 years ago) 

ms lost their buisness because they wouldnt sell them a large number of xp VLK's, the ms rep kept pushing them to move to vista because it was better, he didnt listen when they flat out told him and showed him that the app they use WILL NOT RUN ON VISTA, he insisted they needed to use vista.....

as in any buisness, if you dont listen to your customers, you loose them.......well other then the oil industry and tabaco, those 2 industrys can do whatever they want and people will keep buying.......


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 27, 2008)

kylew said:


> When will people get over the system resources? WHY have RAM if you moan when it gets used? Seriously, these days you can pick up 4GB of RAM for under £50, you have NO reason to complain about it actually getting used. As for using software that comes with the TV card, I haven't found one yet that betters windows media centre. Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean a lot of others don't.



What? I don't think you got the point of my post. 



Easy Rhino said:


> i agree. when i first installed vista i did not like it. the interface felt awkward and it was pretty slow to respond to commands. but after a couple of days it speeded up. and yes, disable indexing and windows search also helps. the speedboost thing is supposed to help in some cases but i didnt recognize a difference.



What? That's one of the best parts of Vista! It only indexes C:\Users by default anyway. It won't speed anything up.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Yeah, innovation. Making and selling a tire tube with a thousand cuts, selling patches, if patches don't work, promise people the next tube they make is better, force them to buy the next tube, but turns out still has cuts, people are forced to live on with it. Reason being there is no compelling alternative to Windows, the way Phenom 9850 is to Q6600. So in a way we're slave to Microsoft, we have to pay for their software just as we pay taxes.




you dont have to buy anything you dont want to. you choose to buy microsoft products.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> but ms CANT do that, they would and will be sued if they fail to support xp, they can EOL sales, but buisness relys on extended support(support after sales end) check how long 2k or nt4 where supported after they where outmoded.
> 
> fact is ms HAS to support their older os's, if they dont large businesses that rely on that support will sue, then they will leave ms for unix/linux or mac, thats basic business, if you piss off your customer base, you dont have a customer base.
> 
> ...



im not saying they pull all their resources. im saying that they pull some. they keep enough to honor their extended contracts. they cant support what they make forever. if they did they would be out of business because another company which just started up would have an advantage of not having to support older software. you see what im saying?


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

a lot of you have missed the point. you whine because vista does not perform as well as windows xp using the same hardware to run applications and games. but every new OS requires higher specs because of consumer demand for functionality and accesibility. you want vista to be better than XP at running applications? then you do it. you start coding and see how it goes. oh whats that? you dont know how to code? then how can you possibly complain about something you dont have the ability to change. you can either buy it or not. that is your role as the consumer. if enought people dont buy it then microsoft will get the message and their next OS will address those problems. but dont expect some miracle OS that will never crash and run crysis at 1,000 FPS on ultra high settings. i dont see the point of all this complaining. you are wasting your energy.


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 27, 2008)

Just watch, people will cling to Vista like they cling to XP now when Windows 7 comes out.  lol.
On the other hand, they may leap from XP to Windows 7.... As of now, an install of windows 7 M1 requires an upgrade from Vista, so MS may just give the XP lovers the finger and say "vista to 7 only, not XP to 7"  lol.  Then again, there is always a clean install...


----------



## Wile E (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> so if i tell you that xp,2k,2k3,x64pro, and any version of linux/unix would record that program without a problem your gonna say thats not vistas fault.
> 
> and no there wasnt a work around, i did a little research, the only "fix" is to find 3rd party software to use, and why would you buy a vista media system then want to buy 3rd party software in order to beable to use it for what you bought it for?
> 
> ...


Ummm, output can be disabled on XP as well. Both audio and video, just like Vista.

But like I said, that's easily defeatable, on either os. Again, not a good argument.

And why do you keep brining up extended support for corporations? We all know corporations have different needs than standard desktop users. That's not the scope of this article, and just another red herring for you to try and use to make Vista look bad.


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 27, 2008)

Corperations have lots of money, so they can afford new PCs; they are just cheap bastards.


----------



## Haytch (May 27, 2008)

The main issue here is that they are asking XP users to ' get over it '.
Better hardware required to keep up with XP ?  So the better hardware will run better on XP!
Vista is shit, everyone knows it, they even know it!  They are already over it, and are bringing out the new o.s very very soon. Vista was a marketing strategy to elude users to making a purchase, most making a dual purchase back to XP. MS won big time, so did their shareholders.

Windows7 seems promising as did XP after the many versions between XP PRO & 98se. I have no doubt that the majority of windows users will jump from XP to Windows7.  I just hope they dont kill this one too.  Please let me pick what i want to install because i cbf pulling it apart and putting together my own version.


----------



## tkpenalty (May 27, 2008)

Okay, this is what I'll do. I'll pirate a copy of Vista, try it out with the fully fledged updates, then I'll think about purchasing vista. Or I'll go back to XP.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 27, 2008)

Windows 7 looks just like vista to me,i reckon it'll just be a tweaked version of vista named windows 7 to pull in the vista haters.They'll just change/remove the stuff the vista haters did'nt like.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> Okay, this is what I'll do. I'll pirate a copy of Vista, try it out with the fully fledged updates, then I'll think about purchasing vista. Or I'll go back to XP.



that is what i did. i at first went back to xp, but then i wanted to try dx10 gaming so i switched to vista and am loving it now.


----------



## farlex85 (May 27, 2008)

Haytch said:


> The main issue here is that they are asking XP users to ' get over it '.
> Better hardware required to keep up with XP ?  So the better hardware will run better on XP!
> Vista is shit, everyone knows it, they even know it!  They are already over it, and are bringing out the new o.s very very soon. Vista was a marketing strategy to elude users to making a purchase, most making a dual purchase back to XP. MS won big time, so did their shareholders.
> 
> Windows7 seems promising as did XP after the many versions between XP PRO & 98se. I have no doubt that the majority of windows users will jump from XP to Windows7.  I just hope they dont kill this one too.  Please let me pick what i want to install because i cbf pulling it apart and putting together my own version.



Its strange, someone would say something like everybody knows vista is shit, even when there are plenty of people saying they love it.  Its also still just rumours about windows 7, Bill Gates said something, Microsoft themselved denied it, who knows. The main issue of the article is that there is no real reason to dislike vista at this point other than simple lack of knowledge and bias, something that has become pretty clear in this thread I think; and that this vista hate and xp clinging is causing the progression of the new os and new features to be a slow one. Case and point, dx10, which should have more games by now, but developers are scared to put them on their games as a nessecity for fear there will be lots of complaints from xp owners. Make them make vista better, don't ask them to keep an outdated os lacking the features trying to drive us forward.


----------



## erocker (May 27, 2008)

Why doesn't Bill Gates just come out and bluntly say "Make your own O/S or just STFU!"?  Most of my computer illiterate friends love Vista.  I don't love it, but it works.  After I set it up the way I like it, my machine doesn't know the difference.  Well... Except for my RAM.


----------



## jtleon (May 27, 2008)

*Gots to horn in....*



DrPepper said:


> I like vista alot and even though people complain about driver crashes it happens on xp too, anyway usualy I put up with it until there is a fix.



I suppose U wouldn't care if your VISA transaction crashed....U now owe 20x more in your next statement....no prob right?  U'll pay it and wait for the bank to pay U back right?

As we are already computer dependent, RELIABILITY is the RULE...not the OPTION!!!

LOL
jtleon


----------



## jtleon (May 27, 2008)

*What the heck?!?...I can't believe my eyes....*



Easy Rhino said:


> yes, they want your money. but they also don't have the resources to continue to innovate AND continue to support the older technologies.



Rhino,

So Ur saying MS is going broke, right?  That $43BILLION CASH offer to buy Yahoo was totally smoke & mirrors?

With all respect Rhino....you gots to read a newspaper or watch TV occasionally!

LOL
jtleon


----------



## Wile E (May 27, 2008)

jtleon said:


> I suppose U wouldn't care if your VISA transaction crashed....U now owe 20x more in your next statement....no prob right?  U'll pay it and wait for the bank to pay U back right?
> 
> As we are already computer dependent, RELIABILITY is the RULE...not the OPTION!!!
> 
> ...



You missed the point of his statement I think. He was saying that XP is just as prone to get bad drivers as Vista.


----------



## jtleon (May 27, 2008)

*OK...So screw the XP customer base...right?*



Wile E said:


> I agree with the analyst. People need to get over it. Vista is not a bad OS, and XP is getting long in the tooth. It's time to move on, so the developers do too.



Hmmm.....I feel rather sympathetic for you Wile E.  I know I'm not smart...as all the experts that disagree with you!

http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...-ignored-as-businesses-wait-for-windows-7.htm

But You keep up the good fight!!!!

LOL
jtleon


----------



## Megasty (May 27, 2008)

Just how much longer do you think MS will support XP? 1 yr..2, come on. XP is already 7 friggin yrs old. Its not going to last forever just like desktop based computing isn't. A GUI isn't everything. OS's are becoming more average user friendly by the second. XP was a buggy POS when it first came out & so was vista. Only time healed XP wounds & the same will happen with vista. MS never corrected most problems with its "new" OS's while they were still "new". Grab vista while you can so you can see its development firsthand b4 the next buggy POS arrives.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

jtleon said:


> Rhino,
> 
> So Ur saying MS is going broke, right?  That $43BILLION CASH offer to buy Yahoo was totally smoke & mirrors?
> 
> ...



with all due respect, you don't understand business. microsoft has a ton of money. they also have a ton of competition because microsoft is more than just an operating system. they own stock in a lot of other companies and they make business deals all the time. it is a competitive world. do you want microsoft to continue to fully support windows 95 because there might be people out there that have 12 year old computers? of course not. sometimes companies need to push forward in order to stay ahead of everyone else. so that means that they have to pull resources from older programs in order to continue growing at the rate their shareholders expect. their shareholders want them to innovate because that is how you make money. sure, they could pay all sorts of money to continue supporting windows 2000 and XP but that would slow them down. you and i dont know their situation. perhaps this is a pivatol moment for them. regardless, if you think you can do better, then by all means start your own software company.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Megasty said:


> Just how much longer do you think MS will support XP? 1 yr..2, come on. XP is already 7 friggin yrs old. Its not going to last forever just like desktop based computing isn't. A GUI isn't everything. OS's are becoming more average user friendly by the second. XP was a buggy POS when it first came out & so was vista. Only time healed XP wounds & the same will happen with vista. MS never corrected most problems with its "new" OS's while they were still "new". Grab vista while you can so you can see its development firsthand b4 the next buggy POS arrives.



i agree. it is amazing how short term our memories are. XP was GARBAGE when it came out. now it is great. it took years to work out all the problems. quality drivers were especially scarce. my guess is that most of the people on here are in their mid-teens so they dont really know of the time that XP sucked and windows 2000 was all the rage. hell! i even remember people complaining about windows 2000 and they wanted better support for windows 98


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> a lot of you have missed the point. you whine because vista does not perform as well as windows xp using the same hardware to run applications and games. but every new OS requires higher specs because of consumer demand for functionality and accesibility. you want vista to be better than XP at running applications? then you do it. you start coding and see how it goes. oh whats that? you dont know how to code? then how can you possibly complain about something you dont have the ability to change. you can either buy it or not. that is your role as the consumer. if enought people dont buy it then microsoft will get the message and their next OS will address those problems. but dont expect some miracle OS that will never crash and run crysis at 1,000 FPS on ultra high settings. i dont see the point of all this complaining. you are wasting your energy.



acctualy it dosnt REQUIER higher hardware to improove an os, as can be shown with a decent linux distro(noobuntu is effectivly vista in linux flavor.....heavy on resorces and slow) 

check out vectorlinux soho unsing enlitenment, if you want a flashy gui, its got it, if you want speed even on OLD ASS HARDWARE that wouldnt even run windows XP, guess what YOU GOT IT!!!! no joke, i have done it, and it works, so this "you need to force hardware upgrades to add fetures/functionality/accessability.

fact is MS COULD DO IT, but they dont because they want to insure you buy a new puter every couple years, and this is im sure enlarge to keep their pockets full, not just via hardware sales but you know that the higher up's in ms do invest in hardware maker stocks, so its good for them if your forced to buy 16gb ram and a 4ghz quadcore and a 500gb, as well as a 512mb dx10 videocard in order to run their next os, because it insures they make money off the software and off then investments in hardware makers, woot woot guess thats all for the best in  your eyes tho.



Haytch said:


> The main issue here is that they are asking XP users to ' get over it '.
> Better hardware required to keep up with XP ?  So the better hardware will run better on XP!
> Vista is shit, everyone knows it, they even know it!  They are already over it, and are bringing out the new o.s very very soon. Vista was a marketing strategy to elude users to making a purchase, most making a dual purchase back to XP. MS won big time, so did their shareholders.
> 
> Windows7 seems promising as did XP after the many versions between XP PRO & 98se. I have no doubt that the majority of windows users will jump from XP to Windows7.  I just hope they dont kill this one too.  Please let me pick what i want to install because i cbf pulling it apart and putting together my own version.



hell even bill gates effectivly admited that vista sucks, need proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a2zqRc1jvs

yeah, thats a ringing indorcement for their new os aint it, the owner of the company effectivly saying it sucks and is unpolished.........



Wile E said:


> Ummm, output can be disabled on XP as well. Both audio and video, just like Vista.
> 
> But like I said, that's easily defeatable, on either os. Again, not a good argument.
> 
> And why do you keep brining up extended support for corporations? We all know corporations have different needs than standard desktop users. That's not the scope of this article, and just another red herring for you to try and use to make Vista look bad.



you dont read well do you?

under xp IF ms dissabled video output the would be open to lawsuits and WOULD LOOSE, the eula dosnt allow it, under vista it does and it also allows "degraded playback" of media if ms/mpaa/riaa dont like your hardware, for the love of god READ what i said.

as to corp users, alot of people cant deal with their home system and work system being diffrent, you got no idea how many people i have seen get their vista machien put back to xp simply because they cant deal with the diffrances, im not saying ppl like us couldnt, but alot of computer MORONS/AOL users cant coap with things not being the same in both places, i even heard one lady at best buy paying geek squad to install xp for her say that was her reasion, she liked vistas look, but couldnt deal with how diffrent it was from her system at work, so she bought xp online and payed geeksquad like 280bucks to install it for her(stupid ppl make geeksquad rich......) 

but you dont see that, you see, "vista is newer, so vista is better, woot woot for vista, everybody should change now!!!"

Also something about xp, im not an xp fan, its been a headake for me to deal withdue to botched critical hotfixes (untested shit that breaks drivers or bsod loops ppls systems) but its still better then the experiance with vista i have had to date, and if you read its EULA, well the xp eula is far more forgiving and kind to the end user then vista's.

you know in vista you arent even allowed to "trouble shoot" os spicific problems/limmitations and find workarounds?  yeah thats in there, if you do that, you just broke your contract and they can dissable your system if they like leaving you with a very expencive paperweight.....NICE!!!!



beyond_amusia said:


> Just watch, people will cling to Vista like they cling to XP now when Windows 7 comes out.  lol.
> On the other hand, they may leap from XP to Windows 7.... As of now, an install of windows 7 M1 requires an upgrade from Vista, so MS may just give the XP lovers the finger and say "vista to 7 only, not XP to 7"  lol.  Then again, there is always a clean install...



who cares?  its stupid to "upgrade" anyway, you just endup with more problems and a buggyer slower system if you do an "upgrade" from one version of windows to another.....




erocker said:


> Why doesn't Bill Gates just come out and bluntly say "Make your own O/S or just STFU!"?  Most of my computer illiterate friends love Vista.  I don't love it, but it works.  After I set it up the way I like it, my machine doesn't know the difference.  Well... Except for my RAM.



because even he feels vista is unpolished crap?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a2zqRc1jvs



Megasty said:


> Just how much longer do you think MS will support XP? 1 yr..2, come on. XP is already 7 friggin yrs old. Its not going to last forever just like desktop based computing isn't. A GUI isn't everything. OS's are becoming more average user friendly by the second. XP was a buggy POS when it first came out & so was vista. Only time healed XP wounds & the same will happen with vista. MS never corrected most problems with its "new" OS's while they were still "new". Grab vista while you can so you can see its development firsthand b4 the next buggy POS arrives.



http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&p1=3223&x=19&y=8

try till 4/8/2014


----------



## erocker (May 27, 2008)

jtleon said:


> Hmmm.....I feel rather sympathetic for you Wile E.  I know I'm not smart...as all the experts that disagree with you!
> 
> http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...-ignored-as-businesses-wait-for-windows-7.htm
> 
> ...



I don't see or hear any experts.


----------



## jtleon (May 27, 2008)

*Rhino...Do U work for MS?*



Easy Rhino said:


> ....sure, they could pay all sorts of money to continue supporting windows 2000 and XP but that would slow them down. you and i dont know their situation. perhaps this is a pivatol moment for them. regardless, if you think you can do better, then by all means start your own software company.



All sorts of money???    A fully matured product does not cost "All sorts of money" to maintain support!!!

Understand that operating systems are perfected by the USER...not MS.  That is called BETA testing....and for W2K and WXP that BETA testing has been ongoing for the past 8+ years..and continues as I write this message.  That why we have SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4...and on and on.

You also need to face the FACT that MS is an extremely profitable company---Primarily due to the success of 2000/XP over these 8+ years.  MS has all the liquid they need to maintain these products for 20+years.....without even feeling a pin prick!

Finally, there is no TRUE competitor for MS Windows....except for MS itself---basically MS management dropped the ball with VISTA----this has been the biggest downfalls of all monopolies/dictatorships in history-----self destruction!!!

I do appreciate Your enthusiasm Rhino - keep researching this issue - don't just take my word for it!

Regards,
jtleon


----------



## Megasty (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> try till 4/8/2014



I'm talking about full blown support as in patches. It'll be dead in a year. Happy EOL XP


----------



## jtleon (May 27, 2008)

*Age descrimination.....for SHAME!!!!*



Easy Rhino said:


> ......*my guess is that most of the people on here are in their mid-teens* so they dont really know of the time that XP sucked and windows 2000 was all the rage. hell! i even remember people complaining about windows 2000 and they wanted better support for windows 98



Dude....a very big mistake on your part!!!!

LOL
jtleon


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> acctualy it dosnt REQUIER higher hardware to improove an os, as can be shown with a decent linux distro(noobuntu is effectivly vista in linux flavor.....heavy on resorces and slow)
> 
> check out vectorlinux soho unsing enlitenment, if you want a flashy gui, its got it, if you want speed even on OLD ASS HARDWARE that wouldnt even run windows XP, guess what YOU GOT IT!!!! no joke, i have done it, and it works, so this "you need to force hardware upgrades to add fetures/functionality/accessability.
> 
> fact is MS COULD DO IT, but they dont because they want to insure you buy a new puter every couple years, and this is im sure enlarge to keep their pockets full, not just via hardware sales but you know that the higher up's in ms do invest in hardware maker stocks, so its good for them if your forced to buy 16gb ram and a 4ghz quadcore and a 500gb, as well as a 512mb dx10 videocard in order to run their next os, because it insures they make money off the software and off then investments in hardware makers, woot woot guess thats all for the best in  your eyes tho.



stop being silly. i was using enlightenment on freebsd back in 1999. i know all about streamlined GUIs on light operating systems. you are comparing apples and oranges. microsoft isnt making their operating systems more complicated to appease hardware manufacturers, they are doing it to continue supporting EVERYTHING available. that is not an easy task. why do you think OSX runs so well? because it is a closed system that only supports specific hardware and software. vista is available to anyone. any manufacturer can apply of a license and get ahold of the code and create their hardware to work with vista. that is an enormous task on microsofts part to continue to support thousands of companies on both the hardware and software side. so please stop with the BS.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> with all due respect, you don't understand business. microsoft has a ton of money. they also have a ton of competition because microsoft is more than just an operating system. they own stock in a lot of other companies and they make business deals all the time. it is a competitive world. do you want microsoft to continue to fully support windows 95 because there might be people out there that have 12 year old computers? of course not. sometimes companies need to push forward in order to stay ahead of everyone else. so that means that they have to pull resources from older programs in order to continue growing at the rate their shareholders expect. their shareholders want them to innovate because that is how you make money. sure, they could pay all sorts of money to continue supporting windows 2000 and XP but that would slow them down. you and i dont know their situation. perhaps this is a pivatol moment for them. regardless, if you think you can do better, then by all means start your own software company.



but you fail to take into account that ms was and still is making $ off XP sales, and they avoided for many years having to "innovate" by keeping xp working well for the majority of buyers, its cheaper to keep a current system up to date then it is to "innovate" a new one, the thing is that vista isnt really innovation, its simply a moded version of server 2003 pro with a max inspired gui........thats not innovation, its a hack job as bill would admit if he didnt want to tank vista sales 



Easy Rhino said:


> i agree. it is amazing how short term our memories are. XP was GARBAGE when it came out. now it is great. it took years to work out all the problems. quality drivers were especially scarce. my guess is that most of the people on here are in their mid-teens so they dont really know of the time that XP sucked and windows 2000 was all the rage. hell! i even remember people complaining about windows 2000 and they wanted better support for windows 98



drivers wherent the problem, the fact xp like vista was put out early, both where in a beta stage, xp at least tho didnt break half the apps people use on a daily basis......

drivers, well 2k drivers where quite mature by then, and xp uses 2k drivers so...the only ppl that had issues finding mature drivers where the ones who couldnt read up and understand that xp is just 2k with more crap slaped ontop, same kinda ppl who insist that server 2003 cant game because there are no drivers for it  (2003 uses 2k/xp drivers.....) 

vista was pushed out a good bit early, they should have waited, kept the open beta going, work out the buggs, then put vista out in an SP1 stage for retail, sales would have been far better by then, hardware makers would have had drivers ready, and alot of the population would have already been using it and addicted to it.


----------



## Megasty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> i agree. it is amazing how short term our memories are. XP was GARBAGE when it came out. now it is great. it took years to work out all the problems. quality drivers were especially scarce. my guess is that most of the people on here are in their mid-teens so they dont really know of the time that XP sucked and windows 2000 was all the rage. hell! i even remember people complaining about windows 2000 and they wanted better support for windows 98



 the transition between dos & win 3.1 was the most traumatic for me. People were complaining about how 95 & 98 was the same, how ME was BS, how 2000 was just going back to 98 after the ME mistake, & how XP was a buggy POS based on the BSOD. So I guess its nothing new but just when are they going to get over it


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> stop being silly. i was using enlightenment on freebsd back in 1999. i know all about streamlined GUIs on light operating systems. you are comparing apples and oranges. microsoft isnt making their operating systems more complicated to appease hardware manufacturers, they are doing it to continue supporting EVERYTHING available. that is not an easy task. why do you think OSX runs so well? because it is a closed system that only supports specific hardware and software. vista is available to anyone. any manufacturer can apply of a license and get ahold of the code and create their hardware to work with vista. that is an enormous task on microsofts part to continue to support thousands of companies on both the hardware and software side. so please stop with the BS.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10kg2aSB8q4&feature=related

IF you used it in 99 you where using a far older version then is avalable now, thats like saying "i used explorer back in 1995" when windows explorer has evolved alot since then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10kg2aSB8q4&feature=related

yeah so your just got pwnt for saying you gotta make things run worse on the same hardware to get nice gui fx, thats a load of crap, acctualy watch the videos, they show things people ooooo and aaaaaaahhhhh about in vista, but done without high end hardware, the first video can be done on a 266mhz p2 with 208mb ram and a 4mb trident videocard......try that with anything ms has made......

as to osx running well, yes closed platform helps, BUT osx is just a variant of bsd, and bsd if setup properly will run just as well, maby not as flashy (well till u dig around and find the mac gui/window managers that are avalable for it) 

as stated, ms makes $ on both software they sell and the hardware thats sold due to their investments in said companys, they have a vestedintrest in forcing you to buy a new computer or upgrade your current one.


----------



## jtleon (May 27, 2008)

erocker said:


> I don't see or hear any experts.



Hmmmm....maybe your eyes & ears are due for a check up....

Here's a bit more on the matter.....read carefully.

http://www.dailytech.com/Companies+...+On+Vista+Wait+For+Windows+7/article11778.htm

LOL
jtleon


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Megasty said:


> the transition between dos & win 3.1 was the most traumatic for me. People were complaining about how 95 & 98 was the same, how ME was BS, how 2000 was just going back to 98 after the ME mistake, & how XP was a buggy POS based on the BSOD. So I guess its nothing new but just when are they going to get over it



most of the crying i saw and heard about 2k vs 9x was due to people not understanding the os they moved to, the fact that it wasnt based on 9x at all, i had to many times explain that tho it looked the same/simlar it wasnt even close to the same under the hood.

comparing 9x with nt core is like comparing a windup toy with a sports car.........(since ppl here like car annaligys.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> but you fail to take into account that ms was and still is making $ off XP sales, and they avoided for many years having to "innovate" by keeping xp working well for the majority of buyers, its cheaper to keep a current system up to date then it is to "innovate" a new one, the thing is that vista isnt really innovation, its simply a moded version of server 2003 pro with a max inspired gui........thats not innovation, its a hack job as bill would admit if he didnt want to tank vista sales



technically that is innovation. and yes, i understand the shortcomings of vista, but it is no different than any of the other microsoft operating systems before it. the fact that people were suprised by vistas early problems is retarded. 




> drivers wherent the problem, the fact xp like vista was put out early, both where in a beta stage, xp at least tho didnt break half the apps people use on a daily basis......
> 
> drivers, well 2k drivers where quite mature by then, and xp uses 2k drivers so...the only ppl that had issues finding mature drivers where the ones who couldnt read up and understand that xp is just 2k with more crap slaped ontop, same kinda ppl who insist that server 2003 cant game because there are no drivers for it  (2003 uses 2k/xp drivers.....)
> 
> vista was pushed out a good bit early, they should have waited, kept the open beta going, work out the buggs, then put vista out in an SP1 stage for retail, sales would have been far better by then, hardware makers would have had drivers ready, and alot of the population would have already been using it and addicted to it.



hindsight is 20/20. and XP was just as bad as vista was during its transition. it is true that history changes over time.


----------



## erocker (May 27, 2008)

Hmm.  Eyes.  Check!  Ears... Check!   Nope, no problems there.  Please don't insult my listening and visual skills.   Personally, I like basing the information I give out to people from my own personal experiences.  Not by what some journalist writes on a website.  You can throw all the links you want at me.  Fact of the matter is, It's my job to keep 20+ computers going all of which run either XP or Vista.  I'm comfortable using either O/S and can make either of them run like I want.  If you feel like you need to listen to the "professionals" go right ahead mate!


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqfxJWHUrek&NR=1

another great enlitenment e17 demo video


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> technically that is innovation. and yes, i understand the shortcomings of vista, but it is no different than any of the other microsoft operating systems before it. the fact that people were suprised by vistas early problems is retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovation

in·no·va·tion  (n-vshn)
n.
1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced.

innovation 
Noun
1. something newly introduced, such as a new method or device 
2. the act of innovating


i dont see how copyed fetures of another os are innovation.........

thats like saying rubber tires are an innovation because you painted ur name on the side of them....


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10kg2aSB8q4&feature=related
> 
> IF you used it in 99 you where using a far older version then is avalable now, thats like saying "i used explorer back in 1995" when windows explorer has evolved alot since then.



i have been using freebsd since version 3.0 was released. my gui of choice was enlightenment which didnt run very well believe it or not. instead i used fluxbox and programed the gui myself. 



> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10kg2aSB8q4&feature=related
> 
> yeah so your just got pwnt for saying you gotta make things run worse on the same hardware to get nice gui fx, thats a load of crap, acctualy watch the videos, they show things people ooooo and aaaaaaahhhhh about in vista, but done without high end hardware, the first video can be done on a 266mhz p2 with 208mb ram and a 4mb trident videocard......try that with anything ms has made......
> 
> as to osx running well, yes closed platform helps, BUT osx is just a variant of bsd, and bsd if setup properly will run just as well, maby not as flashy (well till u dig around and find the mac gui/window managers that are avalable for it)



yes i have seen all the great things linux OSs can do. that isnt a surprise. that has nothing to do with my point that vista is geared to work for the average person which means sacrificing code for functionality for users and accesability for hardware manufacturers and software developers. if it were as simple as you make it out to be then MS would have surely done it by now. but microsoft has a different agenda, and it isnt to force people to buy their OS. you can buy a MAC or you can install ubuntu. both work very well in the office and at home. however both dont have the massive support infrastruture MS has. 



> as stated, ms makes $ on both software they sell and the hardware thats sold due to their investments in said companys, they have a vestedintrest in forcing you to buy a new computer or upgrade your current one.



yea they have a vested interest. what is your point? that microsoft shouldnt try to make money?


----------



## jtleon (May 27, 2008)

*Apologies goin out!*



erocker said:


> Hmm.  Eyes.  Check!  Ears... Check!   Nope, no problems there.  Please don't insult my listening and visual skills.   Personally, I like basing the information I give out to people from my own personal experiences.  Not by what some journalist writes on a website.  You can throw all the links you want at me.  Fact of the matter is, It's my job to keep 20+ computers going all of which run either XP or Vista.  I'm comfortable using either O/S and can make either of them run like I want.  If you feel like you need to listen to the "professionals" go right ahead mate!



Erocker....Wile E....

I ask your forgiveness for my crassness in earlier posts of this thread.  I am sure your tribulations with VISTA have only drawn it closer to your hearts.  There is a saying in the US Military...goes something like this.....That with which you suffer most...you love most.  Take my wife.....for example!

Regards,
jtleon


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovation
> 
> in·no·va·tion  (n-vshn)
> n.
> ...



vista does introduce a whole slew if new features. have you seen the code? and i believe you are confusing invention with innovation. to invent something is to create something totally new while innovation is to introduce something new into something that already exists.


----------



## Megasty (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> most of the crying i saw and heard about 2k vs 9x was due to people not understanding the os they moved to, the fact that it wasnt based on 9x at all, i had to many times explain that tho it looked the same/simlar it wasnt even close to the same under the hood.
> 
> comparing 9x with nt core is like comparing a windup toy with a sports car.........(since ppl here like car annaligys.



That's their problem. People usually only go by looks rather than performance at first. That's why they get stuck with lemons. The only thing about MS OS's are that they are junk when they first come out no matter how long they are worked on b4 release. MS has no idea how normal folks will perceive their junk. That's why they embedded feedback protocols into the newer OS's. MS gets over 10 million crash reports a day & 90% of them are for the same thing. The only way MS can make vista better is to figure out how many fault lines of code are making the same thing happen over & over again. Too bad that doesn't give them any idea on how to fix it but its a start


----------



## Wile E (May 27, 2008)

jtleon said:


> Hmmm.....I feel rather sympathetic for you Wile E.  I know I'm not smart...as all the experts that disagree with you!
> 
> http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...-ignored-as-businesses-wait-for-windows-7.htm
> 
> ...



Show me, at what point, did I say that corporations should move to Vista? I'm not stupid. I know corporations have very different needs compared to home users. Changing any API can completely render their programs useless, most of which are mission critical for them.

I am, and have been, speaking of the general computer using populace.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Show me, at what point, did I say that corporations should move to Vista? I'm not stupid. I know corporations have very different needs compared to home users. Changing any API can completely render their programs useless, most of which are mission critical for them.
> 
> I am, and have been, speaking of the general computer using populace.



but you come off as do most vista fanatics, as saying  everybody shoudl switch now and trash all older os's because vista is new and its the best.

at least thats how you come off to me from what you have said.

and ms's main $ maker is not home users, its buisness contracts, and they put out an os that big busness dosnt want, because it breaks things they need.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> vista does introduce a whole slew if new features. have you seen the code? and i believe you are confusing invention with innovation. to invent something is to create something totally new while innovation is to introduce something new into something that already exists.



those fetures are not invented or innovated, they are COPYED, check around, its like when people like you and wileE tryed to say system restore was a great innovative microsoft invention, when they(ms) got sued over it because they flat out STOLE It from another company.........


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

jtleon said:


> Erocker....Wile E....
> 
> I ask your forgiveness for my crassness in earlier posts of this thread.  I am sure your tribulations with VISTA have only drawn it closer to your hearts.  There is a saying in the US Military...goes something like this.....That with which you suffer most...you love most.  *Take my wife*.....for example!
> 
> ...



no thanks you can keep her  

(sorry m8 but i had to, you left that one wide open)


----------



## Wile E (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> acctualy it dosnt REQUIER higher hardware to improove an os, as can be shown with a decent linux distro(noobuntu is effectivly vista in linux flavor.....heavy on resorces and slow)
> 
> check out vectorlinux soho unsing enlitenment, if you want a flashy gui, its got it, if you want speed even on OLD ASS HARDWARE that wouldnt even run windows XP, guess what YOU GOT IT!!!! no joke, i have done it, and it works, so this "you need to force hardware upgrades to add fetures/functionality/accessability.
> 
> ...



You can argue all you want, but full definition video is disabled with BD in XP if you don't either have full HDCP compliant hardware, or unless you remove the drm. There was also a workaround by using VGA connectors instead of DVI on both OSes, but I'm not sure that still works. I don't give a shit what the EULA says, that's the way it is.

And I'm tired of this argument with you. Yeah, we get it, you don't like Vista. But you still haven't provided anything valid to prove it's a bad OS. You can bash Vista all you want. The fact is, you don't have much experience with it. All you are doing is rehashing things you've heard on the internet, most of which, like buggy code and instability, has been taken care of. So have the performance issues. The only valid point brought up in this thread so far, is the way Vista handles audio.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> those fetures are not invented or innovated, they are COPYED, check around, its like when people like you and wileE tryed to say system restore was a great innovative microsoft invention, when they(ms) got sued over it because they flat out STOLE It from another company.........



im sure some lines are copied, but that doesnt mean the whole OS is a copy. also, i never said system restore was good. i never use system restore. and companies shouldnt steal from one another. btw, i am not a vista fan boy. i only use vista because of dx 10 support ( a point i have made abundantly clear in a number of other 'vista sucks' posts.) i am not even a microsoft fan boy. i will however argue with people who think vista sucks. if you dont like it then that is fine. you dont have to use it, just continue to use XP or try a MAC or linux. or you can write your own OS. what i dont like is how some people think it is sooooo easy to put together an OS that not only is easy to use for the PC newb and powerful enough for the PC veteran, but also supports every single chipset made and about to be made and every bit of hardware created. and to continue that support for years  and years while developing updates and created a new operating system geared for the next generation. the author of the article is right. get over your vista hate!


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Wile E said:


> And I'm tired of this argument with you. Yeah, we get it, you don't like Vista. But you still haven't provided anything valid to prove it's a bad OS. You can bash Vista all you want. The fact is, you don't have much experience with it. All you are doing is rehashing things you've heard on the internet, most of which, like buggy code and instability, has been taken care of. So have the performance issues. The only valid point brought up in this thread so far, is the way Vista handles audio.



wile e, you forgot the most important reason vista sucks. because it is microsoft  i guess some people just have an axe to grind.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You can argue all you want, but full definition video is disabled with BD in XP if you don't either have full HDCP compliant hardware, or you remove the drm. There was also a workaround by using VGA connectors instead of DVI on both OSes, but I'm not sure that still works. I don't give a shit what the EULA says, that's the way it is.
> 
> And I'm tired of this argument with you. Yeah, we get it, you don't like Vista. But you still haven't provided anything valid to prove it's a bad OS. You can bash Vista all you want. The fact is, you don't have much experience with it. All you are doing is rehashing things you've heard on the internet, most of which, like buggy code and instability, has been taken care of. So have the performance issues. The only valid point brought up in this thread so far, is the way Vista handles audio.



its only dissabled with windows media player under pre vista os's and you cant play dvd or bd content with WMP unless you buy a 3rd party decoder because ms dosnt include one with the os, i have seen full quility 1080p movies played off a pre vista laptop onto an hdtv using the dvi port NO hdmi support in this laptop mind you, just windvd installed, no anydvd or the like no cracking, just an external db drive(usb) connected to the laptop and windvd8 used for playback(windvd 7 also works but they guy got 8 free with the bd drive)  

so your xp is as limmited in media playback unless u crack it line of shit isnt working here.....

as to the vga thing, yes it still works using a VGA cable was a consession the mpaa had to make because ms pointed out they couldnt force people to buy monotors that where hdcp enabled, ms acctualy did something smart in that case, because alot of people would have told them where to stick it if they couldnt use their current monotor(if i spent 500-600bucks on a 22-24in high range crt and was told i had to buy another one because the mpaa said so....well u can guess what i and most of us would say....well other then you, you would just happly run out and get an hdmi/hdcp monotor)

oh and wileE you also fail to note that when they lock down playback quility via windows patches based on videocard or drivers not being approved, this effects ALL content, be it home movies, anime, or fraps stuff you yourself recorded, so it would effect you even if you dont have an HD player/drive in your system(b4 any of you twats try and point out that HD-DVD is dead, yes i know i ment HD as in High Def, that covers HD-DVD, BluRay and some other formats as well.) 

i know i need to use vista for a year b4 i have a right to say anything bad about it.....fuck that.


----------



## jtleon (May 27, 2008)

*Did MS reinstate OpenGL Support in Vista?*

Can anyone confirm that VISTA SP1 now supports OpenGL?  I had heard otherwise.

Regards,
jtleon


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 27, 2008)

Dunno,but i did find this pic of some windows bog roll to give you vista hters a laugh.


----------



## Wile E (May 27, 2008)

jtleon said:


> Can anyone confirm that VISTA SP1 now supports OpenGL?  I had heard otherwise.
> 
> Regards,
> jtleon


OpenGL has been working in Vista.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> im sure some lines are copied, but that doesnt mean the whole OS is a copy. also, i never said system restore was good. i never use system restore. and companies shouldnt steal from one another. btw, i am not a vista fan boy. i only use vista because of dx 10 support ( a point i have made abundantly clear in a number of other 'vista sucks' posts.) i am not even a microsoft fan boy. i will however argue with people who think vista sucks. if you dont like it then that is fine. you dont have to use it, just continue to use XP or try a MAC or linux. or you can write your own OS. what i dont like is how some people think it is sooooo easy to put together an OS that not only is easy to use for the PC newb and powerful enough for the PC veteran, but also supports every single chipset made and about to be made and every bit of hardware created. and to continue that support for years  and years while developing updates and created a new operating system geared for the next generation. the author of the article is right. get over your vista hate!



i didnt mean you spicificly i ment people like you and him who insist newer is better......

its not that i hate vista, i hate how vista works and feels, IF they  where to get it out of the "feels like a beta" stages i wouldnt mind it, but i CANT stand how clunky it feels, yes even after sp1 i have used it on my buddys lappy(he had me update it since his home net is 128k dsl and my nets 5mbit)  it still to me feels unpolished, like its not quite there, i know, i must not have ever used it in order to not like it tho........

as to copyed code, i didnt mean it copyed lines or code, but your talking as if fetures ms emplimented where new exciting ms inventions, and ms dosnt invent or innovate 99% of the time, they COPY, i used system restore as an expample because its the easyist one to point out that EVERYBODY knows about, ms got sued over it, they flat out copyed it and put that copy in ME then tweaked it a bit and put it in xp..........it was harolded by mags and online sites and forums posters as an incrediable innovation/invention, but it wasnt even a good copy job, as the 3rd party software had less buggs and didnt lockdown and backup viruses(if a backup was infected you could clean it!!!) 

i understand better then most why windows has the issues it has, back in the super7 and socketA days the biggist plauge on me and the shops i worked for where cheap via based motherboards, jesus, 99/100 times if somebody brought in a buggy amd system it was because the board was a cheap(or in some cases expencive) via based board, swap it out for any other chipset and bam no more problems.........

and i have said for years that the only reasion that mac's use to have less problems then cheap/poorly built pc's was that they had VERY limmited hardware, yet in my experiance they had just as many problems as a decently built pc, if not more due to their os being a PITA.....

god i dont miss those days, at least today via isnt making chipsets for amd market, and the few being used are "ok" as long as u dont tweak them 

If vista ever gets to a point where to me it dosnt feel clunky and most of my apps will work, then i will use it, till then, why would i want to trade rock solid stable and fast for vista?


----------



## Wile E (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> its only dissabled with windows media player under pre vista os's and you cant play dvd or bd content with WMP unless you buy a 3rd party decoder because ms dosnt include one with the os, i have seen full quility 1080p movies played off a pre vista laptop onto an hdtv using the dvi port NO hdmi support in this laptop mind you, just windvd installed, no anydvd or the like no cracking, just an external db drive(usb) connected to the laptop and windvd8 used for playback(windvd 7 also works but they guy got 8 free with the bd drive)
> 
> so your xp is as limmited in media playback unless u crack it line of shit isnt working here.....
> 
> ...


You are just wrong. I've also seen it with my own 2 eyes that HD playback does not work in XP without HDCP (not HDMI) hardware. It happens on my secondary system. I just chose to defeat the drm, rather than buying an HDCP monitor. Most HDTVs are HDCP compatible. It's also possible that his lappy supports HDCP. HDCP works over DVI as well.

And I have yet to see any other content blocked on Vista, other than DRM content. That's just a load of BS.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> Dunno,but i did find this pic of some windows bog roll to give you vista hters a laugh.



somebody get me some of that!!!!


----------



## Cold Storm (May 27, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> Dunno,but i did find this pic of some windows bog roll to give you vista hters a laugh.



I just want the Quad Core in the back!!!! 


I've tried Vista in early October, with a AMD 3000+ and x1650 pro... I got it running, but the card got so hot that it was bsod every 15 mins of it running.... But, when I set up my new rig, I haven't turned back... I went xp for a few weeks because I was testing something.... but I rather have Vista, and won't tell another person not to. Its something new that you have to get a handle with... I'm a Chef at a Hospital... Every 3 months I have to change the way I do things because of how HCA thinks things are... So, learning a new os was cake walk compared to how many steps it takes to cut piece of meat..


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> i didnt mean you spicificly i ment people like you and him who insist newer is better......
> 
> its not that i hate vista, i hate how vista works and feels, IF they  where to get it out of the "feels like a beta" stages i wouldnt mind it, but i CANT stand how clunky it feels, yes even after sp1 i have used it on my buddys lappy(he had me update it since his home net is 128k dsl and my nets 5mbit)  it still to me feels unpolished, like its not quite there, i know, i must not have ever used it in order to not like it tho........
> 
> ...




i agree that vista is not perfect. give it 2-3 more years and it will be very close. it took that long for XP to get that way. but by then windows 7 may be out so who knows. that is fine that you dont use vista since you dont like it, but i havnt had any real problems with it so i use it. mainly because i like dx 10 gaming. the good news is that linux distros are making serious inroads in the OS department. maybe in 4-5 years we will have an actual contender to take down microsoft from their OS pedistal.


----------



## kylew (May 27, 2008)

jtleon said:


> Hmmm.....I feel rather sympathetic for you Wile E.  I know I'm not smart...as all the experts that disagree with you!
> 
> http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...-ignored-as-businesses-wait-for-windows-7.htm
> 
> ...



Wow, some people just don't understand that their *opinion* is NOT fact, just an opinion, a misguided, misinformed and biased opinion. :shadedshu


----------



## kylew (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> somebody get me some of that!!!!



You do realise that it's most probably made from tracing paper? Are you sure you want that? Maybe you need to wipe all that BS from around your mouth.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

kylew said:


> Wow, some people just don't understand that their *opinion* is NOT fact, just an opinion, a misguided, misinformed and biased opinion. :shadedshu



maby you need to look in the mirror, everything you said there applys to you from our point of view..


----------



## PaulieG (May 27, 2008)

I have NO intention in reading this entire thread. I wil say though, that I've been running Vista Ultimate 64bit for the last month. I have found it quite fast and efficient. No problems or lags at all. It also looks better than XP ever did. Just my 2 cents. I do run XP on my second rig though, just in case.


----------



## kylew (May 27, 2008)

What's funny is how people are bashing vista so badly, yet the people who are defending it aren't actually saying anything against XP. People need to seriously get over this, it's an OS, we're not talking about taking your air from you and giving you CO2 to breathe instead.  I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the bashers really haven't used vista, and they're going off what they've read on the internet. The only issue vista has would be the way it handles audio, as already mentioned, and that's not even an issue to me. If you actually used vista, you'd realise it's very stable, and can avoid crashes very easily. The only BSODs I get with vista are when something's faulty, or I've overclocked too high. Everything else is solid, and if something crashes, vista will recover or stop it. If you people applied this mentality in life, you'd end up getting heavily laughed at, or sectioned for believing your opinion is the ultimate fact regardless of your level of experience with said thing.


----------



## kylew (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> maby*e* you need to look in the mirror, everything you said there appl*ie*s to you from our point of view..



HAHAHAHA  *points and laughs* 

Seriously, what are you even on about? What is it that I'm biased about? What am I misguided about? So, is it my opinion that vista only bsods when it's a hardware issue or I've overclocked too much? MAYBE It's just an opinion that it doesn't crash for me, maybe it actually DOES, but I'm so misguided that I'm convinced it doesn't. Is it my opinion that vista runs well and stable for me, ie, no crashes unless it's a hardware fault? That can never be an opinion, it either does or it doesn't. I'm not even against XP, i prefer vista, but I've used XP for years previously. I think your argument has got to the point that you don't actually where your influences from what you've read  starts, and your opinion ends. 

You need to back up onto a broom handle wrapped in coarse sand paper.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

kylew said:


> What's funny is how people are bashing vista so badly, yet the people who are defending it aren't actually saying anything against XP. People need to seriously get over this, it's an OS, we're not talking about taking your air from you and giving you CO2 to breathe instead.  I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the bashers really haven't used vista, and they're going off what they've read on the internet. The only issue vista has would be the way it handles audio, as already mentioned, and that's not even an issue to me. If you actually used vista, you'd realise it's very stable, and can avoid crashes very easily. The only BSODs I get with vista are when something's faulty, or I've overclocked too high. Everything else is solid, and if something crashes, vista will recover or stop it. If you people applied this mentality in life, you'd end up getting heavily laughed at, or sectioned for believing your opinion is the ultimate fact regardless of your level of experience with said thing.



again this applys to you not just us, look in the mirror, your stateing that your oppenion that vista is great as fact.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 27, 2008)

kylew said:


> HAHAHAHA  *points and laughs*
> 
> Seriously, what are you even on about? What is it that I'm biased about? What am I misguided about? So, is it my opinion that vista only bsods when it's a hardware issue or I've overclocked too much? Is it my opinion that vista runs well and stable for me, ie, no crashes unless it's a hardware fault? That can never be an opinion, it either does or it doesn't. I'm not even against XP, i prefer vista, but I've used XP for years previously. I think your argument has got to the point that you don't actually where your influences from what you've read  starts, and your opinion ends.



see, i have said this for years, when somebody cant win an "argument" on the net with logic they turn to personal attacks or spelling/grammer attacks, in this case he has turned to both attacking me personaly and attacking my spelling/grammer



kylew said:


> You do realise that it's most probably made from tracing paper? Are you sure you want that? Maybe you need to wipe all that BS from around your mouth.





how mature.......


----------



## kylew (May 27, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> see, i have said this for years, when somebody cant win an "argument" on the net with logic they turn to personal attacks or spelling/grammer attacks, in this case he has turned to both attacking me personaly and attacking my spelling/grammer
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, so... You didn't actually answer anything from my post. How is it an opinion that my installation of vista doesn't crash? It either does, or doesn't. Opinions come in to play when there's more than 2 out comes, true or false. Look at binary, 1 or 0. Your opinion will be if you like the taste of something, but some one else doesn't, there's nothing to govern if that will be definite yes or definite no. As for "attacking" your spelling and grammar, it's quite painful to read some of your posts because of how much you've butchered up your words. My OPINION is that your typing is pretty bad to look at, maybe others aren't bothered, but that's their OPINION, see how it works? FACT = your spelling and grammar is bad OPINION = it looks bad to me, some won't be bothered. Are you beginning to understand how it works now? 

Just because YOU don't like vista (though I highly doubt you've used it, and you'll give the reason for not using it is that it's a POS, which just goes around in a circle), yet you feel the need to let everyone who likes vista, know that you don't like it, and that they shouldn't like it. No one's told you to like vista, they've just corrected you when you spew rubbish that you will have most probably not experienced yourself as if it's 100% fact. Vista being rubbish is OPINION, you don't like it, fair enough. Just SHUT UP telling everyone they're wrong for liking it. You're going on as if people are saying there's something wrong with you for liking XP.

No one else is expressing opinion as fact. merely letting you know that these issues you believe to be real are actually FUD and the only problem you could actually count that you've made reference to is the audio. Think about it like this: The radeon 2900, when it came out wasn't up to speed, it was hot, slow and struggled with AA and AF, few months down the line, better drivers and even the release of the 3800s, these issues are dampened by quite a bit to the point where this AA "problem" is quite minimal. Now, you can't say this is opinion as there are benchmarks to indicate a lot of these issues have been resolved. Now what you're doing is clinging on to problems you've read about, and not even willing to consider the possibility that these issues will be or have been sorted. Fine, these issues used to be an issue, they've been fixed, get over it now.

I'm overwhelmed by the passion some people have about software, especially when they appear to be so set in their ways. Take a moment to remind yourself of your own hobby, ever moving, ever changing. Why complain about change? It's not inflicted or forced upon you. If vista was forced upon you, then maybe you'd have point, but as it is, it's optional, it always will be. You don't ever have to install it if you really don't want to.

As for those people petitioning for the XP extension, what happened to their beloved copies of XP? They don't need MORE do they? People need to let go of the old otherwise progress is being inhibited.


----------



## Steevo (May 28, 2008)

jtleon said:


> All sorts of money???    A fully matured product does not cost "All sorts of money" to maintain support!!!
> 
> Understand that operating systems are perfected by the USER...not MS.  That is called BETA testing....and for W2K and WXP that BETA testing has been ongoing for the past 8+ years..and continues as I write this message.  That why we have SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4...and on and on.
> 
> ...




Wow, and all this time I thought XP has been a fully released OS, not a RTM, or Beta, or partial release. Then again, perfected by users? What perfected to run with shit software?

Crap software installed by know nothing users, things like P2P clients with spyware and adware, but when their system slows they blame XP as people unkowingly make broad strokes of assumptions based on a small amount of personal experiance?

Take Windows XP alone, with no other programs installed. Does it work. Yes.

Now install a piece of crap software that was coded using unsecure connections and other means of working, install a security software, and when it doesn't work blame XP/Vista. Was it the OSs fault? No. User/software coding was at fault. But it is easier to blame the biggest target. 


So everything you said, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.......


----------



## kylew (May 28, 2008)

Steevo said:


> Wow, and all this time I thought XP has been a fully released OS, not a RTM, or Beta, or partial release. Then again, perfected by users? What perfected to run with shit software?
> 
> Crap software installed by know nothing users, things like P2P clients with spyware and adware, but when their system slows they blame XP as people unkowingly make broad strokes of assumptions based on a small amount of personal experiance?
> 
> ...



This is the same logic people use to bash anything they don't like. I've seen many people bash something because it "doesn't work", regardless of if it's actually set up correctly or not, the fact that they aren't satisfied means that it's rubbish. I've seen people set things up wrong, then moan that they aren't getting the right result that they want, but then they're not willing to re-do it the way that works, but still want to label it as rubbish. Run a clean XP and a clean Vista, they're both be very stable, once you introduce third party apps, badly coded ones too, and you're obviously not gonna get the best results. It's like blaming windows because your PC is messed up due to limewire (most people with sense steer clear of this now), but a lot of others will be adamant that it's, the OS for example.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 28, 2008)

Steevo said:


> Wow, and all this time I thought XP has been a fully released OS, not a RTM, or Beta, or partial release. Then again, perfected by users? What perfected to run with shit software?
> 
> Crap software installed by know nothing users, things like P2P clients with spyware and adware, but when their system slows they blame XP as people unkowingly make broad strokes of assumptions based on a small amount of personal experiance?
> 
> ...



RTM is "full" from ms's point of view, and its true that with ms software even after its "full" you spend years beta testing it so they can patch buggs, the diffrance between ms "full" and many other companys full is that other companys "full" tend to have less buggs and be more mature when they go retail.

as to the crapware problem, this is true, BUT mac's have crapware, and so does linux(tho in far smaller numbers) and you dont see them bsoding due to poorly coded apps faulting out, im no mac/linux lover, but i do see their strong points, *nix core is far more resilant then windows tends to be, an app can crash out and not take anything else with it, in windows, yes even vista i have seen apps crash and take other stuff with them.

one friend of mine kept having windows live messenger crash, it would take other apps with it under vista, including ms office 2007, well patching didnt fix it, reinstalling didnt fix it, and he needed MSN/WLM for work(its what they use in his company to communicate)  so after alot of screwing around he gave up and called microsoft, they had him do everything we already tryed, then said  he should reinstall vista and see if that fixed it........

he gave up, installed 2k3(he got a free copy from the ms rep at the same time i did) its working fine, hes still waiting to hear back on the error ticket he submited that night, he has a backup on his external hdd of the install incase they can fix it, (true image rocks) 

cant really blame him, but im sure from the vista fanatics point of view this never happened and ms never admited there are weird buggs with vista.
and bill gates mr.microsoft himself never effectivly said vista sucks.


----------



## Polaris573 (May 28, 2008)

I think that's enough of flaming each other.


----------

