# Microsoft Spins Over a 'Mojave' Approach to Grow Vista User-base



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2008)

Choice is a wonderful thing. Informed Choice is even better, where you choose something after knowing its inside-outs. The very opposite of informed choice is dogma, where you rigidly oppose something and stick to your beliefs. Incidentally, dogma seems to be one of the significant factors keeping users away from embracing Windows Vista OS, of what can be inferred from an experiment by Microsoft in San Fransisco, United States. A group of Windows XP users having negative impressions on Windows Vista were introduced to a "new" operating system they referred to as "Mojave". User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken. A surprising 90 percent of these users gave positive feedback on this new OS. They were later told that the new OS was nothing else but Windows Vista.

Despite Microsoft releasing numerous updates and fixes to the Vista OS making it a fairly stable, reliable OS close to expectations if not exactly on par, it seems to be mass dogma that's keeping users away from adopting this new OS. Going back to that experiment, a user is reported to have exclaimed "Oh wow", something Microsoft expected users to do with the new OS originally, as portrayed in those numerous television and print commercials going with the tag line "wow". Following the recent announcement of a huge budget allocation towards propagating Vista (covered here) for home and enterprise segments, the message being sent out is that Microsoft is not only being aggressive but also proactive.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 25, 2008)

Definitely, this is just backing up what many of us have already known. Like I have said before, I think this current go-round has suffered due to the overwhelming strength of the internet, where everybody's opinion matters. People bad-mouth vista to where it's a trend, and people who don't even know about it say they dislike it.

Did these people disguise vista in some way? Its funny to me that 90% of them had such little knowledge of vista they couldn't even recognize it. That's just great.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 25, 2008)

those 90% must have been some dumb people to not see vista was vista, I still stand firm saying that I hate vista because the more powerful your machine is the more power vista will suck from it with the exact same settings in my experience


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

> ...Spurred by an e-mail from someone deep in the marketing ranks.... The subjects were put on video, asked about their Vista impressions, and then shown a "new" operating system, code-named Mojave...


Where is the video?  Why isn't that available along with the report?  We need to see the desktop of the OS used, what they were told, signs, banners, billboards, etc.  Also, how was it determined that they were pro XP?  Come on, there is no proof this ever happened, lol.  There were no reporters there to witness this event and they are only going off some marketing email?  Hello??


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Where is the video?  Why isn't that available along with the report?  Come on, there is no proof this ever happened, lol.  There were no reporters there to witness this event and they are only going off some marketing email?  Hello??



Why would they show the video? This is a market survey not a scientific test. Reporters are not typically present during market research. It's microsoft, so you never know, but this is the kind of trend I personally would expect to see w/ what I've encountered personally.


----------



## Selene (Jul 25, 2008)

This just what most of us have been saying, ppl bashing vista never even used it.
Vista 64 SP1 is better then XP SP3 IMO, i have 4 PCs in my house 1 Vista64 SP1, 1 Vista HP SP1, 2 XP SP3.
I use the 2 vista PCs way more then the XP ones, mostly due to them being old, but they do get used every day, by my wife and kids.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 25, 2008)

Vista is fine. People always attack it for what they don't understand. All problems I encountered with Vista were easily fixed within minutes. The more security layers and services you put into something its only natural for it to be more resource heavy than the alternatives. I maintain a large network that includes dual booting Laptops(Mac OSX/Vista). I prefer Vista over OSX and XP. All of our machines are upgraded on an annual cycle. I encountered more problems with XP than Vista.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Why would they show the video? This is a market survey not a scientific test. Reporters are not typically present during market research. It's microsoft, so you never know, but this is the kind of trend I personally would expect to see w/ what I've encountered personally.



If there is no proof, it didn't exist.  Just take it with a grain of salt when the email came from their own marketing department instead of a neutral 3rd party. 
Also:
-no information of how they determined someone to be Pro XP
-the video showing the desktop of the OS in question. Also the entire atmosphere of the enviroment
-etc


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> If there is no proof, it didn't exist.



Ok well you go on thinking that. All market research is conducted in the same fashion, the only difference is sometimes it's done by a third party which could be said to be less biased, to simply say it doesn't exist is rather presumptuous and biased on your part. Of course you take what comes from a company about their own product w/ a grain of salt, but like I said, I've encountered attitudes this article shows on an everyday basis at work and on the internet.


----------



## mlee49 (Jul 25, 2008)

Wow when you have to trick the user's to think its something else and have a Major Ad Campain to promote Vista something just comes across funny.

I haven't worked with it, but I realize it's not for my system.  I'm good with XP and when I upgrade my computer(hardware) I'll figure out the best os for my needs.


----------



## narnia (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Where is the video?  Why isn't that available along with the report?  Come on, there is no proof this ever happened, lol.  There were no reporters there to witness this event and they are only going off some marketing email?  Hello??



no need for market research. I work for a computer shop and majority of our customers dont like vista. I asked whats wrong with it and they couldnt come up with an answer...They just said friends tell them it sucks and they've never actually tried it. Go figure  Word of mouth can be good and also be bad..:shadedshu


----------



## alexp999 (Jul 25, 2008)

I find vista faster and more stable than my XP ever was. Vista actually speeded up my grandparents PC which at the time was a P4 with 512mb of ram.

I went back to XP for a little while and hated it, came stright back to vista, there are more BSOD cus XP cant recover its drivers and programs like vista can.

i dont understand all these people that hate it.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Ok well you go on thinking that. All market research is conducted in the same fashion, the only difference is sometimes it's done by a third party which could be said to be less biased, to simply say it doesn't exist is rather presumptuous and biased on your part. Of course you take what comes from a company about their own product w/ a grain of salt, but like I said, I've encountered attitudes this article shows on an everyday basis at work and on the internet.



-This kind of research is normally conducted by a independent 3rd party that has no bias.  That did not happen but came directly from their marketing department.  

-They tricked people into thinking this was something that it's not.  That's not a blind study as it only induced bias in the survey that it was some other product

-They claim they have video of it but isn't shown

There is simply to many holes in this so called study to hold any valid claims that it exist.  Also, the methods that were written in the email are questionable at best.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 25, 2008)

mlee49 said:


> Wow when you have to trick the user's to think its something else and have a Major Ad Campain to promote Vista something just comes across funny.
> 
> I haven't worked with it, but I realize it's not for my system.  I'm good with XP and when I upgrade my computer(hardware) I'll figure out the best os for my needs.



Most ad campaigns are designed to trick you into buying something you don't need, nothing really new about that  Anyway took a risk and installed vista x64 and omg it is so fricken sleek  Nothing major wrong with it apart from Arma which needed patched and that was all. Performance in games is incredible and my apps like internet explorer (Hated it until vista64) now load up quite fast so overall vista = 10/10 from me.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> -This kind of research is normally conducted by a independent 3rd party that has no bias.  That did not happen but came directly from their marketing department.
> 
> -They tricked people into thinking this was something that it's not.  That's not a blind study as it only induced bias in the survey that it was some other product
> 
> ...



Again, it's not a scientific study. There is no need for "blinds." Companies conduct their own market research all the time. They wouldn't show the video, there is no need for it. It's not scientifically sound, who cares, the biases are not made up, I see it all the time, I'm just repeating myself.........


----------



## narnia (Jul 25, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Again, it's not a scientific study. There is no need for "blinds." Companies conduct their own market research all the time. They wouldn't show the video, there is no need for it. It's not scientifically sound, who cares, the biases are not made up, I see it all the time, I'm just repeating myself.........



agree


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Again, it's not a scientific study. There is no need for "blinds." Companies conduct their own market research all the time. They wouldn't show the video, there is no need for it. It's not scientifically sound, who cares, the biases are not made up, I see it all the time, I'm just repeating myself.........



Basic information of:
-how these results were obtained
-environment in which the results were taken
-what the OS's desktop looked like
-how they determined someone is Pro XP or otherwise
-etc
matters because it can help validate or invalidate this report based on the evidence presented.  You can choose to believe it based on an email from their own marketing department.  I choose not to believe it because it's "just" an email from their marketing department.  And, I question their methods of how the survey is conducted.  At this point we can only agree to disagree.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 25, 2008)

narnia said:


> no need for market research. I work for a computer shop and majority of our customers dont like vista. I asked whats wrong with it and they couldnt come up with an answer...They just said friends tell them it sucks and they've never actually tried it. Go figure  Word of mouth can be good and also be bad..:shadedshu



thats the issue i have with family members refusing to try vista. My moms laptop is Vista her first words when she got it was "Phillip can you put XP on it" without ever tring it. Thankfully HP didnt have drivers on there website for her laptop that are XP certified so i convinced her i can't, though i could have easily gotten them from Nvidia for her laptop lol. She now enjoys vista, but its simply the word on Vista is its crap. The Truth is you can't judge a peice of software by its release bugs, if we did, no one would use XP either, any remember the BSOD every other day on XP Gold. or the daily updates to get it stable?


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> It matters because it validates this report.  You can choose to believe it based on an email from their own marketing department.  I choose not to believe it because it's "just" an email from their marketing department.  And, I question their methods of how the survey is conducted.  At this point we can only agree to disagree.



its the same thing other compaines did. Blind Tastes tests with Pepsi Vs Coke in the 80's showed that die hard coke drinkers that hated Pepsi prefer Pepsi over Coke, they didnt know which cola they where drinking though. The users in this test where in the same situation they thought they where getting to try maybe windows 7 and thought it was amazing, same situation


----------



## narnia (Jul 25, 2008)

I built my mom a pc 5 months ago with XP Pro...then she bought a brand new notebook a month ago with Vista premium. Guess what she told me...she said she like vista much better than the XP and she asked me if i could install Vista on her main computer.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> its the same thing other compaines did. Blind Tastes tests with Pepsi Vs Coke in the 80's showed that die hard coke drinkers that hated Pepsi prefer Pepsi over Coke, they didnt know which cola they where drinking though. The users in this test where in the same situation they thought they where getting to try maybe windows 7 and thought it was amazing, same situation



I recall those studies and they didn't put up billboards/banners say "Pepsi" when they were drinking Coke. A blind study is just that, blind.  The subject isn't aware of what they are taking.  Nor are they influenced in any way that it's one product over another.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> It matters because it validates this report.  You can choose to believe it based on an email from their own marketing department.  I choose not to believe it because it's "just" an email from their marketing department.  And, I question their methods of how the survey is conducted.  At this point we can only agree to disagree.



If you hate Microsoft so much and distrust their methods just use Linux. Microsoft has alot of restraint and does not lack virtue compared to other companies their size. Almost all large companies have done bad things on a much larger scale. Bill Gates gives massive amounts of money to charity just like Warren Buffet. I think people just like giving Microsoft a hard time.

Their are many massive corporations I genuinely hate, Microsoft just isn't one of them.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> If you hate Microsoft so much and distrust their methods just use Linux. Microsoft has alot of restraint and does not lack virtue compared to other companies their size. Almost all large companies have done bad things on a much larger scale. Bill Gates gives massive amounts of money to charity just like Warren Buffet. I think people just like giving Microsoft a hard time.
> 
> Their are many massive corporations I genuinely hate, Microsoft just isn't one of them.



Don't lie about what I said.  I never said I hated anyone or anything.  I said that when you conduct surveys like this if you want "me" to believe it there must be something to validate it other then an email from it's marketing department.  
-independent survey from a neutral party
-how these results were obtained
-environment in which the results were taken
-what the OS's desktop looked like
-how they determined someone is Pro XP or otherwise
-etc


----------



## timta2 (Jul 25, 2008)

Well, except those taste tests were a marketing scam. There is no way that someone would not be able to identify which soda was which, unless they had never had them. This was even more true back in the early 80s before soda used High Fructose Corn Syrup.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

timta2 said:


> Well, except those taste tests were a marketing scam. There is no way that someone would not be able to identify which soda was which, unless they had never had them. This was even more true back in the early 80s before soda used High Fructose Corn Syrup.



There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 25, 2008)

you cant have an OS with a blank name that wont work


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> you cant have an OS with a blank name that wont work



So, they would have to know it was Vista to begin with.


----------



## Jansku07 (Jul 25, 2008)

32-bit Vista Home Premium (damn OEM machines - never gonna buy them again) works like a charm for me. Windows boots quickly and shutdowns in 15 seconds (how can it be so fast) compared to XP that took almost a minute. Only two bad freezes is a whole lotta better compared to old Dell XP machine that bugged once or twice a week. I prefer Vista to XP, atleast in new machines. My friend on the other hand hates Vista, so IMO it's a matter of opinion.


----------



## zithe (Jul 25, 2008)

Did they test extremely ADHD children for this?


----------



## Wshlist (Jul 25, 2008)

I'm sure many people object to vista for silly reasons, and they don't really care about what's under the hood and such, but that won't negate the objections of informed people, and saying something is 'great' because others are saying so because they repeat stuff is no better than saying something suck based on no information.
The truth is that there are actually people that don't ever come across bugs or missing features or badly implemented stuff, be it in vista or xp or linux, that drive others rightfully  mad.
In regards to vista I'd like to point out that many experts and businesses dislike big parts of it, and these aren't cases of people just imitating discontent but people who deal with the nitty-gritty, and not just a flashy media-center interface, and find it lacking.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 25, 2008)

zithe said:


> Did they test extremely ADHD children for this?



Thats what I was thinking, in MOST surveys they tell you more than just the people came from San Francisco, they tell you sex, ethnicity, age, etc but all they tell you except the locations are that we have videos and don't show them.

I actually tried to install vista on the main computer back home and guess what, my (programmer)mother hated it, my (lawyer)father hated it and my sister didn't really care


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 25, 2008)

KainXS said:


> Thats what I was thinking, in MOST surveys they tell you more than just the people came from San Francisco, they tell you sex, ethnicity, age, etc but all they tell you except the locations are that we have videos and don't show them.
> 
> I actually tried to install vista on the main computer back home and guess what, my (programmer)mother hated it, my (lawyer)father hated it and my sister didn't really care



I made every pc in the house upgrade to vista  They didn't complain and if they do they will get linux and be told to f off.


----------



## Wshlist (Jul 25, 2008)

In regards to people that say vista is great and xp gave them lots of bluescreens: you are typically the kind of person vista is designed for, people who manage to bluescreen xp massively should have taken control away from them like vista does and magically things improve, it's true yes, for you vista is better, but that is not an absolute.


----------



## narnia (Jul 25, 2008)

Wshlist said:


> I'm sure many people object to vista for silly reasons, and they don't really care about what's under the hood and such, but that won't negate the objections of informed people, and saying something is 'great' because others are saying so because they repeat stuff is no better than saying something suck based on no information.
> The truth is that there are actually people that don't ever come across bugs or missing features or badly implemented stuff, be it in vista or xp or linux, that drive others rightfully  mad.
> In regards to vista I'd like to point out that many experts and businesses dislike big parts of it, and these aren't cases of people just imitating discontent but people who deal with the nitty-gritty, and not just a flashy media-center interface, and find it lacking.



Majority of big businesses that dont want to switch to vista are concerned  with cost and comapatibility. Our company uses 8 yr. old computers and servers and it will take tons of $$$$ (we're talking couple of hundred thousands) to switch to vista. As far as compatibility. It will take time to get that right and thats with evrey software thats new and being released.

also, if im the owner of our business right now, i wouldnt switch either  eventhough are servers and computers are almost 10 yrs. old. Its running perfect right now and why waste hundreds of thousands just to switch. Even if vista or another OS was running perfectly. Just doesnt make sense business wise to spend all that money for a new OS


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 25, 2008)

narnia said:


> Majority of big businesses that dont want to switch to vista are concerned  with cost and comapatibility. Our company uses 8 yrs. old computers and servers and it will take tons of $$$$ (we're talking couple of hundred thousands) to switch to vista. As far as compatibility. It will take time to get that right and thats with evrey software thats new and being released.



Jesus 8 year old computers? Is the IT department asleep at the wheel or is management have a coke habit. 

Upgrade cycles should atleast be no larger than 4 years and thats really pushing it.


----------



## narnia (Jul 25, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Jesus 8 year old computers? Is the IT department asleep at the wheel or is management have a coke habit.
> 
> Upgrade cycles should atleast be no larger than 4 years and thats really pushing it.



yeah, im not exaggerating. i was checking it out about a week ago and they are super old but it gets the job done  no need for those fancy cards or multiple cpu cores


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 25, 2008)

Wshlist said:


> In regards to people that say vista is great and xp gave them lots of bluescreens: you are typically the kind of person vista is designed for, people who manage to bluescreen xp massively should have taken control away from them like vista does and magically things improve, it's true yes, for you vista is better, but that is not an absolute.



XP bluescreened me alot and I wouldn't say it was my fault, because of its age its more prone to virus' etc and the likes and that comment might be offensive to some, I found it rather insulting 
On a bit of an unrelated note I think windows 7 should have 64bit only support anyone agree ?


----------



## narnia (Jul 25, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> XP bluescreened me alot and I wouldn't say it was my fault, because of its age its more prone to virus' etc and the likes and that comment might be offensive to some, I found it rather insulting
> On a bit of an unrelated note I think windows 7 should have 64bit only support anyone agree ?



yeah, we need to move on to 64 bit only. forget the 32 bit...im really serious about this people. We really need to just move on


----------



## zithe (Jul 25, 2008)

narnia said:


> yeah, im not exaggerating. i was checking it out about a week ago and they are super old but it gets the job done  no need for those fancy cards or multiple cpu cores



Is it even pentium!?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 25, 2008)

lol i love how the people who hate vista are arguing over the way the tests were conducted, while all the vista non-haters are saying they've seen this exact trend.

I had a vista hater too, got him on my PC. told him it was XP with a vista theme. he started ranting about how vista runs so slow compared to XP, and even with my 'theme pack' how much faster my rig was...

seriously. the vista haters have never even bothered. i'm surprised they ever got onto XP... unless that was the first OS they ever used as well.


90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.


----------



## IcrushitI (Jul 25, 2008)

Mussels said:


> 90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.



I agree, when it first came out my advice to my customers was to wait till vista sp1. I just finished putting vista 32 on my lappy and Vista 64 on my desktop, with an image backup of my fav xpsp3. So far so good tweaked the heck out of it for speed as I did with xp, so far I like the improvements.
 Only complaint so far is Crysis crashes when I try to play maultiplayer, single player works fine. Event viewer says an atiXXX32 file is the problem and I know I loaded up the 64 bit ati drivers. Also Crysis won't save my setting for Fullscreen within the game, I can assume that there is a tweek in a config file that I can change manually. Any takers for my complaints so I can say to my customers that my experience with Vista is Fantastic.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 25, 2008)

alot of the vista bugs where immature drivers to be honest, as drivers got better so did the OS. Its people like me that where offical beta testers that sent in reports on what happened when it crashed and why ect ect that Vista is like it is. If you want to talk about Vista bugs let me tell you what you'd have if they shipped huild 5012 to you.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 25, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> If you want to talk about Vista bugs let me tell you what you'd have if they shipped huild 5012 to you.



Enlighten me  As far as I'm aware the only reason vista was buggy was because of drivers and not the actual OS. I think the WHQL is a good idea and concept and works well now.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 25, 2008)

ok heres a few of the early bugs of Vista from the Beta Stages

DX8 games could crash the computer and i lost the OS a few times playing MOH:AA.

.net framework for Vista Beta casued issues with a few programs that relied on the framework built by 3rd parties.

The OS had issues at times with the LDDM drivers where it would mistake them for windows 98 drivers and not Vista. 

those are a few of them


----------



## FatForester (Jul 25, 2008)

Mussels said:


> lol i love how the people who hate vista are arguing over the way the tests were conducted, while all the vista non-haters are saying they've seen this exact trend.
> 
> I had a vista hater too, got him on my PC. told him it was XP with a vista theme. he started ranting about how vista runs so slow compared to XP, and even with my 'theme pack' how much faster my rig was...
> 
> ...



I logged back in just to thank your post. It's amazing how people take this as some scientific study that needs background checks, control groups, and blind testing. This is just clever marketing, and that's it. If anything this shows how ignorant people are willing to be. Most people that have a beef on Vista hate it just because a friend or a commercial told them to, not because they actually tried it or looked up any information about it. 

Of course, that can be said about a ton of things, not just Vista in particular. Marketing has more power than people think.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 25, 2008)

Let's look at your complaints one at a time ...



EastCoasthandle said:


> -independent survey from a neutral party


It wasn't a survey, it was an experiment, just like the original post states. Why would they pay someone else to run an experiment?


> -how these results were obtained


"User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken.", just like the orginal post states. 





> -environment in which the results were taken


Probably at a mall. It doesn't really matter. They were trying to determine peoples' perceptions of Vista, not perform an empirical study.


> -what the OS's desktop looked like


Just like Vista, because they were using Vista. They were trying to see what people thought of Vista after they used it. Why would they use something else?


> -how they determined someone is Pro XP or otherwise


They asked them?  That is how I would find out.


> Where is the video?


They are using it to make commercials and other advertisements?
It would be kind of foolish to release the video if you are going to use it in ads.

I am not a MS fanboi, and it is true that there are some issues with Vista, but it is not a steaming pile of crap like many people would have you believe.
It's responsive, stable, super easy to install and had run every app I have installed on it.


----------



## OnionMan (Jul 25, 2008)

I started using Vista Ult. about 7-8 months ago I guess.. I started with both XP and Vista, but quickly found myself not using XP.. Had I listened to all the negative reviews I never would have installed Vista.. Glad I can make up my own mind..

As far as if these "tests" were performed in a manner that is acceptable to the most 'anal' of opinions, NO..  Nothing is.. It is, however, a catalyst for people to reconsider their opinion.. I've always known that anti Vista users are mostly users who never even tried it..   

I think the point of this is to show plain and simple that Online reviews hold a ton of weight in most peoples choices.. Problem is not all reviews are sound reviews.. And not all users understand what they are using..

I've installed HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of OS's.. Mostly XP and Vista.. My view is that Vista is a much smoother and stable install.. I was also really pleased that even Upgrade packages of Vista were far better than XP upgrades.. 

This reminds me a little of XP's early days.. A lot said to go back to windows 98.. '98 was faster b/c it was simple compared to XP.. Just like XP is simple compared to Vista.. If we want new, and nicer OS's we have to be willing to accept that it will take more CPU resources to make that happen..


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 25, 2008)

well there is nothing actually wrong with vista it has no glaring faults

2 things keep people away

1. people who just hate it because yes it is like a trend
2. the enthusiasts hate how it uses up a whole gig or more of ram

myself i prefer it to xp on my main pc but for my older pc nothing wrong with it but it seems a little slower when loading

i think most people who only use pcs for internet and office should be using linux

users who want direct x 10 or have powerful pcs should run vista 64x

there are hardly any users who would need xp maybe laptop users because vista is a resource hog but most people should use vista 64 or linux


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Let's look at your complaints one at a time ...
> It wasn't a survey, it was an experiment, just like the original post states. Why would they pay someone else to run an experiment?


It doesn't matter if it's a survey or an experiment.  It's simply a marketing gimmick to bring a better image to Vista.  Therefore, draws question to it's validity.



Kreij said:


> "User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken.", just like the orginal post states.
> Probably at a mall. It doesn't really matter. They were trying to determine peoples' perceptions of Vista, not perform an empirical study.


Again, this is from an email with no valid source other then the marketing department.  I've already explained why I take this with a grain of salt.



Kreij said:


> Just like Vista, because they were using Vista. They were trying to see what people thought of Vista after they used it. Why would they use something else?


You cannot have a survey unless you have some sort of bases or comparison to start from.  Subjects were told the OS was under a different name, creating an illusion.  The subjects (if they exist) should have been presented with just the OS without any internal or external influences of the name, manufacture or type of the OS used.  Then let them formulate an opinion on it, that didn't happen.  




Kreij said:


> They asked them?  That is how I would find out.


No proof of that either.  For example, just because someone hasn't used Vista doesn't make them pro XP.  Or if they rarely use the PC doesn't make them Pro XP.  There are many examples that don't make someone more biased toward XP.  Therefore, it stand to reason to ask how were these individuals classified as XP Pro users?  Furthermore, the responses in this thread draw question as to how people think when someone has an opinion different from their own.  For example, some here believe a person is a Vista hater because one can formulate a none biased, peerless, constructive opinion.  



Kreij said:


> They are using it to make commercials and other advertisements?
> It would be kind of foolish to release the video if you are going to use it in ads.
> 
> I am not a MS fanboi, and it is true that there are some issues with Vista, but it is not a steaming pile of crap like many people would have you believe.
> It's responsive, stable, super easy to install and had run every app I have installed on it.



This is the whole reason to take it with a grain of salt (*regardless if the video is presented or not*).  If you can do this with the Mac ads this is no different.  It only shows bias if one is weighed greater then the other. According to some posts so far, it is.  
Let me make it clear, this is my opinion on the situation, nothing has change, nothing will.  If you read this and do not agree, we agree to disagree on this (for anyone).  So lets not go through a whole lot of posts attempts to get one person to see the opinion of another because the 2 won't see eye to eye on the subject.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 25, 2008)

OnionMan said:


> I started using Vista Ult. about 7-8 months ago I guess.. I started with both XP and Vista, but quickly found myself not using XP.. Had I listened to all the negative reviews I never would have installed Vista.. Glad I can make up my own mind..
> 
> As far as if these "tests" were performed in a manner that is acceptable to the most 'anal' of opinions, NO..  Nothing is.. It is, however, a catalyst for people to reconsider their opinion.. I've always known that anti Vista users are mostly users who never even tried it..
> 
> ...



I was in that windows 98 group, glad i switched over, i decleared XP as the worst OS up to 2004 when I got a 64bit Athlon 3200 and 98 wouldnt work properly on it and no Nforce3 drivers where out for it i had to use XP, and well after i got used to it i liked it, and won't go back to windows 98. Though for anyone that says they want a responsive, fast OS that doesnt hog resources, ill give you a copy of Windows 3.1 its fast, responsive, and uses under 1mb of ram.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jul 25, 2008)

I love how people that don't like Vista have instantly become Vista Haters according to some people in this thread. I would even say EastCoastHandle is been regarded as such, even when he is only questioning the validity of "the study". I do question that study too, not because it is imposible for something like that to happen, but because of how they have brought it to light, period. What would people here say if something similar came from Nvidia, Intel or AMD? Wait, we know, because everytime they have released their own benchmarks, those have been instantly catalogued as BS.

But that is not what really matters. MS has fallen to understand why people don't buy Vista, and rely on these "studies" to find an excuse. And the answer is really simple: Vista costs almost double as XP and does not offer ANYTHING in return. I can't remember previous Windowses being so expensive and worthless (yet I didnt upgrade to XP until late 2003). Yes, Vista if you already own XP is totally worthless. It's not that it is worse, it's just that is not better. Paying more for the same thing-just-made-prettier is plainly stupid. And also if you are buying a new PC, you won't make an error by paying less for XP, saving money and getting exactly the same. And before any you wonder, yes, I have Vista on my laptop (came with it), yes I have dissabled everything there's there to dissable (with all the extra effort that supposed) and yes, it's still sometimes worse and sometimes only barely better than XP, worthless. Should they have offered downgrades to XP + discounts back then like they are doing now, I'd probably chose that. 

TBH the contradiction I can find on these forums really surprises me. It's incredible how people will blame Heaven and Hell when a graphics card or CPU are $20 more expensive while offering just the same as another one and at the same time defend Vista so fiercely...


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 25, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> I was in that windows 98 group, glad i switched over, i decleared XP as the worst OS up to 2004 when I got a 64bit Athlon 3200 and 98 wouldnt work properly on it and no Nforce3 drivers where out for it i had to use XP, and well after i got used to it i liked it, and won't go back to windows 98. Though for anyone that says they want a responsive, fast OS that doesnt hog resources, ill give you a copy of Windows 3.1 its fast, responsive, and uses under 1mb of ram.



 sigged


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 25, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> I love how people that don't like Vista have instantly become Vista Haters according to some people in this thread. I would even say EastCoastHandle is been regarded as such, even when he is only questioning the validity of "the study". I do question that study too, not because it is imposible for something like that to happen, but because of how they have brought it to light, period. What would people here say if something similar came from Nvidia, Intel or AMD? Wait, we know, because everytime they have released their own benchmarks, those have been instantly catalogued as BS.
> 
> But that is not what really matters. MS has fallen to understand why people don't buy Vista, and rely on these "studies" to find an excuse. And the answer is really simple: Vista costs almost double as XP and does not offer ANYTHING in return. I can't remember previous Windowses being so expensive and worthless (yet I didnt upgrade to XP until late 2003). Yes, Vista if you already own XP is totally worthless. It's not that it is worse, it's just that is not better. Paying more for the same thing-just-made-prettier is plainly stupid. And also if you are buying a new PC, you won't make an error by paying less for XP, saving money and getting exactly the same. And before any you wonder, yes, I have Vista on my laptop (came with it), yes I have dissabled everything there's there to dissable (with all the extra effort that supposed) and yes, it's still sometimes worse and sometimes only barely better than XP, worthless. Should they have offered downgrades to XP + discounts back then like they are doing now, I'd probably chose that.
> 
> TBH the contradiction I can find on these forums really surprises me. It's incredible how people will blame Heaven and Hell when a graphics card or CPU are $20 more expensive while offering just the same as another one and at the same time defend Vista so fiercely...



cost double, i was in Wal-Mart yesterday stopped there on my way home.

Vista Home Premium Upgrade 149.

Windows XP Home Upgrade 129.

Vista Home Basic Upgrade 129.

Want more proof

89.99 Windows XP Home SP3 OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116511

89.99 Windows Vista Home Basic OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480

109.99 Vista Home Premium OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116485

The double the price doesnt apply honestly for most users

here is another for you

134.99 XP Pro SP3 OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116400

179.99 Vista Ultimate OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116490

So there ya are the double isnt valid and the extra 20 for premium over XP Home and 50 extra for ultimate over XP Pro are worth it if you bother to look at what is offered over XP


----------



## OnionMan (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> It doesn't matter if it's a survey or an experiment.  It's simply a marketing gimmick to bring a better image to Vista.  Therefore, draws question to it's validity.
> 
> 
> Again, this is from an email with no valid source.  I've already explained why I take this with a grain of salt.
> ...




Not to flame.. I do see your points and you've explained yourself well, but I think you are making waaaaaaay to much of this.. In fact, I'm not all sure what you are upset over. You do seem a little upset.. Would having the information you are wanting really change anything? If they released video and formal documents would anything change? I think this thread has pretty much supported what MS is saying.. Some who are against Vista don't even know enough about it to know they were using it..


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 25, 2008)

DrPepper said:


>



well its true, XP is a hog compared to previous OS's i think actully i can find a copy windows 1.0 i can send out,


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 25, 2008)

Would a windows 1.0 work on a core 2 ?


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Let me make it clear, this is my opinion on the situation, nothing has change, nothing will.  If you read this and do not agree, we agree to disagree on this (for anyone).  So lets not go through a whole lot of posts attempts to get one person to see the opinion of another because the 2 won't see eye to eye on the subject.



I think you are missing the point of at least my argument. I am in no way disagreeing that this is a marketing tool and is not to be trusted to statistical precision. Don't trust the validity, who cares? Marketing is marketing, that really isn't the point. This was done to attempt to counteract some of the bad-mouthing vista has gotten, and imo it should have been done a lot sooner. 

If you have the will try your own experience, talk to someone random on the street, just ask them whether they like vista or not. My bet is 9 times out of 10 you'll get a no, maybe 8 (if they know about vista). Then ask them why, my bet is 9 times out of 10 you won't get anything that resembles an answer that indicates they themselves have tried it, it will mostly be spouting off things they've heard or read. Maybe 8. If you really get ambitious see if you can sit them down w/ vista, but that's a little impractical. 

My arguments have nothing to do w/ whether the study is good or not, I really don't care, its marketing. My point is I have encountered this exact thing, and trying to break down a marketing study from a company is relatively pointless. Should I ask KFC on what grounds they say "Life tastes better w/ KFC?" Well, that wouldn't make much sense, it's marketing.



DarkMatter said:


> I love how people that don't like Vista have instantly become Vista Haters according to some people in this thread. I would even say EastCoastHandle is been regarded as such, even when he is only questioning the validity of "the study". I do question that study too, not because it is imposible for something like that to happen, but because of how they have brought it to light, period. What would people here say if something similar came from Nvidia, Intel or AMD? Wait, we know, because everytime they have released their own benchmarks, those have been instantly catalogued as BS.
> 
> But that is not what really matters. MS has fallen to understand why people don't buy Vista, and rely on these "studies" to find an excuse. And the answer is really simple: Vista costs almost double as XP and does not offer ANYTHING in return. I can't remember previous Windowses being so expensive and worthless (yet I didnt upgrade to XP until late 2003). Yes, Vista if you already own XP is totally worthless. It's not that it is worse, it's just that is not better. Paying more for the same thing-just-made-prettier is plainly stupid. And also if you are buying a new PC, you won't make an error by paying less for XP, saving money and getting exactly the same. And before any you wonder, yes, I have Vista on my laptop (came with it), yes I have dissabled everything there's there to dissable (with all the extra effort that supposed) and yes, it's still sometimes worse and sometimes only barely better than XP, worthless. Should they have offered downgrades to XP + discounts back then like they are doing now, I'd probably chose that.
> 
> TBH the contradiction I can find on these forums really surprises me. It's incredible how people will blame Heaven and Hell when a graphics card or CPU are $20 more expensive while offering just the same as another one and at the same time defend Vista so fiercely...



No the answer has nothing to do w/ how much it costs. I have people that don't want to buy notebooks b/c it comes w/ vista already on it. I ask them why and they say b/c they heard bad things. Vista doesn't even cost that much more than xp, although it should, later generation tend to. There is plenty of reason to go to vista, but that's not really the point either. The reason they did this was to counter-act all the bad-mouthing they get, and it should have been done sooner.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 25, 2008)

OnionMan said:


> Not to flame.. I do see your points and you've explained yourself well, but I think you are making waaaaaaay to much of this.. In fact, I'm not all sure what you are upset over. You do seem a little upset.. Would having the information you are wanting really change anything? If they released video and formal documents would anything change? I think this thread has pretty much supported what MS is saying.. Some who are against Vista don't even know enough about it to know they were using it..






farlex85 said:


> I think you are missing the point of at least my argument. I am in no way disagreeing that this is a marketing tool and is not to be trusted to statistical precision. Don't trust the validity, who cares? Marketing is marketing, that really isn't the point. This was done to attempt to counteract some of the bad-mouthing vista has gotten, and imo it should have been done a lot sooner.
> 
> If you have the will try your own experience, talk to someone random on the street, just ask them whether they like vista or not. My bet is 9 times out of 10 you'll get a no, maybe 8 (if they know about vista). Then ask them why, my bet is 9 times out of 10 you won't get anything that resembles an answer that indicates they themselves have tried it, it will mostly be spouting off things they've heard or read. Maybe 8. If you really get ambitious see if you can sit them down w/ vista, but that's a little impractical.
> 
> My arguments have nothing to do w/ whether the study is good or not, I really don't care, its marketing. My point is I have encountered this exact thing, and trying to break down a marketing study from a company is relatively pointless. Should I ask KFC on what grounds they say "Life tastes better w/ KFC?" Well, that wouldn't make much sense, it's marketing.




I've edit my post to make things clearer since you quoted me.


----------



## OnionMan (Jul 25, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> well its true, XP is a hog compared to previous OS's i think actully i can find a copy windows 1.0 i can send out,



This is true for so many things.. 

SOME- want more and more out of video cards and cpu's, yet complain about the temps of those faster components or the PSU needed to run them.. This is how I kind of see Vista/XP/98 (notice i took out ME lol)..


----------



## 1c3d0g (Jul 25, 2008)

I can understand those who have limited amounts of RAM (like the Eee PC and clones) would prefer XP over Vista (especially if it's nLite'd like TinyXP). That's a genuine reason to go for XP. But for all other notebooks and desktops, Vista is more than capable of handling it. The 64-bit version of Vista is even better, more secure, more stable...what else could you ask for?!?

I'm a big Linux supporter, but I know even the Open Source community got nothing on the ease of use and compatibility against M$. It may be a technically superior O.S. with a cleaner security model and rock-solid stability (nobody's debating that), but it's still an awkward system to use and most things just_don't_work as intended.


----------



## Sh00t1st (Jul 25, 2008)

for me, its the fact that vista automatically uses half of my total memory..... ive got 1 gig, and it starts up SO slow for me, most people don't have the money to go out and buy the hardware to fully use an os like vista, let alone 100+ dollars to get a decent and not stripped down version of it. and xp was on a great cusp, or transformation if you will, where computers where being bought at a very fast rate and everyone was jumping on the bandwagon of owning one, simple logic dictates that people will stick with whats familiar and guess what, they're doing just that ms.

thats my horrid opinion


----------



## DarkMatter (Jul 25, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> So there ya are the double isnt valid and the extra 20 for premium over XP Home and 50 extra for ultimate over XP Pro are worth it if you bother to look at what is offered over XP



No it doesn't. If I had to conclude that it does, at the same I'd have to conclude that for example, Nvidia's GT200 are worth a lot over Ati's HD4000 series too, which I'm not inclined to believe. No, seriously, Vista does not offer anything worth $20 (pff even $5) over XP (at least up until now), except "futureproofing".  

Don't worry, I already have Vista on my laptop, so I will continue testing it over the time, and I'll upgrade my main system when it is worth it. Unless windows 7 is close and it really is an upgrade...

I have to admit, anyway, that I wasn't very informed of the prices of the OS's now. Vista has come down a lot. But I can tell you something, Win XP here in Spain (I can't talk about the rest of the world) is a lot more expensive (that means €25-50) than 6 months ago, which IMHO is intriguing...

Hell it's more expensive than when I bought it back in 2003!!!!


----------



## Kreij (Jul 25, 2008)

@EastCoast : I am not saying that this should be considered some kind of "holy grail" of marketting studies. But is was just that, a marketting study.
It sounds like MS wanted to find out why Vista was not doing as well as they hoped, so they did an experiment to see why that may be the case.
How or why the "e-mail" got into the hands of people in the tech trade is unknown, but the whole thing sounds more like media blathering than MS trumpetting.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## OnionMan (Jul 25, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I've edit my post to make things clearer since you quoted me.



 I hope you don't think I'm not willing to accept that we won't see exactly eye to eye 

In my business we have to do just this.. Customers don't like change.. I sell water filtration systems with coolers.. We replace bottled water.. We get those who think our water is bad b/c it comes from their city water instead of the bottled jug.. So we do a NON blind test so to speak.. We tell the customer A: is our water and B: is your bottledwater.. Most will pick B as the best.. Funny thing is both A and B are the exact same samples from our system.. 

It's not the most honest of tests, but it does prove the point that Perception is Reality..


----------



## Champ (Jul 26, 2008)

About 95% of my friends told me to stay away from Vista and I would be sorry for using it.  Well I tried it anyway and i like it a lot more than XP.  The problem was their machine couldn't handle it and they bad mouthed it to everyone they knew.  Its damn sure a better gaming OS and probably the better one in general.  It also is way more stable in my eyes.  Don't listen to your friends, try stuff for yourself first.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jul 26, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> No the answer has nothing to do w/ how much it costs. I have people that don't want to buy notebooks b/c it comes w/ vista already on it. I ask them why and they say b/c they heard bad things. Vista doesn't even cost that much more than xp, although it should, later generation tend to. There is plenty of reason to go to vista, but that's not really the point either. The reason they did this was to counter-act all the bad-mouthing they get, and it should have been done sooner.



It's not how much it costs, it's how much it costs for what it does.

Personally, I haven't heard anything bad that was not true. Most people I know that don't like Vista is because of the same thing I do: they already have XP and Vista does not offer anything worth an upgrade. Some of them are also influenced by the bad start of Vista (bugs, lack of drivers, etc.), but that's not the main reason, just some additions. Things have changed, but MS will have to wait until these changes are noticed through word of mouth. That's how this works, they can't blame people for lacking the knowledge. Vista WAS WORSE than XP when it launched and was for too many time, they can't expect things to get better overnight.

The experiment doesn't proof that Vista has not been embraced because the bad-mouthing. Test subjects are described as "XP users that hate Vista". They had some time with the test systems and give good feedback. And what? 
-How were the test systems they used? 
-How were their own (subject's) PCs? (A heavily crippled C2D would be a lot better than a very well optimized P4, for example.)
-Which kind of aplications could test subjects use? 
-Could they experiment with different peripherals and drivers to test compatibility?

The interface and usual windows preinstalled programs are not the problem of Vista. So, how could the test subjects conclude Vista was or was not a good OS? As EastCoastHandle said: without anything to compare to, they simply can't. It just ran fine, but it could run better under Win XP. The matter of the thing is that they will never know. The experiment is not valid.



Champ said:


> About 95% of my friends told me to stay away from Vista and I would be sorry for using it.  Well I tried it anyway and i like it a lot more than XP.  The problem was their machine couldn't handle it and they bad mouthed it to everyone they knew.  *Its damn sure a better gaming OS* and probably the better one in general.  It also is way more stable in my eyes.  Don't listen to your friends, try stuff for yourself first.



You could have said anything except that. Well maybe I'm too concerned about the 10%+ performance penalty to look further...


----------



## OnionMan (Jul 26, 2008)

As far as it not being worth the $$ or any $$ over XP, I again disagree..  Well sort of..

IDK if other users can tell, but I can tell a huge visual difference between the two.. Not just eye candy and special effects, but the overall clarity of Text, Icons, Images, ect.. Vista just plain looks better on screen... That has to be worth a little something, maybe not $180 tho..


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 26, 2008)

OnionMan said:


> As far as it not being worth the $$ or any $$ over XP, I again disagree..  Well sort of..
> 
> IDK if other users can tell, but I can tell a huge visual difference between the two.. Not just eye candy and special effects, but the overall clarity of Text, Icons, Images, ect.. Vista just plain looks better on screen... That has to be worth a little something, maybe not $180 tho..



Vista uses cleartype by default and xp doesnt but you can enable it  it add antialiasing to the text.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 26, 2008)

I agree that when Vista launched there were problems with it (mostly driver) that Windows XP did not have. 
But don't forget that when XP launched it was a nightmare also.
Many, many people advised others not to upgrade to XP until SP1 came out.
SP1 helped, but it was not until SP2 that XP really became a solid OS.
Vista is very similar to XP in that manner.
I feel that SP1 for Vista, and the improved drivers, makes Vista a more stable OS at SP1 level than XP was at the time.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jul 26, 2008)

Kreij said:


> I agree that when Vista launched there were problems with it (mostly driver) that Windows XP did not have.
> But don't forget that when XP launched it was a nightmare also.
> Many, many people advised others not to upgrade to XP until SP1 came out.
> SP1 helped, but it was not until SP2 that XP really became a solid OS.
> ...



Agreed. That still doesn't make Vista SP1 better than XP SP3. And even if not by much, is more expensive. Whenever Vista is clearly better than XP people will embrace it, just as they did with previous versions. Until then, until they make it better, until they make it be what they promised, excuses are not worth a thing.


----------



## OnionMan (Jul 26, 2008)

I've really enjoyed this thread.. The lack of flaming is nice.. And civil talk is always better..

I've learned a couple of things too.. And tho I don't share every view stated here, I do understand more about why users (more exp. users) are not for Vista.. I think we all have made some good points.. Bottom line is whether or not Vista is for you.. Being an "Eye Candy" type of person, I like Vista.. But if I were a stat/performance person then, yes, I see why it's not liked.. 

As for the originall post goes, after reading over and over again I see more clearly now EastCoast's (and others) point about that test.. 

In the end tho, we are talking about something that will be replaced sooner than we think.. Vista will go down as a failure no matter if you it's for you or not, mostly b/c of it's lack of sales..


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 26, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> cost double, i was in Wal-Mart yesterday stopped there on my way home.
> 
> Vista Home Premium Upgrade 149.
> 
> ...



there's more than the cost of the disk that factors into it being double I can run windows xp on a 10 year old rig without issue, I can't with vista, theres no getting around the fact that vista needs a better rig to run nice vs windows xp. so when joe blow with his pentium 3 decides between the two, what do you think he's going to pick? it's the same with the athlon xp users pentium 4 users and even early athlon 64 users. they will simply run faster on xp. no that's not opinion, that's fact.

so bein that 90% of people have those cpu's or older in their rigs, you can see why those same 90% didn't think vista was so bad when used on decent hardware. which is exactly the point, joe blow can't afford or doesn't care enough to upgrade his rig to run vista. 

vista isn't the worst os put out, (it's not the best either) but it requires more from hardware which in the end always takes a while to get adopted.


----------



## HAL7000 (Jul 26, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> This is the whole reason to take it with a grain of salt (*regardless if the video is presented or not*).  If you can do this with the Mac ads this is no different.  It only shows bias if one is weighed greater then the other. According to some posts so far, it is.
> Let me make it clear, this is my opinion on the situation, nothing has change, nothing will.  If you read this and do not agree, we agree to disagree on this (for anyone).  So lets not go through a whole lot of posts attempts to get one person to see the opinion of another because the 2 won't see eye to eye on the subject.



I can relate to this statement...I hate blind testing, it shows personal bias and hypocrisy at its finest, and to state that this is reason leading to facts is bullsh*t. Blind testing is the bullsh*t. I do like it nor trust it nor even consider it as a opinion. It is merely a campaign of political correctness. So Eastcoasthandle I see your point and agree with most of what you are saying.
It is marketing at its dirtiest and creates consumers to mistrust the outcome. Same thing goes with polling during political season, it is nothing to listen to or even consider unless it is a study that has a formula and result that can be studied, and performed by unbiased 3rd parties.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 26, 2008)

I like this civil discussion without anyone going off and being as asshat. We are here to discuss, not to trash.

The recommended reqs of Vista is a 1Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM.
This is interesting as the Pentium 3 ranged from about 600Mhz to 1.4 Ghz.
We all know that a system with a P3 is not going to run Vista worth a crap.

I think that MS should have been a little more specific in their specs about Vista, and perhaps should have been a little tighter on the specs (like minimum P4?).

Just some casual observations.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 26, 2008)

the only rational arguments that have come up so far, is that systems with 1GB of ram or less shouldnt use vista.

so far, no one else has had anything else to offer in argument of XP over vista. To be honest i agree - if your rig is so old that you only have 1GB of ram, stay the hell away from vista. its a great OS, but its not for old rigs like that.

before people complain that they dont want to buy more ram... well i'd never game on XP with 1GB again either, lol.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 26, 2008)

See, I don't get the spec req argument at all. I for one am quite glad that new software requires more hardware power to run, not directly but b/c this indicates advancement. We have these super gpu's like the gtx 280 and soon the 4870x2 and no games that require or utilize their power. But you can bet if we did there'd be a whole mess of people complaining they couldn't play w/ their cards. So, you gotta choose, advancement (even if that means you yourself have to wait until you can enjoy it), or hold all technology back until everyone can take advantage of it, or keep it the same so no one has to worry about something new. I choose the first.

Also, since when did the operating system all about speed? That seems to be another big argument, you get a few more fps or things load a bit faster. Although I myself believe my experience has been the opposite (I've found vista to be more responsive and have had better gameplay by far), I still don't understand why a few seconds here and there and a few fps is better than better graphics and a more powerful and more intuitive interface.


----------



## Scrizz (Jul 26, 2008)

I got vista for free so... meh
It works great on my machine, and I prefer it over XP.
I understand why some people dislike vista... some people don't want/have time to learn a new OS.
Win 95/98/ME/2000/XP were pretty similar compared to Vista which is a bit different.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 26, 2008)

I agree Mussels, the other argument that I see is that Vista uses a lot of RAM.
That is interesting, as one has to wonder exactly why you have RAM.
An operating system that makes use of your RAM is a good thing in my eyes.
What is the point of having 4GB of RAM and the OS only uses 400MB ?
Vista happily releases anything it put in RAM that it is not using when you load up something that requires a large amount of RAM.
Personally, I want my system to use the hardware I bought.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 26, 2008)

well to be honest my rams a lot faster than my HDD, so yeah... i prefer my OS to be loaded into ram.

you kinda cant argue with that...


----------



## DarkMatter (Jul 26, 2008)

Mussels said:


> the only rational arguments that have come up so far, is that systems with 1GB of ram or less shouldnt use vista.
> 
> so far, no one else has had anything else to offer in argument of XP over vista. To be honest i agree - if your rig is so old that you only have 1GB of ram, stay the hell away from vista. its a great OS, but its not for old rigs like that.
> 
> before people complain that they dont want to buy more ram... well i'd never game on XP with 1GB again either, lol.



You have to think that there's no argument of Vista over XP either, which is the point. For most of the people, it's not deciding between new XP or Vista, is stick to XP or shell out the money for an OS that is still not better than what they already have. I read somewhere more than 90% of houses in the US and more than 80% in EU have a PC, so the market is narrower. Add to that the growing percentage of people that know how to upgrade and do upgrade their hardware (versus buying a complete new one) and the fact that the rest of people are heading towards cheaper PCs like Asus Eee. That means that there's fewer people that would require to buy a brand new OS. That leaves only the posibility of an upgrade from XP. That's the truth for anyone that I know personally. And the fact is that right now Vista is not an upgrade for anyone with XP. We have just one more factor, and that is that XP is the Windows that lasted more, so much that most of the PCs out there now are running XP or at least Win 2000. That was not the case with previous versions, any comparison between Vista and previous releases is pointless. Growth base was a lot bigger, price difference smaller and the dominant hardware was faster when compared to high-end than today. Vista could only be a success if it offered something that was a lot better than XP, when in reality has been totally the contrary for too long. Expecting to sell an OS that is struggling to compete with the OS it is supposed to replace is naive at best. In that situation Vista is been trying to keep up with XP rather than improving over it. Even right now is not better enough to worth an upgrade except for most enthusiast people, and not for all of them. How could it be good for Average Joe then?

EDIT: And the RAM argument you guys are using is not valid IMO. Just because we can have more RAM and current aplications don't use it we need an OS to waste it? Obviously no, wasting memory is not using it, it's better to just leave it unused. Vista uses a lot more RAM and I haven't seen any benefit on my laptop. That only means it is using more RAM for nothing. With 4GB probably it doesn't matter, with 2GB it does, and honestly how many people have 4GB of RAM nowadays. Don't start looking in these forums, obviously a lot will have...


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 26, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> You have to think that there's no argument of Vista over XP either, which is the point. For most of the people, it's not deciding between new XP or Vista, is stick to XP or shell out the money for an OS that is still not better than what they already have. I read somewhere more than 90% of houses in the US and more than 80% in EU have a PC, so the market is narrower. Add to that the growing percentage of people that know how to upgrade and do upgrade their hardware (versus buying a complete new one) and the fact that the rest of people are heading towards cheaper PCs like Asus Eee. That means that there's fewer people that would require to buy a brand new OS. That leaves only the posibility of an upgrade from XP. That's the truth for anyone that I know personally. And the fact is that right now Vista is not an upgrade for anyone with XP. We have just one more factor, and that is that XP is the Windows that lasted more, so much that most of the PCs out there now are running XP or at least Win 2000. That was not the case with previous versions, any comparison between Vista and previous releases is pointless. Growth base was a lot bigger, price difference smaller and the dominant hardware was faster when compared to high-end than today. Vista could only be a success if it offered something that was a lot better than XP, when in reality has been totally the contrary for too long. Expecting to sell an OS that is struggling to compete with the OS it is supposed to replace is naive at best. In that situation Vista is been trying to keep up with XP rather than improving over it. Even right now is not better enough to worth an upgrade except for most enthusiast people, and not for all of them. How could it be good for Average Joe then?



Good points. Vista I think is a better OS than xp, but to the average Joe there isn't much reason to upgrade, aside from MCE and DX10 if gaming. Snazzier and more powerful interface isn't enough reason to pay to upgrade. But it's gotten to the point that people who are buying completely new machines don't even want vista b/c it's gotten so much bad press. And that should be quelled b/c for home use it IS better, especially w/ a new machines hardware. Upgrading though, maybe not so much.



DarkMatter said:


> EDIT: And the RAM argument you guys are using is not valid IMO. Just because we can have more RAM and current aplications don't use it we need an OS to waste it? Obviously no, wasting memory is not using it, it's better to just leave it unused. Vista uses a lot more RAM and I haven't seen any benefit on my laptop. That only means it is using more RAM for nothing. With 4GB probably it doesn't matter, with 2GB it does, and honestly how many people have 4GB of RAM nowadays. Don't start looking in these forums, obviously a lot will have...



The OS does use it, it doesn't just waste it. Try using vista on 2gb and then 4gb. The os uses different amounts for the different amounts of ram it has accessible, and it's noticeable. Vista is more powerful, and it does require more hardware, and it does it well. Standard today is 2gb. Most machines bought in the last year or so that wasn't on the super cheap will have 2gb. And that will run vista fine, but 4gb does it better. So I can't see how you can say the OS doesn't use it. You can't compare it to xp, it is different.


----------



## Kursah (Jul 26, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Good points. Vista I think is a better OS than xp, but to the average Joe there isn't much reason to upgrade, aside from MCE and DX10 if gaming. Snazzier and more powerful interface isn't enough reason to pay to upgrade. But it's gotten to the point that people who are buying completely new machines don't even want vista b/c it's gotten so much bad press. And that should be quelled b/c for home use it IS better, especially w/ a new machines hardware. Upgrading though, maybe not so much.



Yep, I agree with ya man.

If you have an old rig with XP on it, might as well leave it...if you have access to try Vista, then you should do just that, TRY IT. I wish more people could or would try Vista on their PC before spending money on it, just like XP, Linux, Mac, or whatever else, Vista isn't for everyone, nor will it ever be, Windows 7 will be the same way, it'll be improved for some stuff, may even have some revolutionary stuff, but it won't be for everyone.

I find Vista better for what I do, but I could do almost everything I do on XP 32/64 except for DX10 gaming which has slightly grown on me now that there's at least a small library of games and demos out there that utilize at least a portion of DX10. Vista x64 has impressed me greatly in how quick and stable it is, and trust me I've had plenty of good and bad in Vista, XP, and earlier. It's just part of the cycle I suppose.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 26, 2008)

yes i wont suggest EVERYONE to go to it. everyone with a NEW system (as in buying a new rig or getting a major upgrade) should consider it, but the people with working rigs shouldnt really bother.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 26, 2008)

its true that vists uses different amounts of ram. it tends to use 33% of your ram (40% on 1GB at most) and uses the rest for superfetch.


----------



## HAL7000 (Jul 26, 2008)

Evolution of a OS is at times painful for everyone. What do you think happens with all the hardware that is out of date in a matter of months in some cases. It goes into making cheap systems. Something that OEM's need to do to make a profit and not suffer a loss, to stay in business. So XP still lives in these machines because Vista is a resource hog. Vista and XP have there place. MS understood this and gave OEM's an extension using XP for those systems. What MS should have done is figure out a OS that compliments both poles...a unified OS that can be loaded into any computer. I still run XP and read and listen to users that use Vista, I am not impressed either way but logically stay with XP for now because it suits my needs. I am also pissed that MS won't write a compatible  DX 10 for XP. But as I said evolution of a OS is painful for everyone. Lets hope that MS simplifies the next time around.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 26, 2008)

Are those XP users just the general public though? I've used Vista, with SP1 no less, and I still think it sucks. Vista looks "pretty", beyond that, what does it really offer XP cant already do? Nothing.


----------



## Swansen (Jul 26, 2008)

i have not used a non Aero machine, so i don't know how "windows Vista capable" machine would handle.  I have used a core 2 machines with onboard video and 1gb of memory and Vista with Aero isn't so quick with lower end machines, so i'm skeptical how Vista Basic would even do.  That said, there in lies the one of the issues, we shouldn't have to upgrade our hardware just to run an OS, and that is how every company feels currently, especially the jump in upgrade, its not a slight one.  Also, Microsoft bug team are its end users.  I've used free OS's with less bugs/problems at launch.  Its just crazy that the money Microsoft makes and then they release their new OS and it has a a lot of problems?? why??  Yeah, they are all pretty much fixed now, but Vista was also suppose to be so much more than it is.  Its more secure than XP, yeah, but now supremely, which it was suppose to be.  In this situation i feel Microsoft is just learning a little lesson, they can't just push whatever they want onto the people.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 26, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> No it doesn't. If I had to conclude that it does, at the same I'd have to conclude that for example, Nvidia's GT200 are worth a lot over Ati's HD4000 series too, which I'm not inclined to believe. No, seriously, Vista does not offer anything worth $20 (pff even $5) over XP (at least up until now), except "futureproofing".
> 
> Don't worry, I already have Vista on my laptop, so I will continue testing it over the time, and I'll upgrade my main system when it is worth it. Unless windows 7 is close and it really is an upgrade...
> 
> ...



are you aware of whats been done under the surface?

The Kernal mode access was restricted which restricts what a virus can do and helps system stabilty.

The new network protocols provide increased protection, granted these are also in SP3.

The WDDM driver model talks to directX and all drivers have to uniformly conform to the standard to be used, meaning some of those devices that caused problems with XP because there was lee way in the WDM program model are not present in WDDM because of the stictness of the driver protocols and drivers are less likly to cause system failures

there are some of the features in Vista you don't see but are there and actully help to make the system more stable


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 26, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> there's more than the cost of the disk that factors into it being double I can run windows xp on a 10 year old rig without issue, I can't with vista, theres no getting around the fact that vista needs a better rig to run nice vs windows xp. so when joe blow with his pentium 3 decides between the two, what do you think he's going to pick? it's the same with the athlon xp users pentium 4 users and even early athlon 64 users. they will simply run faster on xp. no that's not opinion, that's fact.
> 
> so bein that 90% of people have those cpu's or older in their rigs, you can see why those same 90% didn't think vista was so bad when used on decent hardware. which is exactly the point, joe blow can't afford or doesn't care enough to upgrade his rig to run vista.
> 
> vista isn't the worst os put out, (it's not the best either) but it requires more from hardware which in the end always takes a while to get adopted.



yea you can SP0 and SP1 i have XP SP2 on a P3 800 with 256mb of ram and its sluggish this was the normal machine 8 years ago, sure XP will work on any 233mhz Pentium1 with 128mb of ram but does that mean it preforms right if thats your argument though, then Vista can be run on any 8yr old computer. Vista will install and operate on a P3 800, 512mb of ram and a TNT2 i know i tried vista on my P3. You dont get most of the eye candy and its slow but its like running XP on a 10yr old PII 400 computer


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 26, 2008)

Kreij said:


> I like this civil discussion without anyone going off and being as asshat. We are here to discuss, not to trash.
> 
> The recommended reqs of Vista is a 1Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM.
> This is interesting as the Pentium 3 ranged from about 600Mhz to 1.4 Ghz.
> ...



well no actully i got it up on a P3 800 and after tweaking its decently fast actully, set theme to classic, disable visual effects, disable indexing. This free's up alot actully.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jul 26, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> are you aware of whats been done under the surface?
> 
> The Kernal mode access was restricted which restricts what a virus can do and helps system stabilty.
> 
> ...



I knew about those things, not deeply, but I heard of them. In theory they make it more stable, but in practice, that's another thing. Everyone has his own experience with Vista I suppose, and mine is not being very good on my laptop as of now. Maybe it's just because is a laptop (it's my first one), but I have XP SP3 on it too and does a far better job. Under Vista I had many program crashes, granted the consecuencies are smaller and no BSODs, but there's still the fact that they crash. Maybe the programs are a bit old and newer versions work without a flaw, but I shouldn't have to upgrade them because of Vista.

Which leads me to the next issue. I must admit it could be all dogma (as in btarunr's post), but I have seen some people reporting that some of their devices stopped working (properly) under Vista. I don't know if this is because of WDDM, but my router doesn't work well, it doesn't find automatically my wifi router under Vista. Again, I shouldn't (me as an Average Joe) have to upgrade to have a working device.

Those are problems, even if you don't want to see them, because they won't affect you. Vista has many problems with older hardware/software  (and probably unknown brands at all) and even if this doesn't make a difference for you or enthusiasts in general, it is a big problem for many people. Even though those programs that failed to me are not very important and I could pass without them, but that's not the point. Vista is only good if you have everything new, otherwise you can encounter many problems. SP1 has fixed a lot of them, but there are a lot left yet.

But those issues aside, I know Vista has a lot of things under the hood and I never questioned if they were better. I have always defended Crysis and it's exactly in the same circunstances. But I do question them NOW. For the average PC Vista is not good. It can run on 2GB but not as well as XP, not when you start opening programs, I can assure you, and same goes for the CPU and everything. Should anyone buying an OEM PC get Vista? Sure, I never said otherwise, I said I myself, back when I bought my laptop (before SP1) I'd have taken XP if I could and if they returned the price difference. If you can have both XP or Vista for the same price, the election is clear. But I reafirm myself that anyone doing an upgrade, having to pay the full price for Vista, is not worth it, and many many people that only want the PC for mailing and web browsing paying anything more doesn't make sense either. Also many small bussinesses, organissms, etc... And forget about Linux, those people don't know and don't want to deal with it, then XP being the next cheaper option is the best for them. That's more than half the users and that's why Vista didn't sell as much, everything else is excuses.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 26, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> Are those XP users just the general public though? I've used Vista, with SP1 no less, and I still think it sucks. Vista looks "pretty", beyond that, what does it really offer XP cant already do? Nothing.



There's alot of things going on in the background that you don't notice, like it automatically defragments when idle and it introduces new cryptography standards as well. Also it builds on voice recognition and touch screen although they only touched on it. There's probably tons of things but I can't remember it all.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 26, 2008)

so what about ReactOS?


----------



## Scrizz (Jul 26, 2008)

I hooked up a 6 year old printer to my vista machine and it worked.
Vista already had the drivers for the printer.
Tons of people don't know about compatibility mode for programs either...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 26, 2008)

the only thing i dont like is the fact that MS went to the idea of making every driver available on the HD, im sorry but i dont need all those drivers on my system wasting space, id rather have them ask to insert the Windows CD, that or allow option to place all drivers from the CD onto the HD.


----------



## Kursah (Jul 26, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> the only thing i dont like is the fact that MS went to the idea of making every driver available on the HD, im sorry but i dont need all those drivers on my system wasting space, id rather have them ask to insert the Windows CD, that or allow option to place all drivers from the CD onto the HD.



I do agree there, but I see why they did it that way...people just expect to hook things up and at least have a base driver if not a correct driver (albiet maybe not the most up to date, but at least it's signed right?  )...I think during installation they should give that as an option, sure on pre-built stuff put the whole shooting match on the HDD...but for system builders, they should give you options before install, basic drivers to ensure stability and usability to get newer drivers after install would be kinda nice to have and it would save on HDD space, but with massive HDD's getting cheaper every day now it seems, this really shouldn't be that huge of an issue in all reality.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 26, 2008)

Kursah said:


> I do agree there, but I see why they did it that way...people just expect to hook things up and at least have a base driver if not a correct driver (albiet maybe not the most up to date, but at least it's signed right?  )...I think during installation they should give that as an option, sure on pre-built stuff put the whole shooting match on the HDD...but for system builders, they should give you options before install, basic drivers to ensure stability and usability to get newer drivers after install would be kinda nice to have and it would save on HDD space, but with massive HDD's getting cheaper every day now it seems, this really shouldn't be that huge of an issue in all reality.



despite the drives getting bigger you still lose that space for more Movies/Games/Pictures/Music.


----------



## Kursah (Jul 26, 2008)

I totally agree, which is why I said they should allow the option before hitting Install. Would be very cool of MS to allow this option to system builders and those capable of installing an OS and know what they want and don't. 

But, hell I have a single 640GB drive, 30GB is an OS partion, which still has almost 7GB free after page-file, some programs and Vista...then I have the rest of my drives, which has a backup of my G/F's stuff, my stuff and I still have about 200GB free last I checked! I don't forsee MS OS's getting any smaller, they never have in the past...so it's something we'll have to adjust to, it's part of the whole making things work for people that don't know what they're doing that stings the rest of us a tad...I'm sure you could use vLite like others have and remove the stuff like drivers you don't want. I've contemplated it, but since my OS partition isn't getting any fuller, and the OS runs so well I don't mind.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 26, 2008)

Kursah said:


> I totally agree, which is why I said they should allow the option before hitting Install. Would be very cool of MS to allow this option to system builders and those capable of installing an OS and know what they want and don't.
> 
> But, hell I have a single 640GB drive, 30GB is an OS partion, which still has almost 7GB free after page-file, some programs and Vista...then I have the rest of my drives, which has a backup of my G/F's stuff, my stuff and I still have about 200GB free last I checked! I don't forsee MS OS's getting any smaller, they never have in the past...so it's something we'll have to adjust to, it's part of the whole making things work for people that don't know what they're doing that stings the rest of us a tad...I'm sure you could use vLite like others have and remove the stuff like drivers you don't want. I've contemplated it, but since my OS partition isn't getting any fuller, and the OS runs so well I don't mind.



Yup until one of the better Builds of Linux goes Commercial, or ReactOS/


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 26, 2008)

Kursah said:


> I totally agree, which is why I said they should allow the option before hitting Install. Would be very cool of MS to allow this option to system builders and those capable of installing an OS and know what they want and don't.
> 
> But, hell I have a single 640GB drive, 30GB is an OS partion, which still has almost 7GB free after page-file, some programs and Vista...then I have the rest of my drives, which has a backup of my G/F's stuff, my stuff and I still have about 200GB free last I checked! I don't forsee MS OS's getting any smaller, they never have in the past...so it's something we'll have to adjust to, it's part of the whole making things work for people that don't know what they're doing that stings the rest of us a tad...I'm sure you could use vLite like others have and remove the stuff like drivers you don't want. I've contemplated it, but since my OS partition isn't getting any fuller, and the OS runs so well I don't mind.



you can always delete the drivers.cab file, i usally do


----------



## Dark_Webster (Jul 26, 2008)

On my lappy, Vista 32 SP1 runs and looks like a purring kitty, when I tried Vista 32 as soon as he came out on my desktop... can you say: Games have half of the frames compared with Windows XP. But SP1 for Vista brought some stability, so I believe that in some years, Vista will become mainstream.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 26, 2008)

Sheesh,  all you know they might of used slow(er) XP machines and really good machines for vista with hand picked parts guaranteed  to work with Vista.

And who cannot tell the difference from XP and Vista, what programs did they use games ? office ?..  

I'm not against Vista i find it all right but not found it as fast as XP. Vista's faster if you strip it down we all know this but so is XP.

Best thing you can do to know if Vista is for you is to borrow a copy of a friend 1st. These studies are to be ignored what ever it concerns as people do not even know what to eat these days though them. 

I remember when people were saying XP x64 sucked ass but i still got it and i had\have 0 issue's with it for years now in fact i have had more issue's with Vista.   I find Vista nice ( w\O sp1 as it messes up my system).


----------



## magibeg (Jul 26, 2008)

Someone who has never used vista could not tell it is vista. I think we're assuming that the average joe is a techpowerup user. When i built this computer i was a little nervous about all the flak vista was getting but when i actually used it everything turned out to be more than peachy. Vista just seems to have a bad reputation.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 26, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Vista just seems to have a bad reputation.



True that - people don't really like change.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 26, 2008)

Nobody has an issue with change in the IT world. Vista has a bad reputation for good reason.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 26, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> There's alot of things going on in the background that you don't notice, like it automatically defragments when idle and it introduces new cryptography standards as well. Also it builds on voice recognition and touch screen although they only touched on it. There's probably tons of things but I can't remember it all.



I know all about the things going on under the hood of Vista - half of which are what make me not use Vista. Its very very possible to make a new OS that is faster and more secure without dramatically increasing memory usage. Vista simply goes overboard here. The absolute best I could crimp Vista down to was 512MB, after extensive services optimisation. Nevermind any programs running on top of that. In XP I can be running 4-7 relatively memory hungry programs and just be peaking 512MB.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 26, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> Nobody has an issue with change in the IT world. Vista has a bad reputation for good reason.



Exactly. If corps don't dare to change over, ever, to vista, then you know problems lay inside it's useless, ugly, gui.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 26, 2008)

My personal experience with Vista (Ultimate 32) :

Built rig.
Was leary about Vista but I bought it anyway because I am a sucker for new tech.
Got ready to do F6 install for RAID. Didn't have to, Vista recognized every component in my rig.
Got ready to install more drivers for peripherals. Didn't have to, Vista recognized everything I plugged in.
Bought a new Nikon D300 camera, grabbed the s/w disk. Plugged in camera (USB). Vista knew what it was and I never had to load any crapware.
Noticed that my HDDs were being utilized a lot. This stopped once Vista figured out what I did most.
All games worked great. I don't care if I get 1 FPS less in Vista. Never noticed a difference in my gaming experience.
Loaded up the original Starcraft thinking, Ha! Vista won't like this old game. Nope. Runs perfectly.
Loaded up AtiTool. Vista said, "Are you sure", I said, "Yes". Runs fine. So do all the other utilities that I use for monitoring.

Just my opinion, but I really like Vista. It has made many things a lot easier for me than they were with XP.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 26, 2008)

Thats probably just you then, with XP just about every peice of hardware known to man at some stage or another has been connected to my puter, not once has XP griped about it. Stuff like my Sandisk MP3 and my Samsung digicam dont need their disks, just plug it in and XP recognises it, does its thang and thats that.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 26, 2008)

Perhaps, but perception plays a big role in what people do.
For instance, I have not pushed to upgrade all of the systems I manage at work to Vista.
Why ? Because for what they are used for, there is no compelling reason. They work fine.
As an IT Manager I cannot justify the expense.
At home is a different story.
I want my home system to be a trouble free as I can get it. I do not want to have to work all day on computers and then come home and deal with problems on my home network.
I spend much more time dealing with problems in the XP computers on my home network that with my Vista rig. It just runs happily.

Again, people will have different experiences, but my experice with Vista has been nothing but favorable.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 26, 2008)

You must be an email and web browsing grandmother LOL

I haven't encountered such a pile of crap since win95a (we'll let ME lay low).


----------



## Kreij (Jul 26, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> You must be an email and web browsing grandmother LOL
> 
> I haven't encountered such a pile of crap since win95a (we'll let ME lay low).



Please elaborate.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 26, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Please elaborate.



Vista works fine for very simplistic tasks (aka email, web, etc). But as soon as you try anything resource intensive, it goes belly up and cries (aka goes slower than molasses) for you to stop. That's aside from the many quirks that make me yell obscenities repeatedly. If I wanted something to thrash my HDD all day and still not get anything done, I'd use vista. If I wanted to wait all day to copy/delete files, I'd use vista (contrary to popular belief it's not fixed completely). If I wanted crap gui, I'd use vista (of course I'd just disable it and install blinds). If I never wanted a chance to repair the OS or just flat out not run some EXEs (but the same files magically work on a different vista machine). Or crap drivers b/c they feel the need to dick with the driver models. DirectX 10 can suck my nuts, worthless (irrelevant though haha).

Maybe I should use vista for a few mins then I can write some more.

I'd still be using 2000 if they had a 64 bit version (running xp x64 here).

My sister's old comp that I built - xp 2600 512 ram XP - is as fast or faster (depending) as vista with 2 GB ram and dual core
There's definitely something wrong with that picture. And it's running blinds and about 10 other apps in the background.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 26, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> True that - people don't really like change.



It's not change whot my issue's are with it.  It's the lack of changes that bother me.  And then again some things should not be changed.  As they say don't fix it if it ain't broke.


Some love it some don't Some hate it and some just had bad luck with it.  If i had brought my 2 copy's i would of been pissed like hell.

People are people just seems like more hate\dislike it which i cannot blame them as it don't give much if any thing extra than XP x64 gives.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 26, 2008)

I have never had an issue with Vista, i dual boot Vista Home Premium 32 and Windows XP 64 and i can honestly say i have less hassle with Vista than my XP install. On average with XP i would format every 2-3 months simply from clutter, with Vista since i installed it i havnt noticed the slowdown i got with XP after a few months of use. Also i notice less conflicts with stuff, some older games won't run on Windows XP 64 and look right, blocky almost, this isnt the case with Vista.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 26, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> I have never had an issue with Vista, i dual boot Vista Home Premium 32 and Windows XP 64 and i can honestly say i have less hassle with Vista than my XP install. On average with XP i would format every 2-3 months simply from clutter, with Vista since i installed it i havnt noticed the slowdown i got with XP after a few months of use. Also i notice less conflicts with stuff, some older games won't run on Windows XP 64 and look right, blocky almost, this isnt the case with Vista.



But thats just it i've never had a issue with ATI cards for over 10 years but you have...  Whats good for one is not always good for another.  Think this is were people are going wrong, you CANNOT please everyone.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 26, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> I have never had an issue with Vista, i dual boot Vista Home Premium 32 and Windows XP 64 and i can honestly say i have less hassle with Vista than my XP install. On average with XP i would format every 2-3 months simply from clutter, with Vista since i installed it i havnt noticed the slowdown i got with XP after a few months of use. Also i notice less conflicts with stuff, some older games won't run on Windows XP 64 and look right, blocky almost, this isnt the case with Vista.



x64 doesn't like some older games, the video driver kinda fails. 

I had a vista install, lasted 6 mo, then it killed itself and was a nightmare every day (only purpose was to learn all of it's BS). XP 32 installs only last about 6-12 mo for me, but the x64s last 2 yrs.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 26, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> x64 doesn't like some older games, the video driver kinda fails.
> 
> I had a vista install, lasted 6 mo, then it killed itself and was a nightmare every day (only purpose was to learn all of it's BS). XP 32 installs only last about 6-12 mo for me, but the x64s last 2 yrs.



Yet again it depends on how tyou use and treat a computer.  I install about 10-40 different apps a month on mine at least.  Were another might only install 20 apps\games over a year.  Then you have the fact of what apps as some remove better than others.


Everyone using a computer differently hense the reason i said if you going buy Vista borrow a copy of a friend and see how it runs for you.  Too many factors in this to say which ones better.


----------



## newconroer (Jul 26, 2008)

KainXS said:


> those 90% must have been some dumb people to not see vista was vista, I still stand firm saying that I hate vista because the more powerful your machine is the more power vista will suck from it with the exact same settings in my experience



Interesting coming from someone who doesn't have their computer specification fields filled in.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 27, 2008)

I regularly reinstall my OS's sometimes upto twice a month so I don't really know how badly vista ages (I like the feeling of a brand new OS. Its like getting a new car and smelling the newness) but my friend who had his for over a year has had no problems apart from the motherboard dying, also my little brother who is the antichrist to operating systems still hasn't destroyed vista.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 27, 2008)

i bet those ppl in that survey couldnt programa remote


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> i bet those ppl in that survey couldnt programa remote



Or maybe they're just regular people that don't go onto tech forums all the time. And having never used vista they wouldn't know the difference between vista and mojave.

And when people say vista is only good for simple tasks could i get a few programs to try out that wouldn't be considered 'simple' to see how it runs on vista. I've had no problem compiling code and encoding movies. Games haven't really been an issue either. Also to the comments about vista eating up all the ram and such, you have to realize that vista works on an entirely different ram management. Whats the point of having a bunch of ram if its empty all the time?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 27, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Or maybe they're just regular people that don't go onto tech forums all the time. And having never used vista they wouldn't know the difference between vista and mojave.
> 
> And when people say vista is only good for simple tasks could i get a few programs to try out that wouldn't be considered 'simple' to see how it runs on vista. I've had no problem compiling code and encoding movies. Games haven't really been an issue either. Also to the comments about vista eating up all the ram and such, you have to realize that vista works on an entirely different ram management. Whats the point of having a bunch of ram if its empty all the time?



What's the point of using all of it when I go to load a game and it has to page it right back at the same time the game's trying to load? It works both ways and it's management sucks. Plus, it hoards ram other than just its caching "feature". I encode all the time, but that's hardly stressing except for the CPU.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 27, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> What's the point of using all of it when I go to load a game and it has to page it right back at the same time the game's trying to load?



that doesnt happen. vistas ram caching is improved a lot, the OS uses it until another app wants it, then the OS loses priority. I know this is a fact because i ran 1GB of ram for a while, my games ran fine but when closing/quitting/alt tabbing out of the game, the OS took upto a minute to load again - it was cached, NOT remaining in ram.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 27, 2008)

Mussels said:


> that doesnt happen. vistas ram caching is improved a lot, the OS uses it until another app wants it, then the OS loses priority. I know this is a fact because i ran 1GB of ram for a while, my games ran fine but when closing/quitting/alt tabbing out of the game, the OS took upto a minute to load again - it was cached, NOT remaining in ram.



Load up fear and tell me how that goes, ok. The game can't even play smooth b/c to go around a corner it has to pause to load more data. And yeah, a lot was still in ram, but since vista's so bloated it still took forever to become functional. If it has actually offloaded the ram then games would be as smooth as they are in XP, but that's not the case.

And how can anyone justify it taking such a tremendous amount of time to alt-tab or exit a game to get back to windows. It's so freaking asinine. If I had to use that shit every day I wouldn't be able to see straight with fury. It's bad enough with XP.


----------



## Guru Janitor (Jul 27, 2008)

Mussels said:


> that doesnt happen. vistas ram caching is improved a lot, the OS uses it until another app wants it, then the OS loses priority. I know this is a fact because i ran 1GB of ram for a while, my games ran fine but when closing/quitting/alt tabbing out of the game, the OS took upto a minute to load again - it was cached, NOT remaining in ram.



+1 I previously ran Xp, but since my computer died, I've been on vista.  Currently I have 2 gigs of ram, and, when I'm just browsing around, its at 50% ram usage, If I load a game, that drops and Whatever the game uses takes over, so I can actually be running at less usage then what I was running before, its a beautiful thing.


----------



## hat (Jul 27, 2008)

all I know is I found vista on a certian bay in the interwebz... I tried it out and went back to xp. there's no reason for me to be using vista yet anyway. DX10 doesn't do much, it's just a performance killer.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 27, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> Load up fear and tell me how that goes, ok. The game can't even play smooth b/c to go around a corner it has to pause to load more data. And yeah, a lot was still in ram, but since vista's so bloated it still took forever to become functional. If it has actually offloaded the ram then games would be as smooth as they are in XP, but that's not the case.
> 
> And how can anyone justify it taking such a tremendous amount of time to alt-tab or exit a game to get back to windows. It's so freaking asinine. If I had to use that shit every day I wouldn't be able to see straight with fury. It's bad enough with XP.



whats wrong with fear? i was playing perseus mandate on my lan rig (2GB, only just went 4GB) and it had no problems. you sure that wasnt just unique to your PC?

XP lags just as much as vista alt tabbing in these games imo, with the exception that adding more ram to vista makes it faster than adding more ram to XP. with 6GB i can swap between supreme commander and CoD4 without any real lag (yeah its strange, but i was playing both at once for some reason). in XP, it lags no matter what i'm changing to. XP is an all or nothing approach, whereas vista can share.

stay with XP all you want, but every month faster and faster hardware comes out, cheaper - and vista is benefitting more and more while XP is staying just the same.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 27, 2008)

Guru Janitor said:


> +1 I previously ran Xp, but since my computer died, I've been on vista.  Currently I have 2 gigs of ram, and, when I'm just browsing around, its at 50% ram usage, If I load a game, that drops and Whatever the game uses takes over, so I can actually be running at less usage then what I was running before, its a beautiful thing.



Well uses 1.35GB on my system and total ram is 6GB.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 27, 2008)

Why is everyone so up in arms about it being a resource hog it. If its taking up to much ram buy more, its about £10 for a cheap stick of ddr2 these days. If you try run a new os on an old pc it obviously wont work as well and this applies to all os' for example my neighbour has a p3 64mb of ram and it hardly runs windows 98 well and if I was to try xp it would run slowly so does that mean I can say xp is a resource hog ... no it means that old hardware will not run vista as well as new hardware.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 27, 2008)

in fact, heres a screenie.

The systems freshly formatted due to me screwing up something i shouldnt have (kids: do not acicdentally bind LNK files to an assocation such as a media player. you cant restore it)

its vista 64 bit ultimate (rig in specs) with 6GB of ram. running apps are vista (full aero) kaspersky 8, and folding at home GPU








now you tell me... where is this ram hog? i'm using 1GB, but thats with AV and folding, and as mentioned it dumps the rest when you run a game.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 27, 2008)

Mussels said:


> in fact, heres a screenie.
> 
> The systems freshly formatted due to me screwing up something i shouldnt have (kids: do not acicdentally bind LNK files to an assocation such as a media player. you cant restore it)
> 
> ...



That's not 1 or 2 gigs and I can't even see the screenie (and it's x64). I can look at that on any vista comp (x86) with 1 or 2 gigs of ram and it says 0 free (or maybe a couple MBs free if you're lucky).


----------



## Mussels (Jul 27, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> That's not 1 or 2 gigs and I can't even see the screenie (and it's x64). I can look at that on any vista comp (x86) with 1 or 2 gigs of ram and it says 0 free (or maybe a couple MBs free if you're lucky).



i never said it was 2GB.

what screenie? its just showing my ram usage/desktop. x64 uses a little more ram than normal in the 32 bit OS, so it'd be lower in x86 anyway.

The reason it says 0 free is superfetch - its unrelated to free/used ram. (mine also normally says 0 free in that field, as i recently added another 2GB of ram superfetch just hasnt been filling it to the brim yet)


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 27, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i never said it was 2GB.
> 
> what screenie? its just showing my ram usage/desktop. x64 uses a little more ram than normal in the 32 bit OS, so it'd be lower in x86 anyway.
> 
> The reason it says 0 free is superfetch - its unrelated to free/used ram. (mine also normally says 0 free in that field, as i recently added another 2GB of ram superfetch just hasnt been filling it to the brim yet)



and it would be nice if superfetch was purged nice and fast, but it seems to love to page it when you have 1-2 gigs of ram = abysmal perf


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> Load up fear and tell me how that goes, ok. The game can't even play smooth b/c to go around a corner it has to pause to load more data. And yeah, a lot was still in ram, but since vista's so bloated it still took forever to become functional. If it has actually offloaded the ram then games would be as smooth as they are in XP, but that's not the case.
> 
> And how can anyone justify it taking such a tremendous amount of time to alt-tab or exit a game to get back to windows. It's so freaking asinine. If I had to use that shit every day I wouldn't be able to see straight with fury. It's bad enough with XP.



Well i loaded up fear and everything was going great. Why not ask me to load a game thats actually resource intensive? Crysis and what not seems to run fine. I've never had any stuttering issues in games. I'm just wondering what resource intensive things you are doing that vista can't handle.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 28, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> and it would be nice if superfetch was purged nice and fast, but it seems to love to page it when you have 1-2 gigs of ram = abysmal perf



Well it runs on my laptop with 512 so you must have done it wrong, maybe you tweaked some settings and broked it. What have you got against superfetch, xp has a rudimentry version of it and vista has a perfected version that works extremely well.

Mussels how did you get 6gb of ram  3 x 2gb's ?


----------



## merkk (Jul 28, 2008)

Well i have a all AMD rig and i'am using vista-64 home basic it cost me all $87 dollars
at new egg. What can vista do that xp can not ? Tell how i'am going to run my 3 video 
cards in XP i realy like to know that . If you had a all AMD rig you could see how AMD/ATI
is moving way form XP and VISTA is becoming there OS of choice. I'am using a 9850BE 
4 core cpu ,3 video card and 4 gigs ram in my vista build and i love the way this thing runs .
Now if you got old hard ware staying with XP is more than likely the best choice. But if you 
have put a new PC together in the last year or so there no reason to not change over to vista .With AMD/ATI you can see that the new hard ware their making is gear to vista and not to old school XP. I use windows 95,98,2000,xp-64 and now vista-64 i like vista -64 the best .I did wait till SP1 for vista came out before i made the change so the move over to vista was trouble free for me. I didn't let people talking trash about vista stop me form trying it . I'am glad i did.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 28, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> Well it runs on my laptop with 512 so you must have done it wrong, maybe you tweaked some settings and broked it. What have you got against superfetch, xp has a rudimentry version of it and vista has a perfected version that works extremely well.
> 
> Mussels how did you get 6gb of ram  3 x 2gb's ?



2x1 + 2x2. my mobo somehow supports that in dual channel.

my media PC is on 1GB, and apart from lagging with too many firefox tabs open (and thats FF using 500+MB of ram) i've not had any problems. it doesnt game, but it runs HD media, chat programs and web stuff without ever missing a beat. (this is not the download PC in sig, its a 939 4200+ with 1GB (single channel) DDR400 and a 3450, running vista x64)

i can get 4GB of DDR2 for arond $140 (after shipping) - that drops down to about $35 per GB.
If you cant afford ~$40 to upgrade your ram, you really shouldnt have bought vista!


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 28, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> Well it runs on my laptop with 512 so you must have done it wrong, maybe you tweaked some settings and broked it. What have you got against superfetch, xp has a rudimentry version of it and vista has a perfected version that works extremely well.
> 
> Mussels how did you get 6gb of ram  3 x 2gb's ?



512 ROFL!  Have fun getting a drink and going to the bathroom while waiting for anything to load. When I'm trying to fix a laptop with 1 GB I want to throw it through the window.


----------



## HAL7000 (Jul 28, 2008)

MS is just doing what it does best....f**k the consumer with over pricing with multiple versions of a OS. *I am happy that we have MS to supply the gaming world with a platform that works* and is supported by game publishers. The sad thing is MS has Vista, a good OS in multiple versions, and they way I change MB's  and if I buy oem OS's, well I can't change my MB without a hassle. I pay to use the dam OS, who the hell are they to tell me I can't change my system MB if I buy oem? If I buy retail, about one hundred $ more they say go ahead, do what you want. So in XP or vista...they are both good, I hope they can get it right next time without having to blind test the blind user. Isn't it great they now can rape our wallets and now call average users stupid in a blind sort of way????


----------



## Megasty (Jul 28, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> 512 ROFL!  Have fun getting a drink and going to the bathroom while waiting for anything to load. When I'm trying to fix a laptop with 1 GB I want to throw it through the window.



Bah, I already threw my old Armada 110 out the window 4 times while trying to get vista on it. It finally worked after the 4th toss. They don't make 'em like that anymore


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 28, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Well i loaded up fear and everything was going great. Why not ask me to load a game thats actually resource intensive? Crysis and what not seems to run fine. I've never had any stuttering issues in games. I'm just wondering what resource intensive things you are doing that vista can't handle.



I meant fear on 1 GB, I've done it and it makes you want to hurt someone, but it works just dandy on XP 

Anything loading a lot into ram, that's the problem (gaming would definitely be one haha). It wants to thrash the damn HDD all day and not get anything done. That's completely unacceptable.

I think everyone here has low expectations on speed. When I click the icon, I expect it to open <del>immediately</del> instantaneously, or if it's a game, to load in a few secs. I am not waiting 5 sec to open basic things and a min for a game.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 28, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> I meant fear on 1 GB, I've done it and it makes you want to hurt someone, but it works just dandy on XP
> 
> Anything loading a lot into ram, that's the problem (gaming would definitely be one haha). It wants to thrash the damn HDD all day and not get anything done. That's completely unacceptable.
> 
> I think everyone here has low expectations on speed. When I click the icon, I expect it to open <del>immediately</del> instantaneously, or if it's a game, to load in a few secs. I am not waiting 5 sec to open basic things and a min for a game.



and thats why i use vista. with superfetch and large amounts of cheap ram, my games all insta load, no matter what i was doing beforehand.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 28, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> I meant fear on 1 GB, I've done it and it makes you want to hurt someone, but it works just dandy on XP
> 
> Anything loading a lot into ram, that's the problem (gaming would definitely be one haha). It wants to thrash the damn HDD all day and not get anything done. That's completely unacceptable.
> 
> I think everyone here has low expectations on speed. When I click the icon, I expect it to open immediately or if it's a game to load in a few secs. I am not waiting 5 sec to open basic things and a min for a game.



So that's your argument, you can't run f.e.a.r on 1gb of ram on vista but you can on xp, so there you go, vista sucks. That doesn't make any sense for various reasons many of us have pointed out extensively. Yes, it does not require as strong of a system to run xp as vista, and that's how it should be. I don't wait at all for things to open in vista, it's pretty much instant, things in general are much quicker than xp actually. I hate using xp on my gf's laptop actually, b/c it gets bogged down and xp will lock up sometimes and takes forever to load comparatively speaking (of course, a 2 year old laptop can't compete anyway, but you catch my drift), only one time have I had to do a hard reboot in vista, and that was my own fault for installing faulty software.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 28, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> I meant fear on 1 GB, I've done it and it makes you want to hurt someone, but it works just dandy on XP
> 
> Anything loading a lot into ram, that's the problem (gaming would definitely be one haha). It wants to thrash the damn HDD all day and not get anything done. That's completely unacceptable.
> 
> I think everyone here has low expectations on speed. When I click the icon, I expect it to open <del>immediately</del> instantaneously, or if it's a game, to load in a few secs. I am not waiting 5 sec to open basic things and a min for a game.



Well you probably shouldn't be loading a high end OS onto a lower end pc with 1gb of ram. Maybe later i'll try running on 1gb. I still have to maintain though that the whole super fetch system seems to work great on vista. Given that my system isn't exactly a low end system everything does open pretty instantly with minimal delay, however isn't your harddrive the larger bottleneck when opening big programs?


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 28, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> 512 ROFL!  Have fun getting a drink and going to the bathroom while waiting for anything to load. When I'm trying to fix a laptop with 1 GB I want to throw it through the window.



 Best bit is its a single core celeron at 1.73 ghz I think and having a discussion on tpu while chatting on msn and playing defcon is pretty good. No skipping waiting or such  Also I wish my stopwatch did nanoseconds as well because then I could measure how long it takes my main rig to open a program.


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 28, 2008)

I bet they had the dang pop up turned off for this if they did it.

Would you like to do this, and would you like to do that. Are you sure about that lol.


Two things that bug me about vista. They removed the backup button in a download folder. I now have to expand all the folders to back up just one.....

The other thing is the start menu, why is there not a option to turn the way program files are viewed back to the way XP was. Clicking and dragging things back to the most used programs was soooo easy.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 28, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> I bet they had the dang pop up turned off for this if they did it.
> 
> Would you like to do this, and would you like to do that. Are you sure about that lol.QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Jul 28, 2008)

far as peaple saying vista sucks there was one time when everybody thot the world was flat to


----------



## Mussels (Jul 28, 2008)

to the last three posts:

UAC is easy to disable. takes one reboot.

Backup stuff: ok, i dont know about that. fair call if they hid the option.
start menu DOES have another mode... its called classic mode. i use it, and love it!


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 28, 2008)

Mussels said:


> to the last three posts:
> 
> UAC is easy to disable. takes one reboot.
> 
> ...



I know you can disable it  just I love how complicated they made it at times.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 28, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> I know you can disable it  just I love how complicated they made it at times.



you're loading start menu! you sure you want to this??
you're entering MSconfig! you sure you want to this??
you're disabling UAC! thats cool.
*reboot*
HOLY CRAP YOU DISABLED UAC!
*disable warnings*
*reboot*
hmmmm.... so THIS is what vistas meant to be, lol.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 28, 2008)

lol I hate when games do that are you sure you want to quit ? no i just clicked this small button that says quit so I could say no.


----------



## LindseyM_WindowsTeam (Jul 29, 2008)

My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team.  I would be happy to share our customer videos from the Mojave Experiment. They can be found at www.MojaveExperiment.com.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 29, 2008)

so it's pronounce mo-hav-ay? odd.


----------



## zithe (Jul 29, 2008)

I wiped a windows XP PC during spring break (couldn't fix a bad install) and installed linux. Now I'm not too fond of linux (It's awesome if you don't like gaming. Very stable and not a single worry about viruses) and I'm saving up for vista (along with an e7200, crossfire mobo and a 4850) because I've owned both. Mom's PC has vista, and it's quite nice. Even with a geforce 6100 and 1gig of RAM, it runs fine. A little annoying with all the prompting for permission though. XD


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jul 29, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> so it's pronounce mo-hav-ay? odd.



Of course! We don't really speak English here in America. We speak American! We have all kind of words that make absolutely NO sense whatsoever! Arkansas (Ar-can-saw), Kansas (Can-says), no sense at all, so you folks in the UK don't even try to figure it out since many Americans can't seem to! You guys definitely have the market cornered in the English language!  

Regarding the link above, that was cool of her to post it.........


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 29, 2008)

LindseyM_WindowsTeam said:


> My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team.  I would be happy to share our customer videos from the Mojave Experiment. They can be found at www.MojaveExperiment.com.



why did you trick them?


----------



## DaMulta (Jul 29, 2008)

To show that the word from people that know tech made them think that vista is really bad.


The no back folder button really pisses me off that it is now gone. Me and my boss scream about it all the time. It's one of the main things that we hate about vista, besides the new start menu and UAC.


----------



## Arctucas (Jul 29, 2008)

thoughtdisorder said:


> Of course! We don't really speak English here in America. We speak American! We have all kind of words that make absolutely NO sense whatsoever! Arkansas (Ar-can-saw), Kansas (Can-says), no sense at all, so you folks in the UK don't even try to figure it out since many Americans can't seem to! You guys definitely have the market cornered in the English language!
> 
> Regarding the link above, that was cool of her to post it.........



What part of the US are you from?

I always thought Kansas was pronounced "Canz-Ass".


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 29, 2008)

lindsay why did the windows key + u for shutdown stopped working with vista, something so entrenched?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 29, 2008)

Arctucas said:


> What part of the US are you from?
> 
> I always thought Kansas was pronounced "Canz-Ass".



Ummm, last time I checked, that isn't American. It may be Americanized, but I think the long gone Native Americans hold title to many of our names.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 30, 2008)

LindseyM_WindowsTeam said:


> My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team.  I would be happy to share our customer videos from the Mojave Experiment. They can be found at www.MojaveExperiment.com.



Sorry but we arent stupid people here. Care to share why government agecies, places of learning, businesses, why they all refuse to "upgrade" to Vista? Allow me to fill that one in for you in simple points.

- Vista is a resource hog 

Completely clean install it ate 800-900MB of DRAM on my system equipped with 2GB.. only after extensive services tweaking did it come down to a more acceptable 512MB. I can run XP with everything my system requires and 3-4 relatively memory hungry apps and just be peaking 600MB or so.

- Unstable 

Crashes every 17.5hrs or so, yes, wonderful stability there having to reset once a day 

- Bloated 

Seriously, who wants bloody gigs of drivers on their HDD for crap they will never own? Get real.

- Inferior gaming performance vs. XP 

Please dont try to deny this you will force me to school you using Crysis as the model.

- The fact (most; ie; the normal user) have to HEAVILY upgrade their system to run Vista to any real acceptable standard.

- No hardware support for soundcards

Turning peoples £200+ cards into something thats little better than an onboard AC97 solution is just retarded. Again I expect no comeback on this, otherwise you will force me to brief you in detail about such things like the Alchemy project and why the Alchemy project had to come about. 

- The god awful GUI

Why break something that was perfectly set up? Its lunacy to mess with things that didnt need messing with in the first place.

Now, leaving the obvious flaws of Vista aside for this post, I HAVE used Vista, before and after SP1, regardless Vista sucked (resource hog, bloated, insanely slow at copying files vs. XP, etc) and I put it to you, in fact I heartily encourage you, to pick some of the knowledgeable folk running XP off of this forum and have them run Vista and get their feedback. No trickery (but lets be fair, the people you randomly had do that mojave experiment could not of been very tech savvy to not recognise Vista when they saw it), in a simple "Try Vista, and tell us what you do and don't like about it".


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 30, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> Now, leaving the obvious flaws of Vista aside for this post, I HAVE used Vista, before and after SP1, regardless Vista sucked (resource hog, bloated, insanely slow at copying files vs. XP, etc) and I put it to you, in fact I heartily encourage you, to pick some of the knowledgeable folk running XP off of this forum and have them run Vista and get their feedback. No trickery (but lets be fair, the people you randomly had do that mojave experiment could not of been very tech savvy to not recognise Vista when they saw it), in a simple "Try Vista, and tell us what you do and don't like about it".



I volunteer


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 30, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> Sorry but we arent stupid people here. Care to share why government agecies, places of learning, businesses, why they all refuse to "upgrade" to Vista? Allow me to fill that one in for you in simple points.
> 
> - Vista is a resource hog
> 
> ...



agree with resource hog bit but that happened to xp as well, unstabel .. I have to disagree since mines never crashes unless im overclocking in which case xp does as well. Bloated - same with xp, inferior gaming performance ... 1 fps is not a make or break for a gaming experience, no idea about the soundcard thing and the GUI is your opinion not a fact.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 30, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> agree with resource hog bit but that happened to xp as well, unstabel .. I have to disagree since mines never crashes unless im overclocking in which case xp does as well. Bloated - same with xp, inferior gaming performance ... 1 fps is not a make or break for a gaming experience, no idea about the soundcard thing and the GUI is your opinion not a fact.



Agree w/ you on all that, I love the GUI, and find vista to be more stable and faster than xp. I really don't care if xp can run a game 7fps faster than vista, if it's unplayable then I'll get a new graphics card, I prefer eye candy. Sound I have heard issues about, haven't really had any myself as I use onboard w/ mid-range speakers, but the lack of a equalizer irritates me. Although, I think that's more of the companies who make the sound drivers problems, not microsoft's. If I was to say anything negative about vista though that'd be it probably though. Bloated? Again, why is having a stripped down os favorable to a more functional one?


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 30, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Agree w/ you on all that, I love the GUI, and find vista to be more stable and faster than xp. I really don't care if xp can run a game 7fps faster than vista, if it's unplayable then I'll get a new graphics card, I prefer eye candy. Sound I have heard issues about, haven't really had any myself as I use onboard w/ mid-range speakers, but the lack of a equalizer irritates me. Although, I think that's more of the companies who make the sound drivers problems, not microsoft's. If I was to say anything negative about vista though that'd be it probably though. Bloated? Again, why is having a stripped down os favorable to a more functional one?



It all boils down to someone's experience of the os. For example if I installed linux and had issues such as no network drivers or no graphics driver support I would not use it but someone else might have drivers for thier network and graphics and then enjoyed using it because they found it stable.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 30, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Agree w/ you on all that, I love the GUI, and find vista to be more stable and faster than xp. I really don't care if xp can run a game 7fps faster than vista, if it's unplayable then I'll get a new graphics card, I prefer eye candy. Sound I have heard issues about, haven't really had any myself as I use onboard w/ mid-range speakers, but the lack of a equalizer irritates me. Although, I think that's more of the companies who make the sound drivers problems, not microsoft's. If I was to say anything negative about vista though that'd be it probably though. Bloated? Again, why is having a stripped down os favorable to a more functional one?



It's about efficient coding. We don't need 3 gigs of actual windows files to do the work of what should take 500 megs, you know?

The audio issue is that games can't use direct sound. It now has to be emulated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectSound
They took a perfectly good system and flat out killed it. I liken it to having opengl then making shitX, especially 11. Except you get zero hardware benefit. Really good stuff, M$, thanks. Dicks.

LOL, I mean directx 10 haha


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 30, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> Ummm, last time I checked, that isn't American. It may be Americanized, but I think the long gone Native Americans hold title to many of our names.



very true - and the further towards the east coast you go, the more prevailant and widespread the use of native american terms become





			
				ketxxx said:
			
		

> Sorry but we arent stupid people here. Care to share why government agecies, places of learning, businesses, why they all refuse to "upgrade" to Vista? Allow me to fill that one in for you in simple points.
> 
> - Vista is a resource hog
> 
> ...




I agree with you on most points you presented . . .

the sad thing, though, is that some of the bigger issues between XP/Vista can be fixed - DX10 _can_ run on XP . . . and we _could_ have audio hardware acceleration in Vista . . . 

Vista, IMO, is currently no better than XP was when _it_ was released, _and_ after SP1.  But, Vista gives me the impression of an OS that was ritzed up to compete with MAC, and userability had to fall sacrifice for this.  You know how irritating it is to install an application, and then spend 45min trying to figure out why it doesn't want to run, only to realize you didn't install or run the application as "administrator?!"  It gives me the impression that it was shoved out the door more half-baked than XP initially was . . . we _still_ have software and hardware companies trying to get stable or "accepted" Vista drivers released . . . c'mon, driver support on the 3rd party side was bad enough that MS _delayed_ the launch of the OS to give some big name companies time to finish developing drivers that the _OS_ would cooperate with.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 30, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> It all boils down to someone's experience of the os. For example if I installed linux and had issues such as no network drivers or no graphics driver support I would not use it but someone else might have drivers for thier network and graphics and then enjoyed using it because they found it stable.



True words, no os is perfect for everyone, what works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. The same thing happens w/ brand bias. Someone has a good experience w/ one brand and a bad experience w/ the other and deems the one better than the other, while someone else may have a totally opposite experience. Really both brands end up being nearly the same, distinguishable only by personal preference.



TheGuruStud said:


> It's about efficient coding. We don't need 3 gigs of actual windows files to do the work of what should take 500 megs, you know?
> 
> The audio issue is that games can't use direct sound. It now has to be emulated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectSound
> They took a perfectly good system and flat out killed it. I liken it to having opengl then making shitX, especially 11. Except you get zero hardware benefit. Really good stuff, M$, thanks. Dicks.



You may be right about inefficient coding, I've heard it before. I, however, don't really buy it from my experience w/ vista (seems faster, more efficient, more responsive, speaking from a qualitative standpoint). I don't know enough about it to say for sure either way though.


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 30, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Agree w/ you on all that, I love the GUI, and find vista to be more stable and faster than xp. I really don't care if xp can run a game 7fps faster than vista, if it's unplayable then I'll get a new graphics card, I prefer eye candy. Sound I have heard issues about, haven't really had any myself as I use onboard w/ mid-range speakers, but the lack of a equalizer irritates me. Although, I think that's more of the companies who make the sound drivers problems, not microsoft's. If I was to say anything negative about vista though that'd be it probably though. Bloated? Again, why is having a stripped down os favorable to a more functional one?



the audio issue I've beaten into the ground with Vista . . .


but seeing as how I don't want to get up on my soapbox about that again - all I'll say is that with onboard audio, the OS seems to be more integrated with it.  If you have HD onboard that is capable of 7.1+, there are no down sampling or down mixing issues that I know of, unless you're running 3rd party applications (i.e. PowerDVD).  If all you're using is media center, your audio will function correctly, perfectly, and correct. 

But, if you're running an audio adapter, be warned that there are issues no matter what the hardware manufacturer - downsampling and downmixing is common, converting 5.1 to 2-channel.  No hardware acceleration, amoungst other things.

This all boils down to the audio architecture, and how the audio APIs within the kernel are designed to carryout hardware calls.  

And the sad part is, MS _was_ working with a couple other companies to impliment DirectSound support into the DX10 package . . . but after one of their partners dropped the project, so did MS . . .:shadedshu


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 30, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> the audio issue I've beaten into the ground with Vista . . .
> 
> 
> but seeing as how I don't want to get up on my soapbox about that again - all I'll say is that with onboard audio, the OS seems to be more integrated with it.  If you have HD onboard that is capable of 7.1+, there are no down sampling or down mixing issues that I know of, unless you're running 3rd party applications (i.e. PowerDVD).  If all you're using is media center, your audio will function correctly, perfectly, and correct.
> ...



Yeah I'm not too well versed in the technical audio area, so I only half know what your talking about (not exactly sure what down sampling sounds like), but I know you know your stuff in this department. Like I said, the only negative sound thing I've encountered is the realtek drivers for vista don't include an equalizer, while they do on xp, I don't really understand why that is, but I have a hunch that's realtek not ms. Overall I can't really distinguish any faults in the sound though. I do plan on upgrading my sound card eventually w/ some nice speakers, so I will have to do some extensive research in this area before hand to avoid as much of this as possible, any chance you could throw in some sort of vista audio guide to your understanding audio guide?


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 30, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Yeah I'm not too well versed in the technical audio area, so I only half know what your talking about, but I know you know your stuff in this department. Like I said, the only negative sound thing I've encountered is the realtek drivers for vista don't include an equalizer, while they do on xp, I don't really understand why that is, but I have a hunch that's realtek not ms. Overall I can't really distinguish any faults in the sound though. I do plan on upgrading my sound card eventually w/ some nice speakers, so I will have to do some extensive research in this area before hand to avoid as much of this as possible, any chance you could throw in some sort of vista audio guide to your understanding audio guide?



as to the realtek with no EQ . . . yeah, that's RealTek :shadedshu

although, Analogue Devices (ADI) isn't much better; their SoundMAX drivers for this motherboard don't include an EQ and some other stuff for XP . . . but they do for Vista 


When you plan on upgrading to an audio card for Vista, I'm more than willing to give unbiased recomendations or answer any questions 


as to the guide - yeah, I intend to add more to it at some point.  Seeing as how the Vista upgrade is looking inevitable next month (STALKER: Clear Sky - w00t! ), and I don't feel like running into any issues with the current mod process of getting DX10 to run seamlessly with XP (although it appears the project is still being worked on). 

So, I'll start getting some more in depth field work with audio in Vista, and I'll be adding to the audio guide, as well as the X-Fi thread.  Possibly, if it turns into a big enough ordeal, I might voodoo up another guide solely for audio in Vista.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 30, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> as to the realtek with no EQ . . . yeah, that's RealTek :shadedshu
> 
> although, Analogue Devices (ADI) isn't much better; their SoundMAX drivers for this motherboard don't include an EQ and some other stuff for XP . . . but they do for Vista



Actually, ADI does have some good drivers, but guess what, you have to hunt for them.
If you get the new versions from Asus by searching under newer MBs (intel chipsets seem to be a good place to start), then you can find drivers released this yr and with the equalizer, etc. In fact, for adi 1988, you need to use 1988b drivers b/c they work the best. The only issue I've had now is that digital doesn't output in 5.1 (I had it working ONCE and it won't work again).

Any newer realtek drivers should be good, too. Or I'd use the nvidia drivers if you can.

I'm still waiting for cash for my Xonar


----------



## imperialreign (Jul 30, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> Actually, ADI does have some good drivers, but guess what, you have to hunt for them.
> If you get the new versions from Asus by searching under newer MBs (intel chipsets seem to be a good place to start), then you can find drivers released this yr and with the equalizer, etc. In fact, for adi 1988, you need to use 1988b drivers b/c they work the best. The only issue I've had now is that digital doesn't output in 5.1 (I had it working ONCE and it won't work again).



I've gotten the ones from ASUS - but I'm not too concerned with it ATM.  I had only enabled the onboard for testing purposes, and for hardware comparisons to an audio adapter.

Actually, TBH, if you take a look at the first post in my audio spec guide (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=871130&postcount=1) - all results with the red spectrum tests were done with the AD1988B chipset found on this P5E3-Deluxe motherboard.

. . . and ADI are amoung the best in terms of onboard audio chipsets, too.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 30, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> I've gotten the ones from ASUS - but I'm not too concerned with it ATM.  I had only enabled the onboard for testing purposes, and for hardware comparisons to an audio adapter.
> 
> Actually, TBH, if you take a look at the first post in my audio spec guide (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=871130&postcount=1) - all results with the red spectrum tests were done with the AD1988B chipset found on this P5E3-Deluxe motherboard.
> 
> . . . and ADI are amoung the best in terms of onboard audio chipsets, too.



Yeah, but too bad they're getting out of the market. I did notice that it's very crisp compared to any other onboard.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 30, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> To show that the word from people that know tech made them think that vista is really bad.
> 
> 
> The no back folder button really pisses me off that it is now gone. Me and my boss scream about it all the time. It's one of the main things that we hate about vista, besides the new start menu and UAC.



the folder with the up arrow? well at least you can click part of the name now, and have it go there that way. (if i go to D:\games\far cry\ i can simply click games in the address and it takes me back to that folder)


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 30, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> agree with resource hog bit but that happened to xp as well, unstabel .. I have to disagree since mines never crashes unless im overclocking in which case xp does as well. Bloated - same with xp, inferior gaming performance ... 1 fps is not a make or break for a gaming experience, no idea about the soundcard thing and the GUI is your opinion not a fact.



The GUI thing is a fact, people I speak to that have used Vista for some time still do not like the GUI - its a mess.

Inferior gaming performance is also a fact. In benchmarks things are about the same, but with games like Crysis its a whole different story. People report after installing Vista they had to tone their game settings down to medium, whereas on XP they could run most settings on high. Thats a rather dramatic difference.

Now, XP being bloated? I'd like to know how on earth you come to that conclusion. On a fresh, completely uncustomised install XP uses around 2GB, Vista on the other hand even after extensive install customisations still requires at least double that of XP.

Finally, stability. With the majority of NORMAL PC users reporting crashes and the average being worked out at around 17.5hrs between crashes, Vista is just not a stable, reliable OS.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 30, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> very true - and the further towards the east coast you go, the more prevailant and widespread the use of native american terms become
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DX10 does not quite run on XP, to date most of "DX10 only" features are nothing more than DX9c being pushed to its limits. This includes Crysis. When you hack Crysis for XP there its literally 1 or 2 options that will ONLY run under DX10, however neither of these options seem to impact performance or visual quality in any way what so ever.

I used XP before SP1, and I have to say regardless of its flaws at the time XP was still far better than Vista on release. I also firmly think XP was far better than Vista when SP1 was released compared to Vista and its SP1. This is all generally backed up in all kinds of articals across the web.

The audio issue is a big thing IMO. Vista just plain sucks. Why bother with a very expensive soundcard if Vista is going to fuck it up and cripple it? Not a bad onboard audio solution by any means, I tried Vista with my Crosshair which uses an ADI 1988B CODEC, and dear god, the sound quality was absolutely horrible, massively muffled and distorted sounding. Back to XP all was well, clear, crystal sounds. All in all like you I'll stand by my original statement - I hope whoever had the moronic idea to drop hardware sound acceleration got fired. I would go into more details, but I'm saving my artillerary for if a certain _LindseyM_WindowsTeam_ *dares* to step into the shadow of my domain 

Oh and ADI aren't among the best onboard audio solutions - they are THE best


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 30, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> The GUI thing is a fact, people I speak to that have used Vista for some time still do not like the GUI - its a mess.
> 
> Inferior gaming performance is also a fact. In benchmarks things are about the same, but with games like Crysis its a whole different story. People report after installing Vista they had to tone their game settings down to medium, whereas on XP they could run most settings on high. Thats a rather dramatic difference.
> 
> ...



How is disliking the GUI a fact? Even if it is the popular opinion, that doesn't make it a fact. I love the GUI, it isn't a mess at all, so.........

Gaming performance isn't inferior at all. I haven't ever had to crank down any settings. The only thing I can't do is AA in Crysis (can't do that in XP either). Other than that I run it in extreme (config mod) or very high on everything and enjoy it very well. Every other game I can completely max out w/ AA and all. Then again, I care really only about true real world performance (my experience playing the game, not at all based on fps). Again, not a fact........

Xp is very bloated compared to 2000. It's progress, more features, more hardware, progressively more "bloated." 

Majority maybe reported problems when the os was first released, no longer the case I would suspect. I don't have exact statistics, if you do then show me, so again, not a fact........


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 30, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> The GUI thing is a fact, people I speak to that have used Vista for some time still do not like the GUI - its a mess.



Ok maybe the rest is true for others but you don't seem to grasp that the GUI is an opinion and not a fact since I could say I think the mona lisa is a terrible piece of art and that would not be a fact it would be a matter of opinion. If 5 billion people said the vista GUI is ugly and 1 Billion said it wasn't it would be an opinion. I compared XP being bloated to older operating systems compared to win95, XP is several times larger, and it happens with games as well, we are now seeing 15 gb games coming on two dual layer dvd's while games used to be able to fit on floppy disks.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 31, 2008)

most people who complain about crysis being slower in vista over XP, are in fact forgetting that the game defaults to DX10 mode... in several installs on my systems i didnt actually have the games explorer icon to run DX9 mode, and had to make a shortcut with a command to force it.

90% of users simply double click the icon or the start button from the CD/DVD, without checking what DX mode its in.


----------



## MKmods (Jul 31, 2008)

great post btarunr


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 31, 2008)

Mussels said:


> most people who complain about crysis being slower in vista over XP, are in fact forgetting that the game defaults to DX10 mode... in several installs on my systems i didnt actually have the games explorer icon to run DX9 mode, and had to make a shortcut with a command to force it.
> 
> 90% of users simply double click the icon or the start button from the CD/DVD, without checking what DX mode its in.



Yeah that's what I used to do then i realised running it in dx9 mode made the fps on par with xp.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 31, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> How is disliking the GUI a fact? Even if it is the popular opinion, that doesn't make it a fact. I love the GUI, it isn't a mess at all, so.........
> 
> Gaming performance isn't inferior at all. I haven't ever had to crank down any settings. The only thing I can't do is AA in Crysis (can't do that in XP either). Other than that I run it in extreme (config mod) or very high on everything and enjoy it very well. Every other game I can completely max out w/ AA and all. Then again, I care really only about true real world performance (my experience playing the game, not at all based on fps). Again, not a fact........
> 
> ...



Plenty is a fact. A statistical majority, regardless of if its an opinion or not, makes it a fact. I'm not going to sit here providing endless links, its an inefficient waste of my time. I'm up to date through my own research and googling. If you want to see things for yourself do as I did, research, and read highly acreditied assessments from various IT professionals instead of buying into MS propaganda.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 31, 2008)

So statistically if 95% of the world say that the United States is in fact a pancake and not a country it must be a fact. This is about the gui being ugly is a fact and not opinion.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 1, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> *Plenty is a fact. A statistical majority, regardless of if its an opinion or not, makes it a fact.* I'm not going to sit here providing endless links, its an inefficient waste of my time. I'm up to date through my own research and googling. If you want to see things for yourself do as I did, research, and read highly acreditied assessments from various IT professionals instead of buying into MS propaganda.



I really have no idea how what you mean here. Your saying if the majority of people hold a certain belief, even though it remains an opinion, it also becomes a fact? That's just nonsensical. A fact that many hold that opinion maybe, but that doesn't make it unconditionally true, as would be the case w/ a fact. Review the meaning of the two words maybe. I don't need endless links, just the one showing the majority of vista users have problems. I have no problem believing many dislike vista, perhaps even the majority of IT professionals. But that doesn't make it bad for all.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 1, 2008)

"A statistical majority, regardless of if its an opinion or not, makes it a fact."

thats the most twisted, irrational logic i've seen in a long time. It doesnt make it anywhere near a fact, at all.


----------



## imperialreign (Aug 1, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> DX10 does not quite run on XP, to date most of "DX10 only" features are nothing more than DX9c being pushed to its limits. This includes Crysis. When you hack Crysis for XP there its literally 1 or 2 options that will ONLY run under DX10, however neither of these options seem to impact performance or visual quality in any way what so ever.
> 
> I used XP before SP1, and I have to say regardless of its flaws at the time XP was still far better than Vista on release. I also firmly think XP was far better than Vista when SP1 was released compared to Vista and its SP1. This is all generally backed up in all kinds of articals across the web.



I agree - I was only trying to compare Vistas issues relativelly to XP's initial release; but still, XP was a lot better off, and I don't remember as many driver issues on the 3rd party side with XP's release as compared to Vista's problems . . .

To the DX10 thing, I was referring to the Alky Project, which was an attempt to enable DX10 libraries to run on WIN XP - not the means of "hacking" a game like Crysis to enable DX10-esque features on XP.  One thing is for sure, though, with users - if there's a will, there's a way.



> The audio issue is a big thing IMO. Vista just plain sucks. Why bother with a very expensive soundcard if Vista is going to fuck it up and cripple it? Not a bad onboard audio solution by any means, I tried Vista with my Crosshair which uses an ADI 1988B CODEC, and dear god, the sound quality was absolutely horrible, massively muffled and distorted sounding. Back to XP all was well, clear, crystal sounds. All in all like you I'll stand by my original statement - I hope whoever had the moronic idea to drop hardware sound acceleration got fired. I would go into more details, but I'm saving my artillerary for if a certain _LindseyM_WindowsTeam_ *dares* to step into the shadow of my domain
> 
> Oh and ADI aren't among the best onboard audio solutions - they are THE best




I agree here as well, and I'm refraining from getting further onto my soap box in regards to Vista and audio . . . I've beaten that topic so many times it isn't even funny.  All I'll say is that MS effed up because they were in a rush to release a waaayyyy behind schedule OS . . .


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 2, 2008)

LindseyM_WindowsTeam said:


> My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team.  I would be happy to share our customer videos from the Mojave Experiment. They can be found at www.MojaveExperiment.com.



Lindsey, I just got back from a business trip and read your post. Please read this whole thread before posting. And if you did , please read it again. 
You video/ commercial that I saw on TV in the hotel was enlightening. It showed how dumb a company could be  by making their customers/ consumers look even dumber. Does MS get off on this crap? I may not be a rocket scientist but if I was MS I would stop this campaign showing stupidity as a highlight to recognizing Vista. Tell MS to call Steve and then ask him how to make one OS for a fair price.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 2, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> Tell MS to call Steve and then ask him how to make one OS for a fair price.



OSX might be cheap but you can only use it on expensive apple made hardware so in the end you have a more expensive mac just with a cheaper os.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 2, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> OSX might be cheap but you can only use it on expensive apple made hardware so in the end you have a more expensive mac just with a cheaper os.



While noobs have to deal with that, we don't. Leo4all FTMFW!


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 2, 2008)

Holy crap i've been waiting for something like that for years. Downloading it now and going to install it on my other HDD and hope it works.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 2, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> Holy crap i've been waiting for something like that for years. Downloading it now and going to install it on my other HDD and hope it works.



You can check your hardware compatibility on wiki. http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.5.2
Then you can see what patches you may need, but leo does come with a lot of drivers.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 3, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> OSX might be cheap but you can only use it on expensive apple made hardware so in the end you have a more expensive mac just with a cheaper os.



I was just *making a point* that *apple has their shit together concerning a OS for their system*. 

*MS* has *to many version$* and rakes in everyone's ca$h buying them. MS now with the Mojave experiment will be that much more enlightened...bullsh*t. The blind idiots.
I use MS because I game, if I did not game as much as I do I would have a apple. I am forced to continue using MS until someone out their gets it together. 

So what point are you making?


----------



## Mussels (Aug 3, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> I was just *making a point* that *apple has their shit together concerning a OS for their system*.
> 
> *MS* has *to many version$* and rakes in everyone's ca$h buying them. MS now with the Mojave experiment will be that much more enlightened...bullsh*t. The blind idiots.
> I use MS because I game, if I did not game as much as I do I would have a apple. I am forced to continue using MS until someone out their gets it together.
> ...



apple has a fairly crap OS. it only works on their specific hardware and does nothing new compared to windows - it uses just as much resources and crashes just as much - go check youtube, its full of hilarious videos... such as apple safari web browser crashing upon entering the apple store.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 3, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> While noobs have to deal with that, we don't. Leo4all FTMFW!



I was looking at that, thanks for the reminder to look into it again.

http://osx86leo4all.wikidot.com/


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 3, 2008)

lindsay, where are you?


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 3, 2008)

Mussels said:


> apple has a fairly crap OS. it only works on their specific hardware and does nothing new compared to windows - it uses just as much resources and crashes just as much - go check youtube, its full of hilarious videos... such as apple safari web browser crashing upon entering the apple store.



you miss the point I was making...I am not here to debate the integrity of the OS X Leopard for mac but was pointing out that MS needs to get into the same way of thinking for x86 machines. 

One OS for a mac

One  OS for a x86 machine

Then MS can commit all their intense thought...cough ..cough into getting that OS right. Vista was promised to the end users to end the compatibility issues we went through before its release. Vista was the Holy Grail,,,well it fell short and has more versions than ever before. 

So again, *call Steve* and ask him how he does it *Microsoft* because you sure haven't got it together yet.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 4, 2008)

Well MS kinda had to split them, when the 9x Kernal vanished it left it all on the NT Kernal, which has always had mutliple distros.

This would be how this goes that MS sees it ok


Windows 3.1 - Windows 95 - Windows 98 - Windows Me - Windows XP Home - Windows Vista Home Premium

Windows NT 3.1 - Windows NT 3.51 - Windows NT 4.0 Professional - Windows 2000 Professional - Windows XP Professional - Windows Vista Ultimate

Windonws 2000 Enterprise Edition - Windows XP Enterprise Edition - Windows Vista Buissiness.

The others fit it also of course, Home Basic has everything Home Premium does minus Aero Glass, it uses the least amount of resources of any windows versions except starter and is designed for older computers. But When the Bussiness world mergerd with the home world it made things alot more complex for the Operating system. You don't see Mac's like this because untill 2-3 years ago they where seen only as media editing computers and still mostly are. The bussiness world left Mac in the 90's to use Linux or Windows.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 4, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Versions

Release date 	Product name 	Version 	Notes 	Last IE
November 1985 	Windows 1.01 	1.01 	Unsupported 	-
November 1987 	Windows 2.03 	2.03 	Unsupported 	-
March 1989 	Windows 2.11 	2.11 	Unsupported 	-
May 1990 	Windows 3.0 	3.0 	Unsupported 	-
March 1992 	Windows 3.1x 	3.1 	Unsupported 	5
October 1992 	Windows For Workgroups 3.1 	3.1 	Unsupported 	5
July 1993 	Windows NT 3.1 	NT 3.1 	Unsupported 	5
December 1993 	Windows For Workgroups 3.11 	3.11 	Unsupported 	5
January 1994 	Windows 3.2 (released in Simplified Chinese only) 	3.2 	Unsupported 	5
September 1994 	Windows NT 3.5 	NT 3.5 	Unsupported 	5
May 1995 	Windows NT 3.51 	NT 3.51 	Unsupported 	5
August 1995 	Windows 95 	4.0.950 	Unsupported 	5
July 1996 	Windows NT 4.0 	NT 4.0.1381 	Unsupported 	6
June 1998 	Windows 98 	4.10.1998 	Unsupported 	6
May 1999 	Windows 98 SE 	4.10.2222 	Unsupported 	6
February 2000 	Windows 2000 	NT 5.0.2195 	Extended Support until July 13, 2010[17] 	6
September 2000 	Windows Me 	4.90.3000 	Unsupported 	6
October 2001 	Windows XP 	NT 5.1.2600 	Current for SP2 and SP3 (RTM and SP1 unsupported). 	8
March 2003 	Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003 	NT 5.2.3790 	Unsupported 	6
April 2003 	Windows Server 2003 	NT 5.2.3790 	Current for SP1, R2, SP2 (RTM unsupported). 	8
April 2005 	Windows XP Professional x64 Edition 	NT 5.2.3790 	Current 	8
July 2006 	Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs 	NT 5.1.2600 	Current 	-
November 2006 (volume licensing)
January 2007 (retail) 	Windows Vista 	NT 6.0.6000 	Current. Version Changed to NT 6.0.6001 with SP1 (February 4th 08) 	8
July 2007 	Windows Home Server 	NT 5.2.4500 	Current 	8
February 2008 	Windows Server 2008 	NT 6.0.6001 	Current 	8
2010 (planned) 	Windows 7 (codenamed Blackcomb, then Vienna) 	NT 6.1.6574.1 (M1 beta release) 	Future release


*Not to include the other versions of versions...lol*


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 4, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> lindsay, where are you?



i think she was, in effect, a post bot.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 4, 2008)

Well now out of those I really liked ME...It was the last of its kind and I bought it retail to frame. I have framed most of my past and current OS disk. I look at them and add the amount of cash I spent over the years. My wife reminds me as well,,,not to include over 300 game titles I kept as well. 
This is a reason that the mojave experiment has pissed me off. MS has gotten plenty of cash from a lot of users/ oem's over the years and to have committed treasonous experiments on the unwitting consumer is unforgivable to me. How much do we as consumers need to take from MS. They have us over a barrel and they know it.

 I would love to be the CEO of MS for one week. A Free OS upgrade for those willing to turn in the existing retail license of any OS...That would make more sense than the f**king mojave experiment has.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 4, 2008)

They exist to make money not provide us with free operating systems thats what linux is for. If they make a crap os don't buy it but don't say it does this and that when xp can do it better if it can't. What MS has proved here is what I suspected is that it many have been misinformed by microsoft haters. Also you can't release just ONE OS for everyone, They are tailored to a specific area e.g a server os doesn't need aero glass or a fancy gui or even sound but a consumer does. Also look at the hundreds of linux distributions, they are made for a specific purpose because you can't have just one mega OS


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 4, 2008)

ive seen some buy Server 2003 for Regular systems for the fact of being a more finley tuned product, ya sure there are somethings disabled but you can re-enable them if you want.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 4, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> They exist to make money not provide us with free operating systems thats what linux is for.
> 
> *Never said that...you did.*
> 
> ...



Last but not least, I will respect your opinion but it has very little to support the claim. Back up what you are saying referencing ...

*1.*misinformed by microsoft haters? who are they?
*2.You can't release one???....*One OS.....you can for the END USER....meaning us...that is who we are talking about here now, right! And why not?

You are missing the point. MS can do allot better than what they are doing and *mojave for the final time was a insult to all consumers.*


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2008)

on the MS and multiple vistas, i dont see the problem.

There is (for a home user)
Vista basic - cheap, no frills (and useless imo)
Vista home premium - 99% of people are satisfied with this
Vista ultimate - this is home premium with the business features tacked on (ridiculous retail price)

then there is the x64 flavours of these.

To be honest i dont see the problem, if that confuses you so much... well, you really should stick with a mac.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 4, 2008)

Mussels said:


> on the MS and multiple vistas, i dont see the problem.
> 
> There is (for a home user)
> Vista basic - cheap, no frills (and useless imo)
> ...



or an abacus


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 4, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> Last but not least, I will respect your opinion but it has very little to support the claim. Back up what you are saying referencing ...
> 
> *1.*misinformed by microsoft haters? who are they?
> *2.You can't release one???....*One OS.....you can for the END USER....meaning us...that is who we are talking about here now, right! And why not?
> ...



I can play that game too  I never said you said both of them  and I'm not going to name EVERY single person on the web who bashes vista but there are certainly people out there who don't like it  just look through this forum and you will find a few and in fact i used to think vista was crap because of what I read on forums and now I'm here defending it and you can't make JUST ONE OS for the end user because there are different needs and different versions for everyone's budget.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2008)

if they made an all in one that cost $150, people would cry for a $50 version with cut back features and the businesses would still want an optimised workstation one for $200 with extra backup features... MS have more than one version because thats what people wanted.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 4, 2008)

Well I own -4-x86 machines *and no Mac*. The reference to mac was to set a foundational argument that a singular OS will work with a system and that IMHO MS needs to follow in this path. 

Release many versions of one OS and then have the mojave experiment ,,,this was a joke and insult. It showed how MS really looks at their end users. 

what if all the MB and CPU mfg's locked out any possibility of over clocking. I am sure this would piss off lot of people. You see the evolution of oem's is to allow for end users to do what they want how they want. 

You see I know that I have spent plenty of money in MS's direction and as a consumer am disappointed that they stooped this low to prove nothing  outside of some people are easily stooped. 

*Education is a terrible thing to waste*....so Microsoft educate your consumers


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 4, 2008)

Well pepsi did it to hard core coke fans and no one seems to care and if I had participated in that test and I was a hardcore windows xp user then I would feel embarressed that I let a 'trend' on the internet dictate my opinion on something I'd never used. What microsoft really did in that video was show people who had never used vista because they had heard so much negativity about it that it was actualy a good operating system.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2008)

you know... i wonder why you're so pissed about this.

The experiment proved many, many people are vista haters without ANY knowledge or proof of it being so. MS proved that a large amount of people who hated vista, have never actually used it.

This offends you... why? is it because you too, hate vista without ever having used it? do you feel threatened somehow?

you really arent making any sense OR a point here. you're just ranting that MS is evil and vista sucks without ANY logic, reason, or backing.

edit:
your message is coming across as:
'there are too many versions of vista. this confuses me, and because of this i have decided microsoft is evil and deliberately doing this to make more money'


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 4, 2008)

Mussels said:


> if they made an all in one that cost $150, people would cry for a $50 version with cut back features and the businesses would still want an optimised workstation one for $200 with extra backup features... MS have more than one version because thats what people wanted.



Well I am people and so are my colleagues and business associates. We don't want what you just stated. Many of us would like to see one OS and if that is the case of what you stated, show me the study.

 Remember we are speaking about end users, not business. I understand the need for a version optimized for the business sector but for the end user I am sure they would want all the bells and whistles that come with V Ult. and not a scaled down version. But then again you need to educate them how to use it. Not make fools of them and show it publicly. 

Again, in my unscientific opinion, I would state that I and my colleagues as well as many other people,,,,thought to themselves or spoke it outwardly "what a bunch of stupid people ...and what nerve it took MS to do this then show the video of people getting punked publicly". Well I hope they were all payed well. Maybe they got a free version of windows 95 because they didn't know any better.
We can have different opinions about MS but the mojave experiment was a public disrespect to allot of people in and out of the industry.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 4, 2008)

Mussels lets leave the XP nutters in there hole, its what we did to the Windows 98 and Windows 2000 users that never let go, lets just leave them in there solace and let them watch the tech world go by


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 4, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> Well I am people and so are my colleagues and business associates. We don't want what you just stated. Many of us would like to see one OS and if that is the case of what you stated, show me the study.
> 
> Remember we are speaking about end users, not business. I understand the need for a version optimized for the business sector but for the end user I am sure they would want all the bells and whistles that come with V Ult. and not a scaled down version. But then again you need to educate them how to use it. Not make fools of them and show it publicly.
> 
> ...



Normal users have no use for Ultimate, what are they going to do with half of those features, its the same arguement for getting XP pro over Home. No user needs those features, the truth is Vista Ultimate is targeted at hardware enthusiansts, and bussiness that require mutlimedia and bussiness support in there OS thats it. You users should be on Home Premium its called home for a reason


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 4, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> Well I am people and so are my colleagues and business associates. We don't want what you just stated. Many of us would like to see one OS and if that is the case of what you stated, show me the study.
> 
> Remember we are speaking about end users, not business. I understand the need for a version optimized for the business sector but for the end user I am sure they would want all the bells and whistles that come with V Ult. and not a scaled down version. But then again you need to educate them how to use it. Not make fools of them and show it publicly.
> 
> ...



They did not make this video to insult the public. They made the video to attempt to illustrate that a large portion of the dislike for vista is unfounded. I don't attempt to bash people who come in thinking vista sucks, and I doubt microsoft does either. It's understandable why that is, hype is hard to dispel. The video shows people being shown that they in fact may enjoy vista (again, if I haven't already made it clear, it matters not to me whether the study was legit, or whether the subjects were actors, I couldn't say for sure either way but for me it's a little beside the point). Nobody should be offended by this video, just take a second look.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 4, 2008)

Mussels said:


> you know... i wonder why you're so pissed about this.
> 
> The experiment proved many, many people are vista haters without ANY knowledge or proof of it being so. MS proved that a large amount of people who hated vista, have never actually used it.
> *
> ...


*What I have stated is: there are to many versions of vista, isolating it to one OS would be beneficial. And as for MS making money, hell yeah, Bill is one of the riches men in the world for some reason....
You need to get off the evil thing,,,,I did not state this. Having a opinion different from yours is fine you need to respect this, trying to fault me for this and put words in my mouth is not what TPU is all about.... *


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 4, 2008)

your pm hints it  but more to the point I'm sure mussels accepts that you have a different opinion and I certainly respect that, what we were arguing is that the reason for there being so many different versions is because there is a demand for them, if there wasn't then there wouldn't be that many.


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 4, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> Mussels lets leave the XP nutters in there hole, its what we did to the Windows 98 and Windows 2000 users that never let go, lets just leave them in there solace and let them watch the tech world go by



Excuse me, are you saying I am a XP nutter? This just proved my point. You do not read what I posted. 
I am tuning 50 in a week. I have seen technology grow from nothing to something. I remember when windows needed to be loaded from floppy's. To say I am stuck in the XP zone is shallow on your end. I understand that in order to gain everything I need to experience from gaming I need to jump into vista. 

In this thread I was sharing my OPINION of the mojave experiment and MS's play in this. 

*farlex85*...thanks for at the least giving me the respect of sharing my opinion. I am not offended to the point of walking away from using MS but just present the other side of thinking.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 4, 2008)

Congrats on the birthday next week  and thanks for the thanks


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 4, 2008)

Ok....for the record ....I will be buying V Ult for my latest gaming rig that I am presently building. I will get the retail version because I change my motherboards 3 or 4 times a year. So hopefully you will understand I am not shunning Vista...just the mojave exp.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 4, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> In this thread I was sharing my OPINION of the mojave experiment and MS's play in this.
> 
> *farlex85*...thanks for at the least giving me the respect of sharing my opinion. I am not offended to the point of walking away from using MS but just present the other side of thinking.



Yeah I know what your saying, I think MS's hand was kind of forced in this though. People have an automatic dislike often for the big cooperation, anarchy is in our blood. With the internet the way it is, and the recent re-rise of the mac, things have gotten to a point where it would be foolish for MS to sit idlely by and simply attempt to let their products speak for themselves while half the tech world badmouths them. I see this as a response to the massive negativity train that has come their way, and to the mac campaigns of late (which I do actually find a little offensive). I don't think they were going for making people feel stupid, I think they are trying to say, hey, don't buy into the hype, try it yourself, and when you do, keep an open mind.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 4, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> Excuse me, are you saying I am a XP nutter? This just proved my point. You do not read what I posted.
> I am tuning 50 in a week. I have seen technology grow from nothing to something. I remember when windows needed to be loaded from floppy's. To say I am stuck in the XP zone is shallow on your end. I understand that in order to gain everything I need to experience from gaming I need to jump into vista.
> 
> In this thread I was sharing my OPINION of the mojave experiment and MS's play in this.
> ...



Vista does offer the more rich gaming experince actully, DX10 is the future not DX9, everyone knows it. If you are a gamer you will get off XP and migrate to Vista, bussiess are moving for a very simple reason, alot of programs they use are still Windows 98/2000 based and programs from that generation have issues with the NT6 kernal.

Also MS had to rename it from Vista for this, the negitive bias would still be intact otherwise towards vista.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Aug 4, 2008)

HAL7000,

You are sounding like a MS conspiracy theorist. MS is popular because they give people what they want with all the features they want. OS's are feature driven. Gates learned this back when he bought the mouse concept from Xerox plus the gui idea, many years ago.

He learned it then...... you can learn it now.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2008)

this thread got a lot of spam since my last post.

the BUSINESS features added to ultimate include data encryption, total OS/HDD backup features... and well not much

the useless additions added to it for 'home' users are animated desktops and texas hold em poker.

ultimate has nothing for a home user - if you and your 'associates' want those features... buy business or ultimate. i cant help it if you're such a whiner that you want the features of the top model at the price of the lowest, go into a car dealership with that attitude and see what you get.

HAL7000... you're just offering irrational things without ANY useful info. you dispute everything i'm saying because its a opinion, yet all you offer is opinion with just as little backing yourself.

seriously, and i mean this in a way that wont offend the mods or you: If you SERIOUSLY cannot wrap your mind around 3 kinds of OS for home users (basic, premium, ultimate) and two business editions (business and server)... i'm surprised you figured out how to post here. XP home, pro, and server 2003? dear god theres three already for XP, its not that much different.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 4, 2008)

actully 

Windows XP Starter
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Professioanl
Windows XP 64bit
Windows XP Professional x64
Windows XP For Embedded
Windows XP MCE

those are your windows XP versions all distinct

Windows Vista Starter
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Bussiness
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Ultimate

if you count thats less versions of vista than XP, you could argue that xp pro x64 is really Server 2003 but its labled XP, and is diffrent from XP 32bit in many ways that make them dissimilar, and 64bit edition is for Itanium chips. While the 64bit versions of Vista share everything with there 32bit counterpart besides memory address space


----------



## Mussels (Aug 4, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> post above



thank you for going to the effort to locate all the versions.

the reason i find vista x86 and x64 next to no different in this aspect, is because the CD keys are compatible. you can buy x86, and get a DVD from anywhere and upgrade for nothing (or pay shipping and MS will ship one to you). this was not the case in XP, which made it a lot harder and more difficult to choose the OS you wanted.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 4, 2008)

forgot one XP for tablet PC's

i pulled that list from my head


----------



## HAL7000 (Aug 5, 2008)

Mussels said:


> this thread got a lot of spam since my last post.
> 
> the BUSINESS features added to ultimate include data encryption, total OS/HDD backup features... and well not much
> 
> ...



Mussels what makes you right and others wrong? You were negative with eastcoasthandle for presenting the other side of the coin, and me, you sir need a lesson in etiquette.  I listen to your opinions ....such as this one excerpt from your first post in this thread;

*Quote by Mussels.*..”90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC”

Mussels where did you get that 90%? Or is that a opinion like others share here….

It seems you believe everything you read or watch my friend. I go to forums as such to discuss ideas, opinions and learn. You defiant reaction to condemn others by trying to turn the tables doesn't work with me. It isn’t that people hate Vista nor like XP but get frustrated in the way corporate America does business at times. I was reminded of this by farlex85 and DrPepper . But I am not making anyone out to be a hater for different opinions. MS doesn’t need you to defend them. And please try to understand others by giving them a platform to voice there thoughts and opinions without putting words in their mouths. I appreciate your input but relax. I get enough stress and bullshit from the real world, let it not invade the forum where a bunch of computer geeks share ideas and opinions. It is good to disagree and remain objective.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 5, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> I get enough stress and bullshit from the real world, let it not invade the forum where a bunch of computer geeks share ideas and opinions. It is good to disagree and remain objective.



Well said sir well said.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 5, 2008)

Server2003>X64.


candle_86 said:


> actully
> 
> Windows XP Starter
> Windows XP Home
> ...


----------

