The thing is that article was written like a couple weeks after Vista was launched, and the guess what, the same thing happened when XP was launched too, oh and 2000 and 98.Originally Posted by David75
Need I say more?, go try it yourself as you and only you are the user of your computer, what does it matter if other people don't use something? Are they running your computer for you?
image fail!
I actually did give it a try on comps supposed to be well equiped in hardware.
I was really unimpressed, yet those comps seemed so slow!
I'm really not eager to switch to vista... it'll need some polish and beta testing before I do. A price drop would be nice too.
Was that the same article that gave reasons for Vista being bad like : "Video files no longer work!" ?:P
Heh, well anyways, MS jumped in a bit too early with their release. It creates issues for more than 50% of the users and as we all know, most of these users do not "tweak"their PC's, they want it working from scratch.
It's said to give hardware conflicts with outdated hardware
It's said to refuse internet connections at random times
It's said to be slower even on PC's with a fair size of RAM (4GB) and 10K rpm HDD's
It's said that alot of games oddly don't work on Vista, but than again, alot of those same games are said to work on Vista by others. ( This also concerns other forms of software )
I'd say wait for at least one ServicePack before starting with Vista. Make sure your PC isn't 3 years old and can compete with modern technology and doesn't have any old hardware, that might still be supported by XP ( such as old PCI cards/ethernetcards etc )
The worst of all these complaints being that some MMO's don't work anymore. Now that would be shocking :P
Btw, Deadfire, you are wrong.
Retailers all over the world are getting an increase of 30% in complaints ( compared to XP ). People explicitly ask companies to install or revert to windows XP, because they have issues with Vista. Retailers lose about 20% income, just because of their guaranteed money back policies, while they can't get their money back from MS.
Calling MS and asking a trade, Vista vs XP key/license, it will take you 2 hours to give up in the end.
And that's _now_ not right after the release.
I use Vista at work, and XP at home. While I do not have any "real" Exceptions thrown at me, when I work with Visual Studio, the processing is definitely slower than on my 2 year old XP pc.
Last edited by ?igma; Tue, 07-31-2007 at 05:43 AM.
I was annoyed that the vista boot process is strange enough that grub has difficulty booting it. I was planning on quad-booting ubuntu, vista, xp and opensolaris, but without composite extension support for my video card under linux (ie: no beryl/compiz effects, lame ass ATI), and with an unbootable vista courtesy of that shitty boot process, I am down to just dual-booting xp and opensolaris.
I only ran into one program (Peer Guardian) that didn't support vista. Only took me a minute or 2 to find and dl vista drivers for my video card. and Counterstrike : Source worked just fine, maybe better than if i were running XP even though it made me 'run as admin' to open steam. Also, found that the klite codec pack i use w \ media player classic works fine. i love the layout though, im using the quick launch area for all the programs i run + my computer and its a nice clean layout.
Slightly OffTopic.
I have a new HD for my laptop. The other one crashed...
I'm trying to install XP with the ORIGINAL CD (full, not an upgrade).
Well, it doesn't work. The installation os is fine, then it doesn't want to recognize the
flashy multihollograpic windows XP cd it was booted from as original
I'm currently dling a copy... just that I'll finish late in the night when I need my laptop tomorrow .. and that I had liked to drive the 800 kilometers need from early morning...
Damn apps that aren't even wine compatible...
you know, sometimes just finding a nice bootlegged copy seems easier than having microsoft tell you that you cant activate anymore because you've had to reformat and have already activated online once before.... they want you to talk to an indian guy who will put you on hold and then ask you several questions before giving you a 50 digit number which you will have to enter in order to activate your copy of windows
Companies don't want to make the switch early because it costs them time and money (training, down time, etc...) to do so. It has nothing to do with the quality of the OS. It's all about money. Eventually they will all switch over. A lot of businesses still use Windows 2000. That doesn't mean XP is bad.
As for the Win ME comparisons... I don't see them. If it's about Vista's short projected lifespan, then that's not a fair comparison because most OSes don't last as long as XP. Windows 95 lasted 3 years (succeeded by 98). Windows 98 lasted 2 years (succeeded by ME/2000). Windows ME/2000 lasted all but one year before XP came out. Windows XP lasted a bit over 5 years, which appears to be an anomaly compared to all of its predecessors, and it mostly had to do with the huge delays in Vista development.
Now, from a technical perspective, Vista is greatly changed from XP. It's not just a hacked up version of XP. The entire OS was built from scratch.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...kernel-en.mspx
Your statement is invalid as you fail to see that amount of users that had computers at the time XP was released has increased about 10 times since that time. so of course there will be a increase in complaints..THERE ARE MORE USERS USING ITBtw, Deadfire, you are wrong.
Retailers all over the world are getting an increase of 30% in complaints ( compared to XP ). People explicitly ask companies to install or revert to windows XP, because they have issues with Vista. Retailers lose about 20% income, just because of their guaranteed money back policies, while they can't get their money back from MS.
Calling MS and asking a trade, Vista vs XP key/license, it will take you 2 hours to give up in the end.
That and you failed to fucking read what I typed, as nothing I said had anything to do about retailers losing money. As well many pre-build machines simply can't go backwards as some drivers these machines have do not have XP versions (Weird indeed, however it's has happened with computers of hp, sony, e-machines/gateway, and toshibas) so I can see the loss of profit for the companies.However XP didn't exactly fly right off the selves either seeing how it was buggy on release as well to the amount of people who bought it (Again less then the amount at this time)
Last edited by Deadfire; Wed, 08-01-2007 at 09:50 PM.
image fail!
All you succeed in, in just two posts, is to show how extremely nice and friendly you are.
GTFO ass.
Ah man, that's so going to cost me another warning, I'll live it. Seriously, grow up.
Btw, you are assuming that retailers are idiots too I notice. Their data is of course ( but hey, I'm not going to use bold with fuck in it ) based on the increase of total sales.
So the more or less people buying their products is completely irrelevant.
It's a nice find though, I'll give you credit for that ^^
I don't need to warn people, that go against me in discussions. Seriously that would be low (Such low expectations for me, meh). Discussions have naturally two sides, I have my side and you have yours. If you can't seem to handle that the posts of one party will not be how you want it to be then it's time to leave the internet dude.
Enough about that as you seem to think of me as nothing more then dirt (which BTW it seems I was right to be a ass to you as you already have such low expectations of people)
I really didn't say the retailers themselves were idiots but more that stat you give isn't something that should be really counted on. There are alot of factors that relate to loss of sale, as well who are they grouping as "retailers" as I know myself that online retailers, and smaller shops that have sales growing alot may not be grouped under that. Total sales as well for bigger companies such as Best Buy and the like have had falling sales in computer related items in Canada. Again this is again messed up as there is more people buying now then there was at one point (again something this stat you give does not point out as a comparison point, I assured it is compared to when XP came out. However that may not be the case) So the sales numbers aren't falling as much as it you or I would think.Btw, you are assuming that retailers are idiots too I notice. Their data is of course ( but hey, I'm not going to use bold with fuck in it ) based on the increase of total sales.
So the more or less people buying their products is completely irrelevant.
It's a nice find though, I'll give you credit for that ^^
More or less I tend not to believe in stats that I've given no data about how the stat was created. It's much to say that Gun killing of North America has gone up, However then to say it's the lowest crime rate in history (both points are true if you believe that data)
If you can solidly prove the data of your stat you pulled can account for all the possible factors then you can tell me that I think retailers are idiots. But then again it's not the retailers, it's those making the stats.
And yes it is impossible to account for all the factors.
Point being here also wasn't the detailing of retailers sales of Vista, but more of your personal opinion of it. I simply told the discussion that it's really up to the person that installs it and uses it. Going on what other people say is sometimes not the best thing to do as just like your stat there are various factors that go in to a article or anything else produced by another people about anything. To account for all of them is not simply possible.
Last edited by Deadfire; Thu, 08-02-2007 at 11:22 AM.
image fail!
yeah it kinda like saying sales of windows vista have skyrocketed tenfold of xp. ...wait..wasn't that you ?
(fact <- is that the sales have disappointing results up till now )
Last edited by ?igma; Thu, 08-02-2007 at 05:08 PM.
I am not sure about this but from what i have seen, most people have had vista forced upon them through new computer purchases. And i kinda find that ironic because alot of these people are are probably not very computer experienced computer users / casual computer users.... I love it though
I have had Vista installed for nearly 4 weeks now. I do not have the problems everyone else seems to report. My speeds on the programs I run are actually faster than on XP. I was told that Vista does a sort of free the resources to run the program and dedicates those resources to the program or programs that are running. Which I believe is better.
Also, I and a few others have noticed that Vista is like Mac OS lol. Not sure how anyone can complain about Vista when it's like working on a Mac. I guess people just want to be finicky about something new to them.
As for running programs on Vista, either run them in Administrator mode or in Compatibility with XP. Not that difficult to figure out.
On XP, if you have 4GB of DDRAM and XP uses 256MB of that RAM, that leaves 3744MB not being used...
Where as on Vista, it's all Dedicated. Vista right now is using 792MB of my 2GB of RAM.When I run a program, that 792 will be dedicated to the programs I run. I believe that's how it works. CPU usage is 0 percent. Rarely do I ever go above 60 %. games make me use 50 % CPU, which is normal, was the same on XP.
As for the resource dedication, I am not 100 % informed on that. I am just taking someone's word on that.
I seriously doubt that makes any sense even to you, and you wrote it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfetch#SuperFetch
WOOT 4000TH POST LETS PARTAYYYYYYYYYYY
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
