My uber boosted laptop came with Vista. It runs slower than my 5 year old Pentium 4! And it crashes a lot, while my XP pld computer never does.
I’m so POed that next time I’m considering switching to Mac. What’s so great about Vista anyway? I use OTHER software than windowns to get the job done.
[quote]SwD wrote:
My uber boosted laptop came with Vista. It runs slower than my 5 year old Pentium 4! And it crashes a lot, while my XP pld computer never does.
I’m so POed that next time I’m considering switching to Mac. What’s so great about Vista anyway? I use OTHER software than windowns to get the job done.
[/quote]
I always wonder what people mean by “high end” here. I think there’s high end and then insane. High really isn’t that fast…
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
What I REALLY LIKE
Is if you substitute “Vista” for “XP”, you have the same fucking thing being said when XP came out way back when. 2000 was better, XP was shitty and Fisher Price. Now, people have hardons for XP and Vista is the devil.
People, think back to the hatred of XP when SP2 came out! It’s the same bullshit! Just chill, you will embrace Vista or you will embrace the maggots. XP will die and you will love Vista, just like 2k died and you love XP.
Yawn.[/quote]
You don’t understand. XP requires 128mb of ram just to run the OS! That means you’ll need at least 256 mb on your system! WTF??!
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
msd0060 wrote:
What I REALLY LIKE
Is if you substitute “Vista” for “XP”, you have the same fucking thing being said when XP came out way back when. 2000 was better, XP was shitty and Fisher Price. Now, people have hardons for XP and Vista is the devil.
People, think back to the hatred of XP when SP2 came out! It’s the same bullshit! Just chill, you will embrace Vista or you will embrace the maggots. XP will die and you will love Vista, just like 2k died and you love XP.
Yawn.
You don’t understand. XP requires 128mb of ram just to run the OS! That means you’ll need at least 256 mb on your system! WTF??![/quote]
XP was a blotted hog when I came out… The common PC came with 128 or 256 or ram that ran win 2k great. 512 was the key to get XP going well. The biggest issues was security… loaded with holes and forever under exploitation…
Vista is a bitch! but for different reasons… Not compatible with most of the software out there that is older than 3 or 4 years (XP was very compatible)in other words the software many business use…
When you spend thousands of dollars on software you don’t wish to buy it all over again.
I am a computer Tech who was around cense the win 3.1 days and the win 95 bombed most all PCs so yea…
Yawn.
[quote]Synthetickiller wrote:
I think the bottom line is this. You can bitch all you like, but truth be told, EVERYONE (unless you use linux or mac) will be upgrading to vista b/c of new programs requiring it as well as drivers for hardware will start moving in vista’s direction.
[/quote]
I don’t believe this is true.
Businesses are not deploying Vista. Many may be upgrading, but I believe most will wait for Windows Seven. There is simply no reason for a business to upgrade to Vista with the headaches it entails.
I work for a test lab, and much of our very expensive equipment will only run on older systems. For all the talk about needing the newest hardware, I am often scrambling to come up with Win98 systems.
Unless you are a gamer, there is really no reason for a home user to make the leap either. XP does everything I need and I don’t have any known security issues. I do CAD and they have not come up to speed on Vista. You can blame this on the CAD developer, but I use my computer to run software, not to run an OS.
With that said, I do believe that many of Vista’s bad press is being caused by the people building the systems. I don’t have a link, but I read a recent article in tech republic about the bloat that system builders are incorporating in their machines. Once their drives are wiped, and clean installs are deployed, the systems are smoking fast.
[quote]inthego wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
msd0060 wrote:
What I REALLY LIKE
Is if you substitute “Vista” for “XP”, you have the same fucking thing being said when XP came out way back when. 2000 was better, XP was shitty and Fisher Price. Now, people have hardons for XP and Vista is the devil.
People, think back to the hatred of XP when SP2 came out! It’s the same bullshit! Just chill, you will embrace Vista or you will embrace the maggots. XP will die and you will love Vista, just like 2k died and you love XP.
Yawn.
You don’t understand. XP requires 128mb of ram just to run the OS! That means you’ll need at least 256 mb on your system! WTF??!
XP was a blotted hog when I came out… The common PC came with 128 or 256 or ram that ran win 2k great. 512 was the key to get XP going well. The biggest issues was security… loaded with holes and forever under exploitation…
Vista is a bitch! but for different reasons… Not compatible with most of the software out there that is older than 3 or 4 years (XP was very compatible)in other words the software many business use…
When you spend thousands of dollars on software you don’t wish to buy it all over again.
I am a computer Tech who was around cense the win 3.1 days and the win 95 bombed most all PCs so yea…
Yawn.
[/quote]
I’ve yet to find anything that doesn’t run on Vista that ran on XP. Compatibility mode is a nice feature and makes even old DOS only stuff run if you want it to, even though Vista doesn’t have DOS.
A lot of crap and misconceptions flying around. Let’s get a few things straight:
Not “EVERYONE” will be installing Vista. The people that can’t live without a piece of software whose publisher issued a Vista-only version are a tiny minority. The OS is expensive, bloated and a resource hog. XP, despite all the extra software you need to install on it just to ensure your machine isn’t turned into a zombie, is more than enough for most people. And if MS doesn’t outdo itself on the the post-Vista software, it’s monopolistic days will be over. Linux is slowly leaking into the mainstream with things like Ubuntu and those tiny commodity-machines dubbed “netbooks”.
Ubuntu does NOT require a 700MHz processor.
Installation/SystemRequirements - Community Help Wiki
I run Xubuntu on a 233MHz, and it flies!
Installing software on Linux, provided it’s a Debian-based distro, is easier than doing the same on Windows. All you do is fire up a package manager and click on the apps you want. On Windows, you usually need a browser which makes authentication a much trickier business.
The very nature of the open-source model means any spotted or exploited vulnerability is fixed within hours. On Windows, you wait for whatever time MS deigns appropriate to send you a patch. Sure, most malware coders are currently focused on Windows, but it doesn’t mean that the messes they made different Windows flavors do, are duplicable under Linux. Security-wise, and no matter how you put it, the latter is inherently superior.
As for gamers, you rarely need a full-blown OS. Buy consoles. The hardware is usually subsidized there.
Number one even if I wanted Vista I wouldnt buy it. I would grab it for free on my favorite russian site. Bill has enough money! Number two I LOVE my XP pro corp. Also free.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Strategy and FPS console games are useless. It takes a pretty big anti-nerd to think that you can get away with replacing a PC for gaming.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
lixy wrote:
Strategy and FPS console games are useless. It takes a pretty big anti-nerd to think that you can get away with replacing a PC for gaming.[/quote]
Didn’t know that. I take it back then.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
lixy wrote:
Strategy and FPS console games are useless. It takes a pretty big anti-nerd to think that you can get away with replacing a PC for gaming.
Didn’t know that.[/quote]
The good news is that this makes you an anti-nerd by my definition.
I guess what it comes down to is what you do with your computer.
If you typically surf the web, type, email, etc, linux / mac is fine.
If you game, overclock, etc, I think you’re going to be stuck with windows.
The bottom line is what you use it for. Technically, 90% of people NEVER need to upgrade ever until web browsing requires actually CPU usage.
I will argue that open source WILL be a nightmare. There’s no proof ANYONE can handle it since there’s been no actual test yet. Just get a good firewall and try to educate yourself about whats safe and not safe activity.
I think you’re always going to see people with incredibly fast computers always running windows b/c more software on that platform requires more CPU usage as well as OCing. Like I said, I’m biased towards linux / mac b/c the OCing options are not there and emulating OCing programs (memset, prime95, orthos, etc) would not fare well and are not naively available.
[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
I’ve yet to find anything that doesn’t run on Vista that ran on XP. Compatibility mode is a nice feature and makes even old DOS only stuff run if you want it to, even though Vista doesn’t have DOS.[/quote]
Yes and no some of the components of the software will run but not as it did in XP, and if there is an error the software venders will not help with the issue…
Quickbooks, peach tree, Act! and many custom dBase software…
They will run or rather crawl and not all the features will run and or import/export to other appts well…
AV software is just now getting up to date with full compatibility as well as cd burning software but not for the older ones you need to buy the new Vista compatible software…
[quote]Synthetickiller wrote:
I guess what it comes down to is what you do with your computer.
If you typically surf the web, type, email, etc, linux / mac is fine. [/quote]
That’s 90% of the population.
Overclocking is not something you “do with your computer”. Not anymore than optimizing the scheduler or adding RAM. It all comes down to software availability. More and more vendors are forced to provide *nix support. I never overclocked anything, but I understand GPU is no problem now that Nvidia is Linux-friendly.
Exactly!
This is pure conjecture, so I won’t go into it. But what do you mean by “ANYONE”?
I hate to break your bubble, but the world’s fastest computers run Linux because of its superior scalability. Likewise, the computers that see most activity and remain powered on for years (i.e: servers) are Linux in majority. So no my good friend, “incredibly fast computers” are not, nor will they always be running Windows. You can even see a trend in the mainstream market whereby Linux is pushed on the “high-end” hardware, while Windows gets the “low-end”. Look at the configurations the EEE 900 comes out in.
As for applications not being “naively[sic] available”, blame the vendors too lazy to write portable code.
Whatever the future holds, it will be one of choice. Not the MS monopoly consumers have to deal with today. And if you can afford to buy new hardware just to run Windows, more power to you.
[quote]inthego wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
I’ve yet to find anything that doesn’t run on Vista that ran on XP. Compatibility mode is a nice feature and makes even old DOS only stuff run if you want it to, even though Vista doesn’t have DOS.
Yes and no some of the components of the software will run but not as it did in XP, and if there is an error the software venders will not help with the issue…
Quickbooks, peach tree, Act! and many custom dBase software…
They will run or rather crawl and not all the features will run and or import/export to other appts well…
AV software is just now getting up to date with full compatibility as well as cd burning software but not for the older ones you need to buy the new Vista compatible software…[/quote]
I haven’t had to buy a thing. All of the software I used on Xp works on VIsta just fine. The only piece I had to wait for was for some printer drivers. But only for a month.
[quote]Synthetickiller wrote:
<<< I won’t lie, I am a little biased b/c my main use of computers after work/school is gaming and overclocking. There’s no way to do the latter two w/o windows.[/quote]
I know a thing or 2 about strip tweaking, overclocking, voltage mods, extreme cooling and benchmark wars. That will always be a Windows exclusive. At least in my lifetime. This machine I affectionately named the Frankenbox is now decommissioned, but in 4 years and several versions, XP never saw the light of day on any of it’s drive arrays except long enough for me to see once again that 2000 was faster.
That computer illustrates perfectly my approach to computing. All go and no show. All function and no beauty. That machine was a rock crushing monstrosity performance wise and looked like a pile of junk. Ran 2000 exclusively long after XP was out because I proved, with no wiggle room whatsoever that 2000 outperformed XP period… by a lot. The numbers do not lie, at least mine don’t. Also 2000 is undeniably more durable. Too much juice and just clear the cmos and you’re back in business. With XP a couple times too hard and it’s toast, reload time.
Truth is, and this is where MS and the oems are having trouble, nobody was breathlessly awaiting a new version of windows because they were happy with what they had. That means lost money so they had to release something that not only at least FELT different enough to make people think they got something new, but also would require a new machine because that’s where the vast majority of MS’s OS sales happen. On top of that new PC sales had plummeted the last several years because, once again, because people were happy with what they had so this gave the oems something to tie new machine sales to.
The whole thing was entirely unnecessary for anybody except the oems and MS. Can’t fault them for that. That’s business, but I ain’t buyin.
I also agree with Synthetickiller here that if it were not for gaming and the extreme system scene a jolly old mid range Linux box is just fine.
Another illustration. A customer of mine has a college age daughter that insists on using limewire to get music and of course limewire or rather the underlying networks are teeming with viruses that can be contracted by simply doing a search because the shit winds up in the program’s cache and runs from there even if you don’t intentionally run the file it’s in.
I set her up a dualie XP/Suse 10.3 machine. Installed Frostwire and made the default download folder the “my music” folder in the windows install. That way only what she intentionally downloaded which we agreed would be MP3 files ONLY would make it’s way into windows.
Long story short. He emailed me a few weeks later and told me she hadn’t even booted the windows side in forever because she figured out how to do everything she did on the Linux side. Using Amarok, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, the Gimp and of course Frostwire etc. I set it up with KDE. She didn’t strike me as either an idiot or particularly technical user when I met her, but after fiddling around she found out that she actually likes Linux better and that wasn’t even what we had in mind.
There’s limited applicability to the rest of humanity from that, but it did open my eyes a bit.
I run an IT biz and it’s been high for me or rather my clients…
[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
inthego wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
I’ve yet to find anything that doesn’t run on Vista that ran on XP. Compatibility mode is a nice feature and makes even old DOS only stuff run if you want it to, even though Vista doesn’t have DOS.
Yes and no some of the components of the software will run but not as it did in XP, and if there is an error the software venders will not help with the issue…
Quickbooks, peach tree, Act! and many custom dBase software…
They will run or rather crawl and not all the features will run and or import/export to other appts well…
AV software is just now getting up to date with full compatibility as well as cd burning software but not for the older ones you need to buy the new Vista compatible software…
I haven’t had to buy a thing. All of the software I used on Xp works on VIsta just fine. The only piece I had to wait for was for some printer drivers. But only for a month.[/quote]
The Vista kernel is actually far more advanced and runs eminently better than XP when stripped down. To get rid of the bloat simply use V-Lite to create a custom Vista install disk. That way…you only install what you want, and you can choose what that is…line by line, function by function.
V-lite is the best freeware program ever released in my opinion (next to Rivatuner). It was created by a MicroSoft programmer in his spare time.
Check it out:
I guarantee you won’t be disappointed.
[quote]Sinuous wrote:
The Vista kernel is actually far more advanced and runs eminently better than XP when stripped down. To get rid of the bloat simply use V-Lite to create a custom Vista install disk. That way…you only install what you want, and you can choose what that is…line by line, function by function.
V-lite is the best freeware program ever released in my opinion (next to Rivatuner). It was created by a MicroSoft programmer in his spare time.
Check it out:
I guarantee you won’t be disappointed.[/quote]
I will never intemtionally allow the .net framework to contaminate one of my drives. I quit upgrading my ATI drivers and went to war with rage3d when that asinine catalyst control center came out that required .net. That is another whole humongous topic. I also don’t know how eminently better something can run than something else which already runs just peachy keen.
[quote]lixy wrote:
<<< Whatever the future holds, it will be one of choice. Not the MS monopoly consumers have to deal with today. >>>[/quote]
If only this were true and the .net framework with it’s “cross platform portability” is the latest major step toward a MS wet dream where the overwhelming majority of digital devices as a whole from beepers to cell phones to PC’s to any other type of communication devices require a MS license.
Also, they have been quietly saying for years that they’re ultimate goal is a world where the OS lives in remote server farms and PC’s are reduced to citrix/mainframe style terminals thus removing all locally resident content beyond what is needed to start the machine.
See here: http://forum.elitebastards.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=10596
Especially my last post. This was 5 years ago.
Dammit, I promised myself not to get into any of this.