Why not to get vista!!
- Thread starter pc-tech
- Start date
patrickv
Active Member
no offense, but what were the specs on that particular system again?(sarcasm intended)
check the lappy in my sig, i have a spare 1gb ddr2 stick for it, and its vista capable
tlarkin
VIP Member
Why isn't this thread locked, its pointless.
I'm not pointing anyone out, but theres always 3 members that join these threads and start the vista bashing. Its impossible to create a thread without these particular members jumping in and starting arguments because someone may recommend vista to one another. Its pathetic
The sad thing is, most people that say it sucks, have never even used it. Or only used it for a week or so..
1) This is a public forum
2) People are allowed their opinions
3) If you don't like it or disagree state why you think its wrong, or leave and don't post
4) Besides the petty arguing in this thread, which was mildly entertaining, I do agree with you this thread is pointless and the vista debate should come to an end, just like the people who try to talk like they know about Macintosh but don't know a thing.
5) My advice is free, which I do charge for sometimes. I typically post on threads here while working on something else that I can't quite figure out and need a break. So, I take 5 minutes, post a few things, clear my head and go back to work on something for work.
6) For the record I ran vista since first beta and RC 1, and still have it on a machine to this day, so I have been running it for like, almost 2 years now if you count the beta time. My opinion is that it sucks, deal with it, or prove me wrong.
This all brings back one of my all time favorite quotes about the interwebs...
Winning an argument on the internet is just like being in the special Olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.
Likewise it could be said that it's not the best version to have been seen so far while passing XP in other ways then many pay attention to. The "eye candy" seen in both XP and Vista are something I can easily do without. Vista enhanced that part over XP for sure!
But there are pros and cons if you look hard enough at every version to date. XP took some time to catch on for 98/2000 users while ME was one example of a flop there! Having gone from DX7 to 9c I haven't noticed any great differences in the long run besides simply being a newer set of 3D rendering drivers. Going from AGP to PCI-E was the thing that saw the real gain.
But there are pros and cons if you look hard enough at every version to date. XP took some time to catch on for 98/2000 users while ME was one example of a flop there! Having gone from DX7 to 9c I haven't noticed any great differences in the long run besides simply being a newer set of 3D rendering drivers. Going from AGP to PCI-E was the thing that saw the real gain.
Vista isn't too bad if you:
#1: Update you system. Usually most single core 512MB/1GB systems are not going to be able to handle Vista. This also goes if you are still running that ATI Raydeon 9700 Pro
#2:System management is key in Vista. Know what you're downloading and try not to install any memory hogs. (Other than Vista of course)
#3: Stick with the 32-bit version. Its pretty obvious that the component manufacturers are not keeping up with 64-bit drivers, and upgrading to Vista 64-bit is the quickest way for make all your old working parts not be supported.
Follow those three simple rules and you should be fine. Yes, Vista is a memory hog, but you better get used to it before MS yanks support for XP.
#1: Update you system. Usually most single core 512MB/1GB systems are not going to be able to handle Vista. This also goes if you are still running that ATI Raydeon 9700 Pro
#2:System management is key in Vista. Know what you're downloading and try not to install any memory hogs. (Other than Vista of course)
#3: Stick with the 32-bit version. Its pretty obvious that the component manufacturers are not keeping up with 64-bit drivers, and upgrading to Vista 64-bit is the quickest way for make all your old working parts not be supported.
Follow those three simple rules and you should be fine. Yes, Vista is a memory hog, but you better get used to it before MS yanks support for XP.
tlarkin
VIP Member
How does video cards even come into play, unless you are gaming? A basic video card will work Aero just fine and you don't need a high end for office productivity or surfing the internet. Also, MS just yanked support for 98 like a year ago, XP will be supported for years to come, they made like 7 or 8 service packs for NT, and also for 2000.
Last edited:
2000/ME of course will get the axe before XP unless the next version sees a big turn around. The one thing that Vista lacks besides the add/remove Windows components option seen in 98 up is a repair install option.
The only thing found so far for repair is the automatic fix startup problems tool on the installation disk. For a repair install you have to essentially reinstall everything all over again while preserving the partition not the softwares installed as seen with XP. That's another minus for Vista, plus for XP.
The only thing found so far for repair is the automatic fix startup problems tool on the installation disk. For a repair install you have to essentially reinstall everything all over again while preserving the partition not the softwares installed as seen with XP. That's another minus for Vista, plus for XP.
the second video is a load of cr*p imo.
he says Firefox is incompatiable with Vista.....no its not im using firefox right now lol.
il admit theres been a few problems for me like vista not creating desktop icons when i install some stuff but they was easily fixed.
then theres User account control.....that was easily disabled.
Vista imo even though it uses more ram its alot more efficient than Windows xp has ever been.
he says Firefox is incompatiable with Vista.....no its not im using firefox right now lol.
il admit theres been a few problems for me like vista not creating desktop icons when i install some stuff but they was easily fixed.
then theres User account control.....that was easily disabled.
Vista imo even though it uses more ram its alot more efficient than Windows xp has ever been.
Kornowski
VIP Member
If you notice these three letters in Shane's post;
Vista imo even though it uses more ram its alot more efficient than Windows xp has ever been.
In My Opinion
It doesn't mean it's true, it's what he thinks, he doesn't have to prove anything!
Man, I wish people would lighten up a little, enough of this bullshit, Vista, XP, WHATEVER! Use what you want!
Actually not really. Windows 9x support was cancelled years ago. They just pulled the windows update site about a year ago.
It's official, XP support is being cancelled in 2009. It's been announced numerous times.
tlarkin
VIP Member
yeah but how many times was 98 scheduled to be canceled? I mean come on, and on top of that how many times have they said they are going to stop selling XP? Yet they still are selling it and they pushed back the date many times. Regardless though, XP will not be dead any time soon, it has a few years left in it. As long as people are still paying for a site license of XP it will still have support.
Kornowski-
This is my point. First off, I am not saying he is right or wrong I am asking him to explain why. He is saying its better because he says so, well how does that prove anything. Now, if he wanted to say i like it better but really don't know if it is actually better than that is a different story.
I grow very tired of arguing with teenagers on this forum who say things like this. I try to actually technically and logically explain the inter workings of something and show how it is not better. Either what I say must go over everyone's head, they take it as a personal attack (hence you jumping to his defense), or they disregard everything I say to begin with.
That is why I was ASKING him to explain his stance. I never once name called or said he was wrong. I was simply asking him to fully explain it.
It seems every time I ask someone to back up their opinion they get all butt hurt on this forum.
Vista imo even though it uses more ram its alot more efficient than Windows xp has ever been.
I don't know if it's more efficient that XP...I wouldn't say that it's less efficient either though. About the same.
I just wish Vista had MORE eyecandy type of stuff. Beryl/Compiz Fusion for example....(M$ "borrowed" a few ideas from Apple, they might as well "borrow" some from Linux).
tlarkin
VIP Member
That is one of my main points, if there is no performance gain why pay for an upgrade? In my experience it is not very efficient at all. The fact that it requires more resources than any other OS that is out and up to date just shows you how bloated it really is. Compare it to Unix, Linux, and OS X and all of them can deliver the same eye candy, memory management, multi tasking ability and all require less hardware. Point in case.
It was all stolen from Solaris's Project Looking Glass, google it, and every OS out there stole it. There is nothing new under the sun and innovation is really just a niche in the market of technology. Once any company in any particular part of technology innovates all the others emulate. It doesn't pay to innovate really any more these days. This is because when Apple comes out with things like spotlight and MS copies it and calls it indexing (or whatever it is) who cares who thought of it first in the end? As long as it get the job done it gets the job done. Lazy developers are however lazy developers, and marketing is marketing and sometime they go hand in hand. You don't always get what you pay for, but it may be marketed that way.
Last edited:
You know what, I really like Vista. It just has a very nice feeling to it, and the programs and features are good as well.
I have one complaint about it, however, and I don't think that this is just a personal thing as this has plagued a whole bunch of users..and I'm talking about the nvlddmkm.sys display error! I'm not entirely sure whether or not it's the OS, or Nvidia, but either way, it's definitely some sort of compatibility issue. Hopefully, the SP1 will fix this, and then, I will have no further complaints!
I have one complaint about it, however, and I don't think that this is just a personal thing as this has plagued a whole bunch of users..and I'm talking about the nvlddmkm.sys display error! I'm not entirely sure whether or not it's the OS, or Nvidia, but either way, it's definitely some sort of compatibility issue. Hopefully, the SP1 will fix this, and then, I will have no further complaints!
andy_mitch92
New Member
I wonder if the 64bit of vista (which i have) has better performance? It seems logical to me that it would for the actual os it self because as we all know (well most of us anyway) 64bit does not only mean more ram support, but it also means more cpu performance. I know that, unfortunately, most programs are still coded 32bit but if the os it self is coded to run in 64bits then it would work better.
I ask/say all of this because I have never once had a problem with my computer running vista (Pentium 4 631) and it plays games almost as well as a friend of mine who has an AMD X64 5000+ which should not only be better than a Pentium 4 but way way better than a Pentium 4.
We both have the same gfx card (8800 gt) in case that was your thought of why my computer is almost as good as his
I ask/say all of this because I have never once had a problem with my computer running vista (Pentium 4 631) and it plays games almost as well as a friend of mine who has an AMD X64 5000+ which should not only be better than a Pentium 4 but way way better than a Pentium 4.
We both have the same gfx card (8800 gt) in case that was your thought of why my computer is almost as good as his
Last edited:
Haha, you also have to remember that you have 4GB of RAM...
tlarkin
VIP Member
Another misconception. 64 bit means simply 64 bit memory addressing (and 64bit instruction sets), and your applications and all other softwares must be written for it and use 64 bit library files of the OS to make it worth it. The way the MS designed Vista is retarded as well, they don't run dual library files like every other OS, so that you are always running in 64bit mode regardless, and if you launch a 32bit app it runs like it should but doesn't have the advantage of 64bit memory addressing. It doesn't automatically mean more performance. It just means the potential for more performance and even then it has to take advantage of it. Highly subjective.