The first and only time I used Vista was on a laptop of a friend's relative. I got a BSOD in approximately 5 minutes. And no, I was not trying to break the system, I was playing solitaire (the one which comes with Windows).
Joined: 4/30/2006
Posts: 480
Location: the secret cow level
I was in the beta for Vista, so I ran Beta2 and RC1. I also ran a copy of Ultimate 64-bit they sent me.
In my opinion, Vista has a few neat features more than offset by a few new annoyances, with all the glitchiness you expect from Microsoft.
I think Vista is an improvement over XP in every regard, after you disable the stupid UAC. Only minor annoyance is the inability load unsigned drivers, but all my hardware has 64-bit Vista drivers by now and those that don't are best left to the dust anyway.
Also, the only BSODs I've ever had on this system are all caused my dear friend Forceware doing something wrong.
If something is overhyped, it's this "Vista sucks" bandwagon. It's not the supergreat improvement over XP it was supposed to be, but it's still superior.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
I think Vista is an improvement over XP in every regard
Except when your XP software and hardware don't work with it.
Only minor annoyance is the inability load unsigned drivers, but all my hardware has 64-bit Vista drivers by now and those that don't are best left to the dust anyway.
Why? Other OSes don't have a problem with older hardware. For example the newest MacOS X has better out-of-the-box hardware support than ever, not to talk about Linux.
"If Windows doesn't support it, you don't need it" is typical Windows-fanatic talk, and simply false.
If something is overhyped, it's this "Vista sucks" bandwagon. It's not the supergreat improvement over XP it was supposed to be, but it's still superior.
Except for the humongously increased hardware requirements and decreased hardware and software support. (And this is not my invention. Steve Ballmer himself has admitted so much.)
Windows is probably the only OS out there for which each new version is actually slower than previous versions. For example each new version of MacOS X has been faster than the previous (with the same hardware), and eg. Linux is constantly being developed to be faster and more efficient.
I think Vista is an improvement over XP in every regard
Except when your XP software and hardware don't work with it.
Only minor annoyance is the inability load unsigned drivers, but all my hardware has 64-bit Vista drivers by now and those that don't are best left to the dust anyway.
Why? Other OSes don't have a problem with older hardware. For example the newest MacOS X has better out-of-the-box hardware support than ever, not to talk about Linux.
"If Windows doesn't support it, you don't need it" is typical Windows-fanatic talk, and simply false.
If something is overhyped, it's this "Vista sucks" bandwagon. It's not the supergreat improvement over XP it was supposed to be, but it's still superior.
Except for the humongously increased hardware requirements and decreased hardware and software support. (And this is not my invention. Steve Ballmer himself has admitted so much.)
Windows is probably the only OS out there for which each new version is actually slower than previous versions. For example each new version of MacOS X has been faster than the previous (with the same hardware), and eg. Linux is constantly being developed to be faster and more efficient.
Nice way to try and label me as a windows fanatic. As said, I don't really care about what platform I run my stuff on as long as it works fine. And because I want to actually run games on my rig, I have no other viable option that Windows.
Also, I have zero XP software that fail to work with my Vista. The driver thing actually comes from having a 64-bit Vista, not just having Vista. Afaik 32-bit still supports loading unsigned drivers just fine.
The increased requirements aren't really a problem for any modern computer (okay, some packages ship with too little RAM to run Vista properly but that's what you get for going cheapo way). If you don't have the power to run Vista, I'm not suggesting running it, of course. Then you can turn to Linux or XP.
I'm not saying it's the best operating system ever, I'm just saying that some of the weaknesses have been totally blown out of proportion.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Windows is probably the only OS out there for which each new version is actually slower than previous versions.
But of course, "don't be cheap, buy better hardware"! The universal workaround for software performance problems. :D
Doesn't work that great with laptops, though, does it? However, you may always be suggested to buy a new laptop in this case, either.
I still find it pretty ridiculous, though.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
This 'the next Windows is slower' thing has always bugged me, but I always tried to justify it by saying that perhaps it is the new features it supports - which would be all well and good if you could turn them off permanently to get a performance increase; this tends not to be the case.
Sentence too long; consider revising.
This 'the next Windows is slower' thing has always bugged me, but I always tried to justify it by saying that perhaps it is the new features it supports - which would be all well and good if you could turn them off permanently to get a performance increase; this tends not to be the case.
And when I say "the newer version is slower than previous versions", this is not just "with all the default eyecandy turned on", but in fact everything which is useless and resource-hog turned off and disabled. I read a benchmark article somewhere (sorry I don't have a link) where they benchmarked several things in different versions of Windows up to Vista, in the same computer, with all possible non-essential resource hog features turned off, and the trend was very consistent: Each newer version was slower than the earlier version at performing the same task.[/quote]
Joined: 4/30/2006
Posts: 480
Location: the secret cow level
It's not even just speed that turned me off of Vista. Take the camera wizard. In XP, it asks you what pictures you want to copy, where you want to save them, what you want to name a group of pictures ( <name>###.jpg ), and a few other things. In Vista, you don't get to choose which pictures you want. It's all of them, or none of them. They took a perfectly good tool and ruined the hell out of it. I ended up having to move and name all my pictures manually.
