Whats all this bashing Vista?

[Reista]

To give you bashers perspective, 98 came out in 98: =p duh. but 98 used 256mb at best. windows xp, now 7 years old, came out 3 years after 98, and the average ram went up 4 times to 1gig for real performance. However with a 6 year distance from the appearance to xp, apparently 2 gigs to run vista which is 1/2 the difference between 98 and xp makes people more mad and 4gigs to run at optimum. theres was an equal to bigger change from 98 to xp (2000, ME and other oddities excluded) than from a SIX year difference from XP to Vista. And as for program compatibility, try playing an XP game on 98 and a 98 game on xp, you'll see that either one run on xp wont work, flashes every screen, or works rarely. XP to vista, Vista (with SP1) plays almost all xp games with great compatibility. If any of my info is Incorrect by all means, tell me =]

[Alaron]

My feeling is that as an XP user, and non-gamer, I have no compelling reason to switch to Vista.

[Reista]

i wasn't promoting vista, i was devaluing the bashers =p if xp suites your needs then by all means keep it =]

[Devastator]

I agree entirely. See nothing wrong with Vista. I was a little worried at first but I am glad I did it. I run 64 bit and have had absolutely no driver issues or issues with any of my games. Ones that were older i was able to run them in XP mode and/or as administrator and they work fine.

I have fine tuned my service list and turned aero off etc. and am using about 750mb of my 4 gig total RAM - idle.

[liambl]

I also think that some of the negative thoughts on Vista came from people basing speed on OEM Pc's which come loaded with 70-80 processes running. Strip that down to 30 and performance goes up dramatically.

I still don't see myself upgrading Vista as it doesn't offer anything I would use that I can't get on XP. I'm not interested in DX10's minimal visual quality increase for 60% performance over DX9.

[mikeL]

Because bashing Windows is so much fun, To me all vista is, is a load of eye candy nothing more. I really don't care for all the Gee-Whizzy stuff in any OS.

try playing an XP game on 98 and a 98 game on xp

I've ran and played Duke Nukem3D on my XP machine with no problems. I don't game any more, It was more just to do it and run the game.

[pally01]

Vista has served me well. I was an early adopter and have had NO real problems with Vista from day one. As for the RAM whining out there - RAM is dirt cheap so I don't see that as an issue either.

My two bits worth....

[vtfanmv5]

There's nothing wrong with Vista. Some people just don't like change. And a lot of credit has to be given to Apple...like it or not, they have done a fantastic job smashing Vista into the ground.

I initially tried Vista on my dell laptop, but it ran a little to slow for me. I eventually dropped it but I'm now using it on my new desktop, and I love it.

[shadowpr]

Long discussion about it here: Does anybody actually like Vista?

[RoadStar]

I`m also becoming very happy with Vista. I just put together a new build and admit that I reluctantly installed Vista, totally skipping XP, mostly because my beloved Win2000 is outdated. Sorry Reista but I hardly consider W2k "an oddity". It is basically an upgraded version of the pain in the butt Win NT but paved the way for XP, which was badmouthed as much when it first came out as Vista is now. Been running W2k since it was introduced, and would reboot it monthly if it needed it or not, VERY stable.

I personally think most of the bad mouthing of Vista is from people either, not wanting to take the time to learn a new OS, not wanting to take the time to learn the subtle tweaks which any OS has, have hardware issues due to poor research when building ones system from scratch, not understanding memory management, not to mention the overclocking crowd who I suspect many may have issues due to misunderstood settings. I don`t intend to flame the OCers. God bless anyone who is able to push their hardware beyond the intended specs to achieve that high score in an online game, but I`m of the mindset that, if I need to haul more wood, I`ll buy a bigger truck. Then again, my idea of gaming is playing Hexagon....LOL.

Running my system with stock settings and 2 G RAM (blah....unsexy but stable Crucial) , super prefetch and indexing enabled, and having resolved a driver issue that drove me nuts for a week, I can honestly say that this is now the most responsive OS I have ever used. As far as the RAM issue and how much? Yes, more is better but the 32 bit OS I think is seeing its death nell being restricted to 4G ( for this discussion at least) and the upper portion of that unusable due to address assignments for VID and PCI. The most one can hope for is 3.5 G. But, the biggest performance boost is from 1G to 2G and this tested running extreme games. Your research will show that anything between 2G-4G is basically flatlined. Sound familiar? I remember when upgrading to 64 megs of RAM in a W98 machine showed the biggest performance boost as opposed to upgrading from 64 to 128, which also flatlined. Which comes down to, memory management, stream line your OS, any OS. Have your hardware set up properly and configured correctly for your intended purpose, be it surfing the web or conquering WOW. In any system, the hardware has been and always will be the easy part, making the OS and software work with it has been and always will be the challenge.

I read Reista`s original post as an abbreviated expression of the evolution of the personal computer. Pretty cool..

[Prew]

I first installed Vista a year ago on my gaming computer and had major problem with drivers and crashes- so I reinstalled XP. I recently installed Vista on a mulitmedia/entertainment computer and it works fine- seems like the driver problems and compatibility issues have been worked out

[faulkner132]

I use Vista Business here at work. I my opinion, it is definitely a step forward over XP.

[doubledragon5]

Stayed tuned for more OS bashing to come when Windows 7 comes out, that is my 2 cents worth...

[faulkner132]

On a similar note, how come there was no "Apple Bashing" when they both went from PowerPC to Intel and then OS-X 10.5 came out and many programs which worked with the old didn't work with the new? This is two cases of Apple sticking it to their users in just a couple of years...

To me Microsoft has handled legacy applications infinitely better than Apple, yet MS catches hell when something isn't perfect. The good ole' double standard in action.

[Reista]

Because mac made a cult =p its followers never speak against

[EzyStvy]

We could play a little XP vs. Vista game...

Entry fee is $500.00

Goal - Guess which OS I'm using to type this post.

Or, Goal - type a 3000 word essay explaining why you Care about what OS I'm using.

Remember, beauty is in the eyes of the beerholder

[Force Flow]

Originally Posted by faulkner132 On a similar note, how come there was no "Apple Bashing" when they both went from PowerPC to Intel and then OS-X 10.5 came out and many programs which worked with the old didn't work with the new? This is two cases of Apple sticking it to their users in just a couple of years... To me Microsoft has handled legacy applications infinitely better than Apple, yet MS catches hell when something isn't perfect. The good ole' double standard in action.

Thing is, apple has fanboy fanatics and jump for joy when new things happen.

Windows, well, is Windows. Can't say I've every met a Windows fanboy.


Doesn't OS X have an emulator for older apps and/or apps based on the PowerPC chip?


As for vista, while it does have a couple of useful features, I've found it simliar to trying to tie your shoes with gloves on.

I'm a gamer, and although vista has DX10, I'm sticking with XP for now for reasons of cost and performance.

I'm hoping Windows 7 will be a bit more usable. If not, I may be migrating to linux as soon as it's refined.

[RoadStar]

Originally Posted by EzyStvy We could play a little XP vs. Vista game... Entry fee is $500.00 Goal - Guess which OS I'm using to type this post. Or, Goal - type a 3000 word essay explaining why you Care about what OS I'm using. Remember, beauty is in the eyes of the beerholder

I`m guesing your OS has to be Win 95, back when the Pentium had the floating decimal point issue. $500.00 to enter sounds steep!!!!! Might be more fun to guess what BEER you`re holding..

[peekaboo]

Originally Posted by faulkner132 I use Vista Business here at work. I my opinion, it is definitely a step forward over XP.

Please elaborate.

[faulkner132]

Originally Posted by peekaboo Please elaborate.

Just a few off the top of my head:

1. It is just as stable and performs about the same as XP.
2. The task scheduler is so much better as you can now combine tasks without creating batch scripts.
3. There is built in event log triggers.
4. The clock has the ability to display multiple time zones when you hover over it (silly, but very useful).
5. Power management has be drastically improved.
6. The RDP remote connection (Terminal Services) now supports multiple monitors on the client end. Since I work from home, this is huge.

[not important]

My thoughts on Vista: Why spend more money for an OS that requires you to spend even more money on hardware to use it?

[TwoRails]

Originally Posted by shadowpr Long discussion about it here: Does anybody actually like Vista?

I was going to post that link... but shadowpr beat me to it!

Originally Posted by doubledragon5 Stayed tuned for more OS bashing to come when Windows 7 comes out, that is my 2 cents worth...

My hunch is there won't be too much. Many compare vista to ME, so Win 7 should be like XP was to ME, in that line of thinking.

[MaxRat]

for average use Vista is ok....but when I can do everything on Vista that I can do on XP I will switch...

I have yet to be able to get everything working in Vista the things I do on XP...remind you I have tested Vista from the very early days of beta when it was code named longhorn....before they changed longhorns codename to something else...lol

When I install XP it just works...everything I throw at it works and for the most part works well...has an occasional issue but not like Vista....

I have yet to get all my games to install correctly and works correctly over hamachi...not without hacking this or that...I still cant get some games to install right and work over hamachi on some rigs...whether it's just an Intel thing I dont know but I have none of those issues in XP...

If I would have had to pay full retail for my vista copies I would be sending hate mail by the truckloads...but MS seems to think I'll be happy with free copies...just doesnt work that way either...just fills up needed space in the cabinet...

[doubledragon5]

Originally Posted by TwoRails I was going to post that link... but shadowpr beat me to it! My hunch is there won't be too much. Many compare vista to ME, so Win 7 should be like XP was to ME, in that line of thinking.

Lets hope your right, and hope that windows 7 not be like me and vista like xp...

[betances93]

I just installed Vista Ultimate and let me say, its amazing. I love Vista Aero, my 2 Gig can play WOW fine and program in Autocad well enough.. I haven't tried Dreamscenes, but tthe media center and all of the support has been great.

Go Vista

[Prew]

I just tried the Microsoft One Care Live online scanner. Interestingly, Onecare is still in beta form for Vista. It did not work and it gave me an error message (0x0C600C03) with a suggestion that I check forums for a solution (lol). I checked- this and other errors are common with Onecare and Vista. The forums noted these problems more than one year ago and still Microsoft apparently has not fixed them. There does not appear to be a reliable fix.

I have heard rumors that even Microsoft has pretty much given up on Vista- not fixing Onecare to work reliably with Vista might be an indication of that.

[glc]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. What am I running on this machine? Win2K. It works. It supports all my apps. I haven't reformatted in about 7 years now. I just built a new machine that is in the process of replacing this one. What did I install? XP, everything in classic mode. Why XP? Because the motherboard I used is not supported in Win2K. I've used Vista and I do not like it at ALL. Why? Because I just DON'T. I really don't like XP that much either, but in the classic mode it's acceptable and its stability is now proven. Also, the time is coming REAL soon where I will need to run something that requires XP or newer.

My definition of an operating system is something that sits unobtrusively in the background that allows me to run software applications. The more "in your face" the OS is, the less I can tolerate it. If DOS could multitask and support my apps, I'd use it.

[Force Flow]

On that note, an O/S is a platform, not an application or a series of applications. Applications are supposed to run on the platform.


Probably one of the reasons we've seen a small migration over to OS X is that their O/S acts like more like a platform, and less than a series of integrated applications trying to shout over each other.

[glc]

Exactly. I have enough hassles keeping my applications from trying to shout over each other - I don't need the damn OS to chime in too. If I felt like learning a new set of console commands and if I could find a set of satisfactory compatible apps, I'd prolly switch to a text-only version of Linux. I'm getting lazy in my old age, and too accustomed to clicking a mouse.