# XP or Vista



## deankenny

after using both on my machine, i found that games perform 20%-50% better on XP than VISTA therefore i obviously prefer XP what do you prefer and why?


----------



## PC eye

Most games currently out were written for the 2000/ME/XP type operating environment. If you ran one old 16bit MSDos game(Duke3D in mind) on 95(16bit native) it ran faster there then on 98SE(32bit). Likewise new games soon to be out should see an overall improvement since those will have Vista in mind there.

The same can be said about games in the 32bit editions of Vista seeing faster frame rates then seen with the 64bit editions since they native to 32bit. The advantage seen in Vista surprisingly is crash control measures now seen. Vista runs games far more stabily then the numerous lockups and crashes to the desktop seen in XP. You can't count the number of hard boots seen in XP from games locking up solid in XP. 

This is one big improvement now seen in Vista with a different type of blue screen where you can now choose between shutting the system down, returning to try and still run a game running into problems, or simply ending it and returning to the desktop. In fact games that are 6-7yrs. old actually perform better and run more stable in the new version.


----------



## The_Beast

Xp for me


----------



## JamesBart

XP for me


----------



## ThatGuy16

Vista

IF they perform worse on XP, its because your hardware is either very low-end or out-dated, no offense


----------



## PC eye

ThatGuy16 said:


> Vista
> 
> IF they perform worse on XP, its because your hardware is either very low-end or out-dated, no offense


 
 That wouldn't hold true since this is what has been seen over the last several years not on just one system.


----------



## ThatGuy16

So several low-end systems?!  j/k

I personaly find vista to run faster/ more stable for me over XP. From my experience.


----------



## PC eye

Those ran both ATI and NVidia cards on those. In fact I was running NVidia GeForce models until going for the Radeon line a few builds back. That one saw 3 separate cards used there 2 NVidia. And none of those systems were prebuilds either. I kind of miss that old build seeing XP/98/Linux on it.


----------



## jutnm

Vista- works faster, boots faster, easier to use , games work great and better.

just a thought , isnt XP like Vista when they first both came out, windows XP had bugs when it came out, so give vista some time


----------



## Jabes

i <3 vista (love it) and look at my sig haha


----------



## INTELCRAZY

Vista FTW!

I love it, Vista does have an option to turn off UAC(User Account Control) and many ppl haven't figured that out yet when it's right in the control panel, so you really can't complain about that. I find this funny, this forum has a few CCNA, A+ Cert, or ppl with lots of knowledge, they hate Vista but, they can't figure out how to open the Control Panel and go through two menus to disable the only annoyance.


----------



## Jabes

INTELCRAZY said:


> Vista FTW!
> 
> I love it, Vista does have an option to turn off UAC(User Account Control) and many ppl haven't figured that out yet when it's right in the control panel, so you really can't complain about that. I find this funny, this forum has a few CCNA, A+ Cert, or ppl with lots of knowledge, they hate Vista but, they can't figure out how to open the Control Panel and go through two menus to disable the only annoyance.



haha I just booted from my vista disk today and found out that theres system restore built-in to it


----------



## PC eye

That was the first thing I found here was how to shut off the UAC annoyance! I didn't even have to read an article to dissect Vista in that regard since the security prompts for everything I was trying to initially install was getting in the way. 

 Now that Vista has been out for the last several months you are starting to see more positive reviews and tips on improving overall system performance along with explainations on some of the newer features now automatic in Vista like the Super Prefetch only manually enabled in XP after SP2 came out. Vosta prestages the most often used games and apps in a form of standby mode allowing for faster loading times. With XP SP2 you had to manually see this done.  http://www.msblog.org/?p=88


----------



## PC eye

Jabes said:


> haha I just booted from my vista disk today and found out that theres system restore built-in to it


 
 Until you dual boot with XP that is. Then your Vista restore points are lost.  http://vistasupport.mvps.org/preven...ng_lost_when_dual_booting_with_windows_xp.htm


----------



## Jabes

PC eye said:


> Until you dual boot with XP that is. Then your Vista restore points are lost.  http://vistasupport.mvps.org/preven...ng_lost_when_dual_booting_with_windows_xp.htm



well I never knew thaat but I don't want to dual boot xp so thats fine


----------



## arisejesus

windows XP

windows vista is very clever in consuming memory, the aero interface eats up lots of memory. so i still prefer XP due to my budget, performance and also cost.


----------



## PC eye

Do you want to know one of the first things done here with Vista besides disabling the UAC feature? Get rid of all the ""eye candy" that MS was trying to sell in order to use the Classic Windows style. Yet my current desktop is still kind of an "eye grabber".


----------



## jimkonow

xp, cause my system cant even look at vista without getting a negative rating.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

PC eye said:


> Do you want to know one of the first things done here with Vista besides disabling the UAC feature? Get rid of all the ""eye candy" that MS was trying to sell in order to use the Classic Windows style. Yet my current desktop is still kind of an "eye grabber".



How do you put up with that?


----------



## Sgt_Grim_Reaper

XP works, period. And I hate Vista's Windows Explorer and files search. I also couldn't care less about eye candy. Guess I'm old school.


----------



## PC eye

INTELCRAZY said:


> How do you put up with that?


 
I'm still trying to figure that one out. 



Sgt_Grim_Reaper said:


> XP works, period. And I hate Vista's Windows Explorer and files search. I also couldn't care less about eye candy. Guess I'm old school.


 
The things I favor about the older versions of Windows are the add/remove Windows components option as well as the easy of access to the desktop settings instead of the eye candy approach now seen. The sidebar and gadgets were disabled fast then to find out that articles on improving performance in Vista recommend the same things.


----------



## ThatGuy16

Jabes said:


> haha I just booted from my vista disk today and found out that theres system restore built-in to it



Vista does a restore crazy fast


----------



## Jabes

ThatGuy16 said:


> Vista does a restore crazy fast



yea vistas awesome


----------



## PC eye

One thing you will now find with the installation disk is repair tools and no more recovery console option. If Windows won't start up you boot from the installation disk and go into the repair tools section to find the automatic fix startup problems option. You can also format, reformat, even resize partitions without the need for Partition Magic or any other 3rd party drive tools. I still use GParted here however.


----------



## ThatGuy16

PC eye said:


> One thing you will now find with the installation disk is repair tools and no more recovery console option. If Windows won't start up you boot from the installation disk and go into the repair tools section to find the automatic fix startup problems option. You can also format, reformat, even resize partitions without the need for Partition Magic or any other 3rd party drive tools. I still use GParted here however.



wow, i didn't know that.


----------



## PC eye

There's quite a bit people don't know if they never look into things about the new version.  The first place of course is right Microsoft since they are endorsing their own product there. As time goes on you'll see more article on Vista like the one seen at  http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76212


----------



## mep916

ThatGuy16 said:


> Vista does a restore crazy fast



You've restored? ha ha! Just kidding


----------



## ThatGuy16

lol, never install the new version of AIM 

It screws some app up that reads your hardware even an uninstall of AIM wont fix it, so in other words.. under system your ram and CPU read read "not available"


----------



## PC eye

I guess everyones' having their fun with the new version lately.  Here it was the Catalyst 7.9 causing problems on both XP and Vista alike( and still is on XP somewhat with the 7.10 now seen.  GGGgggrrr...).


----------



## mep916

Yep. I've had my own problems.


----------



## Kornowski

Mep, I'm sure you'll get them sorted out, then you'll have a monster under the hood!
In the mean time though, if you're not too happy with the Ultra's, send one my way, No?


----------



## Jabes

ThatGuy16 said:


> lol, never install the new version of AIM
> 
> It screws some app up that reads your hardware even an uninstall of AIM wont fix it, so in other words.. under system your ram and CPU read read "not available"



well I have the latest version of aim installed and my cpu and ram are reading fine must have just been u


----------



## tlarkin

Another one?  OK, well I like XP over vista any day.  Vienna will be the next good OS from Microsoft, Vista will be another Windows ME.


----------



## ThatGuy16

tlarkin said:


> Another one?  OK, well I like XP over vista any day.  Vienna will be the next good OS from Microsoft, Vista will be another Windows ME.



We all know *you* don't like vista 



> well I have the latest version of aim installed and my cpu and ram are reading fine must have just been u



I googled, alot of people were having that problem, of course some don't


----------



## Joe2005

Xp for me.  I can't get some of my programs to work on Xp sp2 so absolutly NO vista for me.  

Don't get me wrong I'll update eventually, I'll have to (think trying to run windows 95 today), just after all the bugs are worked out and compatibility is good.


----------



## mep916

Kornowski said:


> Mep, I'm sure you'll get them sorted out, then you'll have a monster under the hood!
> In the mean time though, if you're not too happy with the Ultra's, send one my way, No?



I'll give you meh Radeon 9200. Got an AGP port available?


----------



## Jet

Os X...


----------



## Jabes

Jet said:


> Os X...



lol I heard that leopard has 300 new features and 300 new bugs lol 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=905


----------



## tlarkin

Jabes-

First off that article is a lot of fluff you linked.  Yes Time Machine does have its bugs but what Apple is trying to do no one has ever done in a consumer OS.  They are trying to make back ups simple and easy.  Time Machine is not a true snap shot system, instead it uses hard links to files instead of soft links (symbolic links - use wikipedia to look them up).  Time machine is an end user product not an enterprise level back up product.  Under the hood OS X users could already use rsync from the Unix command line and set up cron jobs to automate back ups.  However, not every user is unix savvy.  

I could list all the vista bugs here it had at release but it would take up pages and pages of this forum.  All OSes have bugs when they are released, and yes every major release of OS X from 10.0 to 10.5 has had bugs, just like every version of a Microsoft OS sucks until it hits about service pack 2 or about.  

And in your sig you say that anyone who hates vista is a noob?  i hate vista and I am willing to bet you are a total noob compared to what a lot of people out there really know, and experience.  The ZDnet guys write tons of crap as well.  I mean he talks about NAS and time machine and doesn't even realize that it uses hard links to files over a network share, which the new version of AFP allows, so you can't use any other share than an AFP.  This is because not every file system treats meta data the same and this is not Apple's fault by any means.  

It is really just a misinformed article misinforming all that read it.  That is why I hate professional tech bloggers, because they are journalists and not actual technology people.


----------



## Jabes

tlarkin said:


> Jabes-
> 
> First off that article is a lot of fluff you linked.  Yes Time Machine does have its bugs but what Apple is trying to do no one has ever done in a consumer OS.  They are trying to make back ups simple and easy.  Time Machine is not a true snap shot system, instead it uses hard links to files instead of soft links (symbolic links - use wikipedia to look them up).  Time machine is an end user product not an enterprise level back up product.  Under the hood OS X users could already use rsync from the Unix command line and set up cron jobs to automate back ups.  However, not every user is unix savvy.
> 
> I could list all the vista bugs here it had at release but it would take up pages and pages of this forum.  All OSes have bugs when they are released, and yes every major release of OS X from 10.0 to 10.5 has had bugs, just like every version of a Microsoft OS sucks until it hits about service pack 2 or about.
> 
> And in your sig you say that anyone who hates vista is a noob?  i hate vista and I am willing to you are a total noob compared to what a lot of people out there really know, and experience.  The ZDnet guys write tons of crap as well.  I mean he talks about NAS and time machine and doesn't even realize that it uses hard links to files over a network share, which the new version of AFP allows, so you can't use any other share than an AFP.  This is because not every file system treats meta data the same and this is not Apple's fault by any means.
> 
> It is really just a misinformed article misinforming all that read it.  That is why I hate professional tech bloggers, because they are journalists and not actual technology people.


well the fact is that every os has a bugs so thats just the way it is and my sig is just funny


----------



## mep916

tlarkin said:


> Jabes-
> 
> It is really just a misinformed article misinforming all that read it.  That is why I hate professional tech bloggers, because they are journalists and not actual technology people.



Good point. That guy from the New York Times, David Pogue, is a douche. Paul Thurrott writes some good stuff, however.


----------



## tlarkin

mep916 said:


> Good point. That guy from the New York Times, David Pogue, is a douche. Paul Thurrott writes some good stuff, however.



No, you are right there are some good ones out there, but for every good one there is a plethora of bad ones.  I was interviewed for some articles in CIO magazine about how I admin my Macs and integrate them into a PC environment.  The author was nice, but she called boot camp an emulator....

I used to love reading Maximum PC (back when it was called boot magazine) but after like their third year of print they started writing crap and they give out too many kick ass awards.  I think that no body stands by a set of standards these days.  I mean they gave Windows XP a perfect 10, and they never hand out 10s, not to mention no OS on release deserves a 10 they are filled with bugs.

Oh well, one of these days I will have to finish building my website/blog so I can at least attempt to give out proper information.


----------



## paratwa

Oh I just think Vista is the best! Best OS windows ever! I would rather run vista than make love to my wife! It's so pretty!


----------



## tlarkin

paratwa said:


> I would rather run vista than make love to my wife!



does your wife know this?


----------



## Jabes

paratwa said:


> Oh I just think Vista is the best! Best OS windows ever! I would rather run vista than make love to my wife! It's so pretty!



well how ugly is ur wife?


----------



## mep916

This is going in a bad direction. I'm gonna make some popcorn.


----------



## paratwa

tlarkin said:


> does your wife know this?



Oh she knows, besides I want to divorce her since she still runs XP, and you know that anyone that runs XP is a total idiot, just ask all of vista lovers!



Jabes said:


> well how ugly is ur wife?



Prettier than your mom! 

You guys do Know that I am being [SIZE=-1]*faceasious *[/SIZE]right?


----------



## oscaryu1

mep916 said:


> This is going in a bad direction. I'm gonna make some popcorn.



Same here. Flame wars coming up 

Sooo... how bout getting back on topic?

Vista - I have to try. 

XP - Good so far


----------



## mep916

paratwa said:


> You guys do Know that I am being [SIZE=-1]*faceasious *[/SIZE]right?



Facetious.


----------



## Jabes

oscaryu1 said:


> Same here. Flame wars coming up
> 
> Sooo... how bout getting back on topic?
> 
> Vista - I have to try.
> 
> XP - Good so far



aw we can't keep on going 



paratwa said:


> Oh she knows, besides I want to divorce her since she still runs XP, and you know that anyone that runs XP is a total idiot, just ask all of vista lovers!
> 
> 
> 
> Prettier than your mom!
> 
> You guys do Know that I am being [SIZE=-1]*faceasious *[/SIZE]right?


of course I kno that u hate vista


----------



## paratwa

mep916 said:


> Facetious.




Oops!


----------



## PC eye

tlarkin said:


> Another one? OK, well I like XP over vista any day. Vienna will be the next good OS from Microsoft, Vista will be another Windows ME.


 
Vienna is the code name for Windows Server 2008 like Long Horn was for Vista. Since you work with networks/networking that would be right up your alley there.  

For desktops the next Windows planned seems to be for 2010. Blackcomb or simply Windows 7 is due then.


----------



## Kornowski

> I'll give you meh Radeon 9200. Got an AGP port available?



lol, I'll pass


----------



## StrangleHold

Windows Vienna that started as Blackcomb, now name changed to Windows 7 and will probably change again is going to replace Vista.
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp
http://www.windowsitpro.com/windows...rticleID/95159/windowspaulthurrott_95159.html
http://www.windows-vista-update.com/Microsoft-Windows-Vienna.html

Theres already a Windows Server 2008. Windows Server 2008 is built from the same code base as Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and was called Longhorn

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/evaluation/overview.mspx


----------



## funkysnair

i go for vista...

thing is im using twice as much ram and faster than what i was using in my xp pooter so i knew i wouldnt have problems with vist.

2gig 800mhz (vista) 1gig 667mhz (xp)

just a bit of a wait for aol to send me suitable drivers to get online with vista.

never hardly use more than %50 ram think it would be a different story with the 1gig 667mhz ram running vist as i do alot of burning, surfing and playing music at the same time.

no problems here


----------



## patrickv

jutnm said:


> Vista- works faster, boots faster, easier to use , games work great and better.



you didn't just say "easier to use" ?
sorry it's not. no really, it's NOT, capital *N-O-T*.
do you know how much time it takes to configure a Lan with vista or network for that matter ? more than XP, am speaking out of experience.
I also have vista and when i take my lappy home to connect to my wireless router, i wanna go crazy ,lol
anyways for now am with XP, so far vista for has shown it's improving but some stuff don't work so am just waiting for the SP.

cheers


----------



## mep916

patrickv said:


> do you know how much time it takes to configure a Lan with vista or network for that matter ? more than XP, am speaking out of experience.
> I also have vista and when i take my lappy home to connect to my wireless router, i wanna go crazy ,lol



I've had similar problems w/ networking in Vista. Still haven't figured out how to share files w/ my two PCs. I know it's easy, but not really worth the hassle. I hate troubleshooting.


----------



## windowsvista

Vista more quick and effiectent


----------



## ThatGuy16

patrickv said:


> you didn't just say "easier to use" ?
> sorry it's not. no really, it's NOT, capital *N-O-T*.
> do you know how much time it takes to configure a Lan with vista or network for that matter ? more than XP, am speaking out of experience.
> I also have vista and when i take my lappy home to connect to my wireless router, i wanna go crazy ,lol
> anyways for now am with XP, so far vista for has shown it's improving but some stuff don't work so am just waiting for the SP.
> 
> cheers







mep916 said:


> I've had similar problems w/ networking in Vista. Still haven't figured out how to share files w/ my two PCs. I know it's easy, but not really worth the hassle. I hate troubleshooting.



My god, i had a hard time figuring this out on XP, on Vista all you have to do is make two clicks, boom. done.

control panel / networking and sharing center. all you have to do is turn it on, and you can access the shared folders on all the other pc's connected.

I love this, if you need something on another computer, all you have to do is put it in a shared folder and it can be accessed from any computer connected to the network


----------



## PC eye

The two main grievances here while still running XP on a separate drive was the lack of the add/remove Windows components option seen as far back as 95/98 no longer seen in the new version. The other main thing was denied access to the new form of DocumentsandSettings folder with the users folder now seem. I hate not having full access to anything as the admin to what files are where.

Suprisingly all the "bugs" that everyone was expected while not uncommon with any new version when it first comes out is with the drivers/softwares for hardwares themselves not with Windows on it's own. Plus updates are being seen at a much faster rate for Vista over XP with the shutdown/install updates message seen more often. MS is trying to make a big impression lately.


----------



## X2BreakOfFate

Yeah guys, really... if xp and vista were realeased at the same time. And all of the computers could run both. Everyone would have chose vista. You're all making it to difficult. Vista really is, really really easy. Everything about it is. Xp is far more complicated for a normal user to set up a network and do anything to customize his or her pc. in vista, its just there. and if you cant find it, type it in the instant search.


----------



## patrickv

X2BreakOfFate said:


> Yeah guys, really... if xp and vista were realeased at the same time. And all of the computers could run both. Everyone would have chose vista. You're all making it to difficult. Vista really is, really really easy. Everything about it is. Xp is far more complicated for a normal user to set up a network


you never seize to amaze me X2BreakOfFate, do a poll here and let's vote.
lets vote to see which OS (xp or vista) is better at networking, and i tell you Xp will win !! why ? i dunno.
vista is easy ,yes, agreed, but configuration is the problem, way too many unneeded options


> and do anything to customize his or her pc.


what do you mean by that ? care to elaborate ?


----------



## X2BreakOfFate

Well what I mean is in XP you have almost an operating system like linux. Now i know people will get technical with this but I mean is when you start it, you can do a thousand things to customize it... will it be Windows Blinds, the uxtheme thing, changing the login screen, etc. Linux lets you do that without restictions, however vista well, restricts alot. My thing is, that if a user wants to change something in vista, grant it they have to search, but it seems like if they just snoop around in control panel for a while they can figure it out without looking online to see what something means. Idk, its just one of those feelings I get like i said about linux. I love linux, it amazes me. I dont know if its that its free, that all the software is free, that I can edit it as I please, or what... I just know that it does but everytime I install it, I hate it because I dont have photoshop, visual studio, or my zune software. (those are just three)... Its just a thing I guess that you cant explain, just when I approached vista I loved it, it was easier, simplified, and it didnt crash without explanation and a way to fix it.


----------



## PC eye

While finding Vista to be far more stable in many areas then XP I still have a few grievances about the new layout and removal of certain things that were provided in older versions. Besides the add/remove Windows components option in the control panel the one improvement on the other hand was a direct link for the device manager instead of right clicking on the MyComputer icon or opening the system icon there.

Once you click on the Media Center setup in the Start>Programs you can't remove that in the control panel. With WMP 11 where are the visualizations seen in WMP 10, 9, 8? All downloads for optional visualizations are for 10 or earlier with none seen included in 11 for screen saver playback when playing an audio cd or mp3 file.


----------



## tlarkin

X2BreakOfFate said:


> ...just when I approached vista I loved it, it was easier, simplified, and it didnt crash without explanation and a way to fix it.



How about using an Operating system that doesn't crash?


----------



## boostedpimp

xp for me.. vista blows imo


----------



## Travis30384

Well, my laptop has vista home premium. I would take windows xp professional over vista (unless ultimate) because vista has slower file transfers, and is more vulnerable to freezes, and no responces, in my use.


----------



## PC eye

Travis30384 said:


> Well, my laptop has vista home premium. I would take windows xp professional over vista (unless ultimate) because vista has slower file transfers, and is more vulnerable to freezes, and no responces, in my use.


 
 The main difference between Ultimate and Home Premium editions is 4 more features with 3 being for the increased networking support while the fourth is a hardware protection feature for the higher price. I just took 5gb of files and copied them from drive to drive seeing no more time then seen with XP Pro or Home editions. 

Freeze ups are problems with software and device drivers provided by 3rd party sources not the OS itself. I went through enough of that lately between ATI and Creative drivers.


----------



## mep916

tlarkin said:


> How about using an Operating system that doesn't crash?



he he. 

Hey, you gotta admit, it's nice to get an explanation. The blue screens have also "improved," IMO.


----------



## PC eye

Just think the new BSODs for Vista have the shutdown, return to program, and close program return to desktop options while XP simply gave you a memory dump!


----------



## tlarkin

Every other OS has a log file that logs errors which is pretty extensive, where as windows has a BSOD, which makes no sense still to this day.


----------



## Juven

i Vote for the Ultimate XP - Xtreame Professional.


----------



## patrickv

tlarkin said:


> Every other OS has a log file that logs errors which is pretty extensive, where as windows has a BSOD, which makes no sense still to this day.



well windows also have log file of errors , from the event viewer but most people don't even bother to look at it !! , people like me !!


----------



## robina_80

no offence to the twats out there who think XP is better but its not, if XP was better why would Microsoft ship out a new O/S and also i bet you havnt touched Vista, or you have and cant be arsed with it


----------



## tlarkin

robina_80 said:


> no offence to the twats out there who think XP is better but its not, if XP was better why would Microsoft ship out a new O/S and also i bet you havnt touched Vista, or you have and cant be arsed with it



no *offense* taken....

However, newer is not better.  Windows Vista is a disappointment.  It was suppose to ship with EFI support, but MS had to pull the plug on it.  I actually wanted Vista to be awesome.  However, really they just took the band-aid approach.  Instead of fixing their OS they made everything pre-load into memory.  Instead of fixing their memory management they just require more free hard disk space.  Instead of fixing whatever they already have made into a better OS they just rearranged it and made it flashier.  The security center alone makes me want to commit sepuku when I use Vista.  I was using vista since beta RC1 via my companies MSDN subscription.  I installed and have used Vista Business edition since launch.  

For being 6 years in development, and costing over $300 for the Ultimate edition and limiting the features of the OS is asinine IMHO.  It is like how they sell cars in the U.S. which drives me insane.  Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus are the same companies and the same parts and the same engines but they just strip down features.  Over in Asia there is no such thing as Acura or Lexus, there is just Honda and Toyota.  Stripping down features and marketing the OS like they did is not doing what it was meant to do.  It was meant to trick the consumer into buying the Ultimate edition and get every feature, when in all honesty, no home user would need to connect to a Domain Controller, nor would they need to run an encrypted file system.  

Windows Vista is a let down and a disappointment.  Vienna will hopefully be a lot better.  EFI support was something I really wanted to see in windows.  It would make so much difference.  Instead, they took the band-aid approach and just required more hardware to run the OS instead of making it better.  So, I can't see how anyone would say it is better than windows XP.  It is the same exact thing but with a flashier UI and it preloads everything into memory.  Which kind of gets on my nerves, I prefer the Linux/Unix memory management over what MS did with windows.

I was never a fanboy of any OS.  I use them all and work with them all, but Vista does make me want to use OS X, and Linux a lot more now than I used to.  I still have my free copy of Ultimate shrink wrapped on my desk at home.  I haven't opened it and will not install it until at least SP1 comes out on Vista.  It took MS two service packs to get XP right, and it took them about 4 service packs to get 2000 right.  So, I do not see any reason to switch to Vista other than the fact that you want the flashy open GL UI.

Here goes a wiki page that follows the development.  Look at all the features they had to drop...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista#RTM


----------



## Jabes

hey tlarkin have you actually run vista for a week at least?


----------



## tlarkin

Jabes said:


> hey tlarkin have you actually run vista for a week at least?



try for over a year, since RC 1.  I don't boot it very often but maybe once a week or so I boot into it and mess with it.  Been running Vista Business since release in January 2007, so been using it for about 11 months now.


----------



## patrickv

> hey tlarkin have you actually run vista for a week at least?



the nerves of some people


----------



## boostedpimp

robina_80 said:


> no offence to the twats out there who think XP is better but its not, if XP was better why would Microsoft ship out a new O/S and also i bet you havnt touched Vista, or you have and cant be arsed with it



Got my vote for dumbest post eVAR!

To simply answer your question... to make MONEY

Also.. you think newer is better? then how come ME sucked soo much compared to Win 2k? I mean ME was 7 months newer right.. so by your thinking ME should have been all that much more greater then Win2k right? but it wasn't.. it was a complete waste


----------



## patrickv

boostedpimp said:


> Got my vote for dumbest post eVAR!
> 
> To simply answer your question... to make MONEY
> 
> Also.. you think newer is better? then how come ME sucked soo much compared to Win 2k? I mean ME was 7 months newer right.. so by your thinking ME should have been all that much more greater then Win2k right? but it wasn't.. it was a complete waste



agreed, lol, am running away from the forum wars


----------



## ThatGuy16

tlarkin said:


> try for over a year, since RC 1.  I don't boot it very often but maybe once a week or so I boot into it and mess with it.  Been running Vista Business since release in January 2007, so been using it for about 11 months now.




i didn't ever hear the specs on that system


----------



## tlarkin

ThatGuy16 said:


> i didn't ever hear the specs on that system



Which one?

Macbook Pro, C2D 2.18, 2gigs of RAM, radeon x1600

HP Buisness class desktop (dx 5150 i think)
AMD 64 3500, 3gigs of RAM, Radeon x800

iMac C2D 2.16 , 2gigs of RAM, radeon x1600

custom built C2D e6300, 2gigs of RAM, radeon x1600 (i think the video card could be different in that model).

Gateway 450 ROG laptop (not very good specs for vista)

HP NC4200 laptop w/ 2 gigs of RAM (google the specs)

and like 3 other HP business class desktops, dx5150, dc5000, and I can't remember all the models.  All were P4 3.0 w/ at least 2 gigs of RAM or better.


----------



## Jabes

tlarkin said:


> Which one?
> 
> Macbook Pro, C2D 2.18, 2gigs of RAM, radeon x1600
> 
> HP Buisness class desktop (dx 5150 i think)
> AMD 64 3500, 3gigs of RAM, Radeon x800
> 
> iMac C2D 2.16 , 2gigs of RAM, radeon x1600
> 
> custom built C2D e6300, 2gigs of RAM, radeon x1600 (i think the video card could be different in that model).
> 
> Gateway 450 ROG laptop (not very good specs for vista)
> 
> HP NC4200 laptop w/ 2 gigs of RAM (google the specs)
> 
> and like 3 other HP business class desktops, dx5150, dc5000, and I can't remember all the models.  All were P4 3.0 w/ at least 2 gigs of RAM or better.



I think hes sayin the one with vista on it is wat he didn't here the specs on


----------



## ThatGuy16

So.. you tried vista on all those computers? 

i'm just messing with ya, we all know you don't like vista for whatever reason it may be/or whatever you were doing wrong.. ok i'll stop 

you should respect everyones _*opinions*_ here... or atleast bite your tongue and try to

_*cough*vista is better*cough*_


----------



## PC eye

tlarkin said:


> try for over a year, since RC 1. I don't boot it very often but maybe once a week or so I boot into it and mess with it. Been running Vista Business since release in January 2007, so been using it for about 11 months now.


 
 You weren't the only one going for RC1 last year. I didn't bother looking at RC2 since that was still another beta. I never did get stuck by rushing into ME and waited for SP1 for XP to come out before dual booting it with 98SE. 

For Vista I decided not to wait for SP1 since I knew that would take a good year or so with Q1 2008 supposedly seeing that. First it was supposed to be this month which sounded premature anyways since it took a full year for XP's SP1 there.


----------



## tlarkin

Yes, I have had vista on at least a dozen machines since RC 1.  Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but at least I explain why I think a certain way and just don't say its better because I say so.

Like I said beforehand many times, vista is just a disappointment.  I really wanted EFI hardware support in windows, and they dumped it because MS probably has horrible project management is what I am guessing.

You can agree or disagree or agree to disagree, I don't care and I am not calling anyone out.  Just speaking from my personal experience


----------



## PC eye

With any version it mainly depends on what you are looking for in it. I was never "thrilled" about the "eye candy" MS is using to sell the new version like many were there. My reason was to see if it was going to be suitable for the type of system and applications run here. 

I originally paid $200 retail for 98SE those years back so spending $119.99 for the OEM for system builders edition was lower priced option there just to see how this one shapes up. Vista certainly runs better on the newer hardwares out since XP is not seeing the adequate driver support it should.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> Yes, I have had vista on at least a dozen machines since RC 1.  Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but at least I explain why I think a certain way and just don't say its better because I say so.
> 
> Like I said beforehand many times, vista is just a disappointment.  I really wanted EFI hardware support in windows, and they dumped it because MS probably has horrible project management is what I am guessing.
> 
> You can agree or disagree or agree to disagree, I don't care and I am not calling anyone out.  Just speaking from my personal experience



What is EFI? Electronic Fuel Injection?


----------



## deankenny

i have a copy of vista here, and i installed it twice and twice i have wiped and put XP back on, its jus more compatible with most things, vista is just pretty colours they spent too much time on bodywork rather than the engine, XP will always be better and the more popular OS, WHY? because its more stable ALOT FASTER and ALOT less blue screens


----------



## Jabes

deankenny said:


> i have a copy of vista here, and i installed it twice and twice i have wiped and put XP back on, its jus more compatible with most things, vista is just pretty colours they spent too much time on bodywork rather than the engine, XP will always be better and the more popular OS, WHY? because its more stable ALOT FASTER and ALOT less blue screens



always be a better and more popular os lmao I disagree


----------



## PC eye

XP was a sore loser just a few years back when people didn't want to leave 98SE or 2000 behind! XP more stable? HAR! Despite drivers for some newer hardwares Vista does offer better crash control for games and apps then XP ever will while lacking sadly in some other areas.


----------



## fortyways

Telling someone "your a noob" carries a lot of irony.


----------



## Jabes

fortyways said:


> Telling someone "your a noob" carries a lot of irony.



are u sayin that cuz of my sig?


----------



## tlarkin

INTELCRAZY said:


> What is EFI? Electronic Fuel Injection?



Extensible Firmware Interface.  It means that firmware can be gigs in size, run its own 32bit or 64bit applications.  Basically, it makes drivers obsolete.  All the software you will need to run the hardware will be stored in firmware and talk to the other hardware through EFI.  It is actually a very cool technology.  The BIOS is old and busted technology and it is like over 20 years old.  It is time they ditch that and go with EFI.

Google it or wikipedia it.


----------



## hpi

xp but yeah Im gonna make the move and get vista ultimate after I get my quad core.


----------



## Dollar

I am currently using win xp home on my pc with a p4 cpu, 1gb ram and 64mb graphics. I am thinking of getting a new rig with a dual core, 2gb ram and 256mb graphics. I was thinking if it would a waste if I am to buy a second copy of windows xp home.
Any suggestions?


----------



## lovely?

yes i suggest windows vista. as noted by pc-eye, it is more stable then XP... i have a system with xp and a system with vista running right next to eachother, and the vista one is cleaner and runs very crisply, at the expense of a paltry 150MB increase in ram useage


----------



## patrickv

Jabes said:


> are u sayin that cuz of my sig?



urrm yes


----------



## tlarkin

lovely? said:


> yes i suggest windows vista. as noted by pc-eye, it is more stable then XP... i have a system with xp and a system with vista running right next to eachother, and the vista one is cleaner and runs very crisply, at the expense of a paltry 150MB increase in ram useage



How is it more stable?  Why have so many companies allowed users to downgrade to windows XP if it was so much more stable?  You never see that.  You didn't see downgrade options for XP, 2k, or even ME.  

My XP machine at boot has like maybe 250megs of RAM being used when idle, my vista install on the same machine would have over 700megs of used memory idle.  how is that more efficient?  It is the band-aid approach.


----------



## Diamondsleeper

The only reason I voted for XP now is because of compatibilty and support issues. The performance is not an issue for me because my system is robust enough to run either one.  Maybe later if they get all the bugs worked out I will vote for Vista.


----------



## tlarkin

Diamondsleeper said:


> The only reason I voted for XP now is because of compatibilty and support issues. The performance is not an issue for me because my system is robust enough to run either one.  Maybe later if they get all the bugs worked out I will vote for Vista.



well with Xp you aren't getting that full 4 gigs of RAM.


----------



## Diamondsleeper

tlarkin said:


> well with Xp you aren't getting that full 4 gigs of RAM.



As if what I am actually getting is not enough.. Who cares? Its close enough.. You should see this thing Rock!  No compatibilty road blocks No hassles. Like I said, Vista may become as hassle free as I find XP to be right  now.  I have the Home Premium edition disc and have tried it for a while but It just isn't worth messing with right now.


----------



## tlarkin

Diamondsleeper said:


> As if what I am actually getting is not enough.. Who cares? Its close enough.. You should see this thing Rock!



Well, I see your rig stats, but have to disagree with running RAID 0 and IMHO, SLI is kind of a waste of money because it doesn't improve performance overall, and in some cases it actually has performed less than with a standalone video card.

What exactly do you use that thing for?  Gaming, or are you like video editing or something that would actually utilize that RAID?


----------



## TheGuy

Vista for me. Just because for its beautiful MediaCenter
otherwise XP is 1000000000x much better!


----------



## Jabes

patrickv said:


> urrm yes



thats wat I was hopin


----------



## Diamondsleeper

tlarkin said:


> Well, I see your rig stats, but have to disagree with running RAID 0 and IMHO, SLI is kind of a waste of money because it doesn't improve performance overall, and in some cases it actually has performed less than with a standalone video card.
> 
> What exactly do you use that thing for?  Gaming, or are you like video editing or something that would actually utilize that RAID?



I don't think I am going to get into a debate about how you "think" my RAID 0 works or how I should use RAID.  I know how it works and I know first hand the difference it makes on my rig.  Same with the SLI comparison you made. I built this machine for a specific purpose. To do exactly what I want it to do , and it does it.


----------



## funkysnair

the foot has been put down!


----------



## mep916

Diamondsleeper said:


> I don't think I am going to get into a debate



With tlarkin? That's probably a good idea.


----------



## tlarkin

funkysnair said:


> the foot has been put down!





Yeah, it has totally been put down.  I run lots of RAID environments for work, set up multiple RAIDs for audio recording and video production.  I have both independent record labels and video production companies as clients.  There are tons of articles on Tomshardware.com about how SLI is pretty much not worth the money.  Running RAID 0 does not improve gaming performance, it does not give you more frames per a second, it may load the game slightly faster and you run a higher risk of failure since all data is stored across multiple drives and if one drive fails your whole RAID crashes.


----------



## funkysnair

yeh-put me off raid that did-

people have different thoughts and needs though thats the thing...

personaly i dont game- hence my graphics card (lol) so i dont really understand the sli stuff


----------



## mep916

I've never run a Raptor unstriped, so personally, I don't know the difference between a single drive and a striped drive when gaming, for example. I'm not uncomfortable w/ a RAID 0 setup and OK w/ the seemingly negligible performance increase when using a striped array. As far as data loss, I backup my OS on an external drive and an independent internal drive on a nightly basis. Overkill? Perhaps. However, I'm aware of the risk that this type of setup presents, and it doesn't hurt to be "too careful."

SLI is another story. With the original cost of the GTX, plus the cost to step up to the Ultra, I paid over $700 for a setup that is currently performing worse than the SLi'd GTXes. Basically, I feel like I !$%*ed myself. Everything I've read (from reliable sources) suggests SLi is not worth the cost. From what I understand, SLi is only beneficial when running resolutions above 1920 X 1200. <- Even that's debatable.


----------



## Jabes

mep916 said:


> I've never run a Raptor unstriped, so personally, I don't know the difference between a single drive and a striped drive when gaming, for example. I'm not uncomfortable w/ a RAID 0 setup and OK w/ the seemingly negligible performance increase when using a striped array. As far as data loss, I backup my OS on an external drive and an independent internal drive on a nightly basis. Overkill? Perhaps. However, I'm aware of the risk that this type of setup presents, and it doesn't hurt to be "too careful."
> 
> SLI is another story. With the original cost of the GTX, plus the cost to step up to the Ultra, I paid over $700 for a setup that is currently performing worse than the SLi'd GTXes. Basically, I feel like I !$%*ed myself. Everything I've read (from reliable sources) suggests SLi is not worth the cost. From what I understand, SLi is only beneficial when running resolutions above 1920 X 1200. <- Even that's debatable.



yea it doesn't hurt to be over careful even tho I never backup my hard drive cuz it would take awhile to backup a 500 gig hard drive


----------



## mep916

Jabes said:


> yea it doesn't hurt to be over careful even tho I never backup my hard drive cuz it would take awhile to backup a 500 gig hard drive



Do have 500 gigs of data? You should partition only the space you need for the OS. Other partitons' could store media and other files.


----------



## tlarkin

Yeah, when I got my current job it was a significant pay increase and I was going to build a brand new PC just for gaming.  I really want to play starfcraft 2 and Fallout 3 really badly because I loved the earlier versions of those games as a kid. 

I looked into running two slightly cheaper video cards in SLI mode, because my initial thought was, 2 mid grade cards in parallel processing mode would run better than one higher end card.  Which, later I found out that my initial logic was completely wrong.  I then read into SLI a lot, and the more I read into it the more I found that really it doesn't do anything but cost you more money.  I think people just do it for the prestige.  It is like all these people buying Vista Ultimate and when in reality Home Premium would have suited them better.  

Also, if vista had boasted EFI support then we might have actually seen some bad ass EFI based video cards to come out, but then again MS just put vista out as a cash cow.  Hopefully they will get rid of the registry completely, have self contained applications, dual library files (for both 64bit and 32bit) so everything can live in perfect harmony side by side, decent driver support, EFI support, and a command line binary for all gui based applications in Windows Vienna.  Then windows would kick ass again, oh and if they locked down the kernel so no more access to kernel hooks.  That would even up the security of windows.


----------



## tlarkin

Jabes said:


> yea it doesn't hurt to be over careful even tho I never backup my hard drive cuz it would take awhile to backup a 500 gig hard drive



Well, what you need to do is, when you build your next PC, retire your old one to a file server.  Install Linux on it, run samba services on it, connect all your windows clients to a giant centralized network hard drive, then back up the server via rsync to an external HD or another device and set up a cron job so it does it every night at 3 AM.  Then you will be set.


----------



## cybereclipse

i prefer xp... but mostly osx86!!!!


----------



## mep916

SLi is obviously a marketing scheme designed to sell more GPUs. Unfortunately, I bought into it. Of course, as you said, nVidia are also appealing to those that are seeking the "bragging rights" and benchmarking scores that come with running two high-end GPUs. All I would really like is performance. I'm gonna install some games and 3DMark06 on a XP partition and see how things run there. 

I've read that Microsoft is ditching the 32bit platform completely - as opposed to combining the libraries. What do you think?


----------



## tlarkin

mep916 said:


> I've read that Microsoft is ditching the 32bit platform completely - as opposed to combining the libraries. What do you think?



That is going to piss off a lot of developers and users that want to be able to access legacy softwares.  Personally, I am okay with that as long as everything I want to do is supported.  I prefer how redhat and OS X did it with dual libraries for each platform.


----------



## Jabes

mep916 said:


> Do have 500 gigs of data? You should partition only the space you need for the OS. Other partitons' could store media and other files.



yea around that much i think I have like 440 gigs maybe but I have a vista partion thats 120 gigs I just need to find a hard drive


----------



## jutnm

i think most ppl who choose XP bc they have only experienced XP only and not the side of vista ............................................................


----------



## Jabes

jutnm said:


> i think most ppl who choose XP bc they have only experienced XP only and not the side of vista ............................................................



yea or its just like my sig lol


----------



## cybereclipse

well, my laptop came with vista...and i upgraded to xp

IMO, vista is close to windows me in crapiness

im sure it looks pretty and all, but is it really worth all those system resources to run a pretty little sidebar??

mac osx FTW....
btw, im sure i will be flamed for this, but what can vista do that osx cant...
(except crash )


----------



## Diamondsleeper

tlarkin said:


> Yeah, it has totally been put down.  I run lots of RAID environments for work, set up multiple RAIDs for audio recording and video production.  I have both independent record labels and video production companies as clients.  There are tons of articles on Tomshardware.com about how SLI is pretty much not worth the money.  Running RAID 0 does not improve gaming performance, it does not give you more frames per a second, it may load the game slightly faster and you run a higher risk of failure since all data is stored across multiple drives and if one drive fails your whole RAID crashes.



I think I need to pull up a couple of those articles and read them to my computer and tell it to stop performing noticeably better in SLI and in RAID 0 so it will stop doing that. Its going against what is being written.

But regardless of that I think you are missing the point.   Bascially, if you are able to affored SLI, then sure, do it.  
It's like a car. Does a Porche cost 2 or 3 times what a mustang GT cost? Yes. Is the porche faster? Yes. Is it two or three times as fast? Course not.

Is SLI faster than a single card? Yes. Is it two times faster? Course not. 

Why do people buy a Porche when they could buy a Mustang? Cause they CAN.  

Btw, it's not "minute" gains. Lot of the newer games really benifit from SLI. You don't have to have SLI to run them, but that eye candy sure looks sweet.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> How is it more stable?  Why have so many companies allowed users to downgrade to windows XP if it was so much more stable?  You never see that.  You didn't see downgrade options for XP, 2k, or even ME.
> 
> My XP machine at boot has like maybe 250megs of RAM being used when idle, my vista install on the same machine would have over 700megs of used memory idle.  how is that more efficient?  It is the band-aid approach.



Because the users are stubborn and too damn lazy to get used to a new interface and also b/c of ppl like you that blow it's performance issues out of proportion and attack forums with that BS. Bad thing is some ppl are gullible enough to believe you guys instead of learn with good, old-fashioned, first-hand experience. Just my opinion..


----------



## Diamondsleeper

INTELCRAZY said:


> Because the users are stubborn and too damn lazy to get used to a new interface and also b/c of ppl like you that blow it's performance issues out of proportion and attack forums with that BS. Bad thing is some ppl are gullible enough to believe you guys instead of learn with good, old-fashioned, first-hand experience. Just my opinion..



I believe you are right on that aspect to degree but I believe there is an added difference this time around.  The compatibility issues. That is what is putting people off. Previous releases did not have this.  It was an almost effortless switch.  People in general don't like change all at once. Its just gonna take some time for everybody, including myself, to come around.  We will let all the hardcore Vista enthusiasts who couldn't wait for it to come out, work out all the bugs. Then we will jump on board.


----------



## ThatGuy16

Ok i honestly do not get were people are getting compatability issues! I run Vista x64 for three months and not a single problem... the only compatibility issue i could think of is if your trying to use something 10 years old .. doh' whos going to continue making drivers for something that old!?


----------



## tlarkin

Diamondsleeper said:


> I think I need to pull up a couple of those articles and read them to my computer and tell it to stop performing noticeably better in SLI and in RAID 0 so it will stop doing that. Its going against what is being written.
> 
> But regardless of that I think you are missing the point.   Bascially, if you are able to affored SLI, then sure, do it.
> It's like a car. Does a Porche cost 2 or 3 times what a mustang GT cost? Yes. Is the porche faster? Yes. Is it two or three times as fast? Course not.
> 
> Is SLI faster than a single card? Yes. Is it two times faster? Course not.
> 
> Why do people buy a Porche when they could buy a Mustang? Cause they CAN.
> 
> Btw, it's not "minute" gains. Lot of the newer games really benifit from SLI. You don't have to have SLI to run them, but that eye candy sure looks sweet.



You are correct and I agree with you.  Because if you want a high end car it is going to cost you, just like a high end computer.  My issue is that people just think its better when it comes to computers and it really isn't.  Bench marks do not really show real world performance in any rate, where a test drive with a car does.  I am not saying you shouldn't have bought it, I am just saying I think it is a waste of money.  Then again even if I could afford a Porsche I probably wouldn't have one.  I would much rather buy more property, but that is a personal preference.

I just think that a lot of marketing and tech jargin is thrown out that really confuses consumers and it really bothers me.  The average person and even the average gamer doesn't quite understand them.  I am just trying to set a few facts that a lot of companies have skewed with marketing is all.



> Because the users are stubborn and too damn lazy to get used to a new interface and also b/c of ppl like you that blow it's performance issues out of proportion and attack forums with that BS. Bad thing is some ppl are gullible enough to believe you guys instead of learn with good, old-fashioned, first-hand experience. Just my opinion..



I am old enough to have been alive and using computers on a regular basis for the release of 3.11, 95 a, 95 b, 95 c, 98, 98se, 2k, ME, XP.  Out of all of those releases no company has allowed downgrades back to the earlier version, and with the exception of windows ME, Microsoft has never put out a more buggy OS that is so convoluted and feature stripped that is confuses the consumer into buy the Ultimate edition.  We can sit here and argue facts all day long.  It is a milestone of vista's stability that companies are allowing users to opt out of Vista installs and get XP.

You're average user, sure may like vista, those on the fence are on the fence, your more advanced user who has used other OSes, will see its flaws and not want to touch it.  I have it on a test system, been running it since release.  I still have issues with it.  I mean it still breaks basic networking, which is completely lame.  

I also never blow anything out of proportion, I typically have very straight forward answers with something to at least back it up.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> I am old enough to have been alive and using computers on a regular basis for the release of 3.11, 95 a, 95 b, 95 c, 98, 98se, 2k, ME, XP.  Out of all of those releases no company has allowed downgrades back to the earlier version, and with the exception of windows ME, Microsoft has never put out a more buggy OS that is so convoluted and feature stripped that is confuses the consumer into buy the Ultimate edition.  We can sit here and argue facts all day long.  It is a milestone of vista's stability that companies are allowing users to opt out of Vista installs and get XP.
> 
> You're average user, sure may like vista, those on the fence are on the fence, your more advanced user who has used other OSes, will see its flaws and not want to touch it.  I have it on a test system, been running it since release.  I still have issues with it.  I mean it still breaks basic networking, which is completely lame.
> 
> I also never blow anything out of proportion, I typically have very straight forward answers with something to at least back it up.



If I am correct, all/most of those OS's had a button that said "Start" correct? I know of users who won't go to Vista b/c they can't open that. Now, you just tell me how much more stupidity is out there than that. That came from a small biz's office that I have ties to.

Yes, you do have evidence and I do mess with a bit of software... I can't blame it on MS, directly or indirectly a user must see to blame it on the software company who made the software that won't run in Vista. I do think Vista has better program crash control, maybe that was new b/c a lot of crappy programs crash... Aren't you running a RC1 or RC2 on that test system?

And as for buying Ultimate, what the Hell? A small/medium business doesn't even need Business or Home Premium. The only reason I got computers for a biz that had Business Edition, is b/c it made me look better, an accountant won't figure out they don't need it too quickly. I must agree on convolution, I should I have put Home Basic on those mothers and forgotten it 

But, the ppl that are putting Vista down are ppl that work with computers for accounting, bookkeeping, etc. and work with XP everyday. I was asked how to 'connect' to the internet in Vista(connection was DSL)  I am saying the ppl that 'muckrake' about Vista are mostly morons and are confined to a cubicle or office all day, every day.

I cannot put Vista down as for functionality, I can put it down for the marketing scheme and I will not 'upgrade' to XP.


----------



## PC eye

mep916 said:


> I've read that Microsoft is ditching the 32bit platform completely - as opposed to combining the libraries. What do you think?


 
What MS plans and what you have been hearing are two different things. The next desktop version of Windows due in 2010 according to some sources will be the last seeing 32bit editions there.

*Q: Will Windows 7 be available in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions like Vista?*

A: Though I had expected Windows 7 to ship only in 64-bit versions, Microsoft now says it will be the final Windows version to ship in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp


----------



## amosf

tlarkin said:


> I am old enough to have been alive and using computers on a regular basis for the release of 3.11, 95 a, 95 b, 95 c, 98, 98se, 2k, ME, XP.



eh what?

They only came out last decade! I was using PC's when they come out. I was also using PC's when DOS came out. I was using PC's before DOS came out. I was using PC's before they were called PC's 

And I am not an old guy   Stop making us pre windows people sound old


----------



## PC eye

amosf said:


> eh what?
> 
> They only came out last decade! I was using PC's when they come out. I was also using PC's when DOS came out. I was using PC's before DOS came out. I was using PC's before they were called PC's
> 
> And I am not an old guy  Stop making us pre windows people sound old


 
 aw geee... And all this time I thought the old Epson HX-20 using Basic was ancient history in the computer world.


----------



## newgeneral01

deankenny said:


> after using both on my machine, i found that games perform 20%-50% better on XP than VISTA therefore i obviously prefer XP what do you prefer and why?


 
If you have a high end comp then u won't be able to tell the difference, only that Vista will give you much better graphical features. I personally think that vista needs to burn in hell because most of the things i did in xp won't work properly for vista, but the only reason I'm actually using it is to get the benefits of the dx10


----------



## PC eye

You won't see the benefits of DX10 until games requiring DX10 are finally out. Despite the loss of a few programs simply from being a newer version of Windows most everything else has been running the same except for XP drivers on the new hardwares. That's running 2gb of performance memory and a mid range video card.

 To follow up on a comment made earlier about EFI(Extensible Firmware Interface) that was where you could run Vista on Mac hardware as a replacement for the bios there.  http://guides.macrumors.com/EFI

"No Vista on Mac's horizon" seen at  http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6048250.html was an update to the APC article that has since been removed.


----------



## jutnm

why is it , that a person like me who started off building computers on a whim and winged it , and when  i got vista it worked totally fine for me , i mean at the time i knew noting about computers and ppl who have soo much experience with computers have soo much trouble with booting and operating it ? ...................is it just luck that the VISTA GODS took pitty on me or is it i took it like a man and got through all the security annoyances and incompatibility issues just by looking for the drivers .................... its a new operating system get use to it.


----------



## porterjw

Jabes said:


> i <3 vista (love it) and look at my sig haha



"IF YOU HATE VISTA EITHER THE PC YOUR TRYING TO RUN IT ON IS A POS OR YOUR A NOOB
noob
1. (Internet slang, pejorative) A newb or newbie; refers to the idea that someone is new to a game, concept, or idea; implying a lack of experience.
* Noobs are annoying, they never know the forum rules."

Ah, the ignorance of teenagers. And before my rant, for the record, no, I was never this bad...

So we bash people who don't like Vista, then bash their computers, and then bash their computer intelligence?

I absolutely hate this cliche, but I had been using computers for several years  by the time your parents were conceiving you. I like to think I have an absolute demigod status of superior computer knowledge when compared to John Q. Public, and a very decent knowledge when compared to some others on these Forums. That being said, I've used Vista three times, and would prefer to never again deal with it. It will *never* see installation on a computer in my house. Does that mean my system listed below is god-awful? Does it mean I seemingly know nothing about computers in your eyes?

My current system can run the best version of Vista with ease and not even begin to sweat, but it will never have that 'opportunity'...pity.  I've personally hated your sig since I first saw it, but never called you out until now because you were never being an ass before. Do you expect that computer knowledge approaching your obviously omnipotent level is just ingrained into every human? Do you expect someone to sit down in front of an OS for the first time and 'just know everything'?

You were a newbie once, too. Try to humble yourself for a moment and remember. Since when did hating new folks and taking shots at them become the norm? At 14 years old, you're probably a HS Freshman, yes? You know those jerk kids who would pick on Freshman their first week of school just because they were Freshman...you're going to be one of those the next three years, aren't you?

You don't have to be a Newbie to know this Post will most likely be pulled by the PTB's. I sincerely hope you have a chance to read this before then.

--Jay (Defending Computer-illiterates and Forum Newbies from people like Jabes)


----------



## INTELCRAZY

imsati said:


> "IF YOU HATE VISTA EITHER THE PC YOUR TRYING TO RUN IT ON IS A POS OR YOUR A NOOB
> noob
> 1. (Internet slang, pejorative) A newb or newbie; refers to the idea that someone is new to a game, concept, or idea; implying a lack of experience.
> * Noobs are annoying, they never know the forum rules."
> 
> Ah, the ignorance of teenagers. And before my rant, for the record, no, I was never this bad...
> 
> So we bash people who don't like Vista, then bash their computers, and then bash their computer intelligence?
> 
> I absolutely hate this cliche, but I had been using computers for several years  by the time your parents were conceiving you. I like to think I have an absolute demigod status of superior computer knowledge when compared to John Q. Public, and a very decent knowledge when compared to some others on these Forums. That being said, I've used Vista three times, and would prefer to never again deal with it. It will *never* see installation on a computer in my house. Does that mean my system listed below is god-awful? Does it mean I seemingly know nothing about computers in your eyes?
> 
> My current system can run the best version of Vista with ease and not even begin to sweat, but it will never have that 'opportunity'...pity.  I've personally hated your sig since I first saw it, but never called you out until now because you were never being an ass before. Do you expect that computer knowledge approaching your obviously omnipotent level is just ingrained into every human? Do you expect someone to sit down in front of an OS for the first time and 'just know everything'?
> 
> You were a newbie once, too. Try to humble yourself for a moment and remember. Since when did hating new folks and taking shots at them become the norm? At 14 years old, you're probably a HS Freshman, yes? You know those jerk kids who would pick on Freshman their first week of school just because they were Freshman...you're going to be one of those the next three years, aren't you?
> 
> You don't have to be a Newbie to know this Post will most likely be pulled by the PTB's. I sincerely hope you have a chance to read this before then.
> 
> --Jay (Defending Computer-illiterates and Forum Newbies from people like Jabes)



I love how you guys can point out the bads and not the goods.... Your PC should be god awful, 7100GS--I thought my X1300PRO was bad... 

Thanks to SuperFetch, Vista can actually browse the internet right when the desktop is revealed on boot-up. <<Unlike XP

DX10 and DX10.1, enough said on that part

Looks Helluva lot better

UAC is easily disabled so it doesn't annoy you... Can't find the "Yes or No" question in Ctrl Panel--> then you should be LABELED: "NOOB"

Vista's x64 version has less bugs than XP's x64 version, that says a lot...

I like the program crash control, countless times on my old PC(XP), some app(somewhat BF2) would have an error and my computer would freeze and lead to restart, it runs flawlessly on Vista and things that have crashed(GMod) in Vista will just hit the desktop and give me an error msg, then it's over.

The Network and Sharing Center interface in Vista is awesome.. You can view a map of your network..

Here's my version of Jabes' sig : "If you can't follow the learning curve in Vista, you have an IQ of <80."

I pity you guys who want to stay stuck on the ancient garbage...


----------



## porterjw

INTELCRAZY said:


> I love how you guys can point out the bads and not the goods.... Your PC should be god awful, 7100GS--I thought my X1300PRO was bad...
> 
> Thanks to SuperFetch, Vista can actually browse the internet right when the desktop is revealed on boot-up. <<Unlike XP
> 
> DX10 and DX10.1, enough said on that part
> 
> Looks Helluva lot better
> 
> UAC is easily disabled so it doesn't annoy you... Can't find the "Yes or No" question in Ctrl Panel--> then you should be LABELED: "NOOB"
> 
> Vista's x64 version has less bugs than XP's x64 version, that says a lot...
> 
> I like the program crash control, countless times on my old PC(XP), some app(somewhat BF2) would have an error and my computer would freeze and lead to restart, it runs flawlessly on Vista and things that have crashed(GMod) in Vista will just hit the desktop and give me an error msg, then it's over.
> 
> The Network and Sharing Center interface in Vista is awesome.. You can view a map of your network..
> 
> Here's my version of Jabes' sig : "If you can't follow the learning curve in Vista, you have an IQ of <80."
> 
> I pity you guys who want to stay stuck on the ancient garbage...



I'm thrilled you like Vista and enjoy it. I'm not being smug, I'm genuinely glad. My 7100GS works just fine for what I need it to do, which is connect the monitor to, nothing else.

As far as looks, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Who said anything about not knowing how to disable UAC? 

I think it's great that Vista deals with crashes in a way that is least-intrusive to the user. I prefer however to not do anything to warrant my system dealing with a crash in the first place, Linux, or Windows-wise.

I can see my network using MacAfee. I'm sure Vista has a 3-d rendering of it though, so your e-penis is a bit longer.

As far as 'being stuck on ancient garbage'... Huh? I don't need to drop  hundreds or thousands on new components every year so I can play the newest games or get the best benchmarks. I still have a P4 system in my house and it works perfectly. Just because there are now Quad Cores, it doesn't mean less-advanced units instantly stop working and become a hassle to own. I could not care less about whatever new games were released last week or the new super-cool-Vista-only software that come out. My system works how I want it to work, as I'm sure yours does the same.

Oddly enough, my comment was not attacking Vista, it was an effort to put Jabes in his place. I've read this entire Thread, and honestly, he's being a bit of a jerk, IMO. I find it odd that my saying I tried Vista, didn't like it, and will not use it again sparked a 'Vista-is-uber' response from you.


----------



## PC eye

Watch the language people before this thread gets closed.


----------



## Jabes

hey imsati if you wanna talk y don't u just pm me cuz we don't want this thread closed kk?


----------



## porterjw

I've said everything I'm going to, as well as what needed to be said. I'm done with this Thread.


----------



## Jabes

just to say that I'm not scared of replying I'll reply



> "IF YOU HATE VISTA EITHER THE PC YOUR TRYING TO RUN IT ON IS A POS OR YOUR A NOOB
> noob
> 1. (Internet slang, pejorative) A newb or newbie; refers to the idea that someone is new to a game, concept, or idea; implying a lack of experience.
> * Noobs are annoying, they never know the forum rules."
> 
> Ah, the ignorance of teenagers. And before my rant, for the record, no, I was never this bad...


everybody thinks that they aren't as bad as everybody else and my sig is just for kicks mainly but its kinda true thats y ur mad right now 



> So we bash people who don't like Vista, then bash their computers, and then bash their computer intelligence?


well I'll admit I'll never run it on my laptop because its a pos amd athlon 3000 512mb of ram



> I absolutely hate this cliche, but I had been using computers for several years  by the time your parents were conceiving you.


well my parents are computer illiterate for most of the part so they didn't get me into comps and I've been usin them since I was 9 or ten probably



> I like to think I have an absolute demigod status of superior computer knowledge when compared to John Q. Public, and a very decent knowledge when compared to some others on these Forums.


for the record I'm NOT saying I kno everything about comps but I kno a good bit



> That being said, I've used Vista three times, and would prefer to never again deal with it. It will *never* see installation on a computer in my house. Does that mean my system listed below is god-awful? Does it mean I seemingly know nothing about computers in your eyes?
> 
> My current system can run the best version of Vista with ease and not even begin to sweat, but it will never have that 'opportunity'...pity.  I've personally hated your sig since I first saw it, but never called you out until now because you were never being an ass before. Do you expect that computer knowledge approaching your obviously omnipotent level is just ingrained into every human? Do you expect someone to sit down in front of an OS for the first time and 'just know everything'?


y won't vista go on ur comp?  just because u used it for 3 days?



> You were a newbie once, too. Try to humble yourself for a moment and remember. Since when did hating new folks and taking shots at them become the norm? At 14 years old, you're probably a HS Freshman, yes? You know those jerk kids who would pick on Freshman their first week of school just because they were Freshman...you're going to be one of those the next three years, aren't you?


nope I'm a sophomore  and I don't kno because I'm homeschooled


> You don't have to be a Newbie to know this Post will most likely be pulled by the PTB's. I sincerely hope you have a chance to read this before then.


like I said earlier I DON'T kno everything about computers but u have to be real dumb not to kno how to use vista

--Jay (Defending Computer-illiterates and Forum Newbies from people like Jabes)

and u said I'm being a jerk well well well


----------



## ThatGuy16

imsati said:


> I've said everything I'm going to, as well as what needed to be said. I'm done with this Thread.



You started it, you dug that post up. Why debate?

From my experieance, Vista is alot more stable. If you get an error on XP, it will BSOD no questions asked. Vista doesn't commit a crash dump, it gives you the option to close the program. Something along those lines anyway.


----------



## Jabes

ThatGuy16 said:


> You started it, you dug that post up. Why debate?
> 
> From my experieance, Vista is alot more stable. If you get an error on XP, it will BSOD no questions asked. Vista doesn't commit a crash dump, it gives you the option to close the program. Something along those lines anyway.



yea I luv my sig lol  did I ever say I made that to make friends lol


----------



## PC eye

Well it started off as a poll for XP and Vista with people offering their own pros and cons about the two versions of Windows but somewhere along the line... "you have now entered the Twilight Zone! ...".


----------



## funkysnair

yeh its funny how it all starts to get a bit hot tempered after a while

personaly i couldnt give a toss what people think is the best os, ive used xp for years now i use vista.

havnt seen a blue screen yet or a screen freeze so im happy


----------



## shadowbt

XP was unstable at its beginnings, it was then stuffed with patches and updates, why would it change for Vista? For now XP owns Vista, but eventually Vista will be full of patches and will be better.


----------



## tlarkin

OK, can we at least try to use full sentences with correct grammar?  I really hate text message talk a lot.  I think it makes all you younger kids who use it look uneducated.  I mean most of you on this forum are privileged, and therefore should at least utilize your education. 

For one, my XP machine never crashes.  I don't know how you all say that the new crash reporter feature in vista is so awesome.  I play HL2, BF2, Doom 3, and some older games on my machine fine with XP.  I get around 40 fps on moderate settings.  My gaming rig is a bit old, and I am going to upgrade it after the new year.  I am waiting for the newest line of video cards to come out.  I build a high end PC every 3 years or so, sometimes 4 years.  For what I want it to do, it performs fine.  I also have 4 Mac desktops and a Macbook pro that would eat most PCs for lunch.  

A lot of you just sit there and quote benchmarks all the time.  You spend lots of money on SLI and put your hard drives in RAID 0.  However, a lot of you don't really know or grasp the concept of what the technologies are used for, and on top of that SLI is a marketing scheme for the most part.  This all goes back to quoting benchmarks.  Benchmarks are a good way to stress test a system but do not reflect on its real world performance.  1500 point difference in 3D mark really does not mean your system is way better when it is over clocked, SLI, or in RAID 0.  It just means that it performed better with simple stress tests.  The video card tests do reflect on how good a video card is for gaming.  However, if you are a casual gamer then that does not really apply to you, and if you don't game it is totally not applicable at all.  Most of the people on this forum that are gamers go solely off benchmarks, and the hardware companies cater to that niche market.  They make over clock kits, SLI, and even make cases and hardware specified towards gamers.  Over clocked RAM has cause some issues in my experiences.  It has caused bottle necks, and it is less stable because it is over clocked.  You do not want your system paging instruction sets from unstable RAM.  However, the companies market towards those gamer crowds and everyone buys into it.

Vista is a piece of crap operating system.  For all the years that went into it and the costs of upgrades it really sucks.  It feels clunky, and unintuitive.  I have to drill down into countless control panels to find something I want to enabled or disable in the Operating system.  We were promised no more registry, and we still have it, EFI support, but didn't get it.  Support for newer and better file systems, and we didn't get it.  All those promised features that would make Vista next gen are getting pushed over into Vienna.  

How can I qualify and quantify my knowledge?  Experience, is the answer.  I can spit out all the certifications I have, but ultimately anyone can get certified, it just takes studying and some money for the tests.  However, I have been in the field long enough and worked with enough variety of hardware, software, OSes, networking technology, etc that I can definitely back up everything I say with experience first hand.  I am not saying I know everything, far from it.  In fact right now I am learning a lot about web services, directory services, and other server side network technologies.  I have to google every day at work to figure some things out.  

So, lets try to have an actual conversation, or debate even on why you think it is better.  Stop saying people are noobs, stop being arrogant because no one cares how cool you are on the internet.  Everyone had to start out somewhere, and everyone had to learn at some point.  Lets also at least try to act educated.  A lot of you will dump into the IT field probably.  If you use text message words in your emails to your boss, you will most likely be told to stop and if you continue you could probably get fired for looking dumb.


----------



## PC eye

I have to differ on the part about XP not crashing. But yoiu'll find that the crash control method used in Vista does work better overall from running the exact same games on the identical hardwares and seeing XP lock while Vista will allow the exit to either shutdown, return to the effected program, or return to the desktop.

Vista sadly does lack in things like adding and removing Windows components like WMP, IE, and others while previous versions allowed that option. The gadgets and side bar were minor annoyances disabled to see still see a Classic Windows theme at least. 

The Super Prefetch feature comes enabled in Vista while in XP with SP2 you had to manually perform a registry edit to enable the program standby feature. One plus for Vista there. 

As far as SLI that's a debate for another thread there. I keep hearing the argument that SLI is so much better from some when pointing the actual waste of financial resources when it doesn't see any performance gains. I'll have to pm you on that one.


----------



## epidemik

You guys are all noob. 
My windows 95 works like a charm.




EDIT JK, im on xp, just cause thats all i can run.


----------



## patrickv

i haven't seen any BSOD on vista yet, but i got some freezing problem. (laptop)
I have no idea why but it seems that everytime i play around with the sidebar it either stops responding or goes black, so i have to exit it, aside from that no problems at all.
Vista for now i can say is *BASIC*, until those SP's comes out, it will be better


----------



## ThatGuy16

tlarkin said:


> A lot of you just sit there and quote benchmarks all the time.  You spend lots of money on SLI and put your hard drives in RAID 0.  However, a lot of you don't really know or grasp the concept of what the technologies are used for, and on top of that SLI is a marketing scheme for the most part.  This all goes back to quoting benchmarks.  Benchmarks are a good way to stress test a system but do not reflect on its real world performance.  1500 point difference in 3D mark really does not mean your system is way better when it is over clocked, SLI, or in RAID 0.  It just means that it performed better with simple stress tests.  The video card tests do reflect on how good a video card is for gaming.  However, if you are a casual gamer then that does not really apply to you, and if you don't game it is totally not applicable at all.  Most of the people on this forum that are gamers go solely off benchmarks, and the hardware companies cater to that niche market.  They make over clock kits, SLI, and even make cases and hardware specified towards gamers.  Over clocked RAM has cause some issues in my experiences.  It has caused bottle necks, and it is less stable because it is over clocked.  You do not want your system paging instruction sets from unstable RAM.  However, the companies market towards those gamer crowds and everyone buys into it.



What does this have to do with this topic? 



> Vista is a piece of crap operating system.  For all the years that went into it and the costs of upgrades it really sucks.  It feels clunky, and unintuitive.  I have to drill down into countless control panels to find something I want to enabled or disable in the Operating system.  We were promised no more registry, and we still have it, EFI support, but didn't get it.  Support for newer and better file systems, and we didn't get it.  All those promised features that would make Vista next gen are getting pushed over into Vienna.



Ok, that makes vista suck how? you can argue all day trying to make your "opinions" statements. When your saying vista *is* crap, but have nothing to support it? the only things i have seen is the computers you have tried to run it on are the bare minimum requirements. Yes vista is more demanding and if you dont have a rig to support it, then its simple dont install it. I believe vista is a much more stable OS over XP and it also utilizes its resources better. I think what alot of people mistake vista as a "memory hog" as PC eye said, part of this can be caused by superfectch which is a good thing. Also, the areo theme can take up more memory, but as soon as you launch a memory intensive app such as a game, it automaticly switchs to vista basic. And when you close the app, it will go back to areo.

One thing i just don't understand, if you hate vista SO bad, then why have myself and many others found vista to be better? either you are trying to run it on a system that just can't handle it or its something else, i don't know. 

Also the sad thing is, jabes sig does apply to some people i know.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> OK, can we at least try to use full sentences with correct grammar?  I really hate text message talk a lot.  I think it makes all you younger kids who use it look uneducated.  I mean most of you on this forum are privileged, and therefore should at least utilize your education.
> 
> For one, my XP machine never crashes.
> 
> I also have 4 Mac desktops and a Macbook pro that would eat most PCs for lunch.
> 
> However, a lot of you don't really know or grasp the concept of what the technologies are used for, and on top of that SLI is a marketing scheme for the most part.  This all goes back to quoting benchmarks.  Benchmarks are a good way to stress test a system but do not reflect on its real world performance.  1500 point difference in 3D mark really does not mean your system is way better when it is over clocked, SLI, or in RAID 0.  It just means that it performed better with simple stress tests.  The video card tests do reflect on how good a video card is for gaming.
> 
> However, if you are a casual gamer then that does not really apply to you, and if you don't game it is totally not applicable at all.
> 
> Most of the people on this forum that are gamers go solely off benchmarks, and the hardware companies cater to that niche market.  They make over clock kits, SLI, and even make cases and hardware specified towards gamers.
> 
> Over clocked RAM has cause some issues in my experiences.  It has caused bottle necks, and it is less stable because it is over clocked.
> 
> Vista is a piece of crap operating system.  For all the years that went into it and the costs of upgrades it really sucks.  It feels clunky, and unintuitive.  I have to drill down into countless control panels to find something I want to enabled or disable in the Operating system.
> 
> We were promised no more registry, and we still have it, EFI support, but didn't get it.  Support for newer and better file systems, and we didn't get it.  All those promised features that would make Vista next gen are getting pushed over into Vienna.
> 
> How can I qualify and quantify my knowledge?  Experience, is the answer.  I can spit out all the certifications I have, but ultimately anyone can get certified, it just takes studying and some money for the tests.  However, I have been in the field long enough and worked with enough variety of hardware, software, OSes, networking technology, etc that I can definitely back up everything I say with experience first hand.  I am not saying I know everything, far from it.  In fact right now I am learning a lot about web services, directory services, and other server side network technologies.  I have to google every day at work to figure some things out.
> 
> So, lets try to have an actual conversation, or debate even on why you think it is better.
> 
> Stop saying people are noobs, stop being arrogant because no one cares how cool you are on the internet.  Everyone had to start out somewhere, and everyone had to learn at some point.  Lets also at least try to act educated.
> 
> A lot of you will dump into the IT field probably.  If you use text message words in your emails to your boss, you will most likely be told to stop and if you continue you could probably get fired for looking dumb.



I use TXT talk when I text, not on the forum.... Noticed this?

Crashing is one thing, responsiveness and speed is another...

Most PC's have more hardware performance ability than Macs. (Why?) Gaming...

SLI is proven not be as efficient as Crossfire, but a marketing scheme? Somewhat yes, but when I see a percentage of increase, I am pretty likely to utilize it  I like to test my hardware, going from Stock to OC'ed shows an increase, which one do you think I would rather have bragging rights to?

You didn't say anything new there, I would call my self a gamer and an enthusiast... Most ppl would, just because they build...

Of course, they do... They don't gear cathodes and glass side panels toward your boring network personnel... You don't say a whole lot about Mac, eh? White/black and chrome? They are actually pulling for a status symbol, you know it, too..

Where did OC'ed RAM come from? Simple solution: Micron D9... Seriously, where did you dig this up from? Did a relationship go sour with you tonight? You are just digging up random stuff...

Show me an example of a useless panel.. To disable UAC, it takes 7 clicks... Wait, no, show me more than one example, so that it becomes redundant..

I think you're the only person in the world who has cared so much that Microsoft puts EFI in an OS or removes the registry. Jeez...Am I talking to Bill 'Flipping' Gates? Who gives a dog's excrement?

I didn't question your knowledge, just your opinion. No, scratch that, WE questioned your opinion...

How are we not having an actual conversation? You are one of the guys that are the one that were beating up about the sig...

The word "Noob" is in a few dictionaries... Whatever works, I could put in my sig "If you don't like Vista you're a smacktard" or in your language, Mr. Educated individual, "If you don't like Vista, you're an egocentric ninny". This is blasphemy: you curse the god OS--Vista.

You're gonna end up working for one of these noobs when you're about 50yo, and they are gonna lay you off b/c you're "knowledge has expired"... Doesn't feel good to have people put you down in the future, does it?

Thanks, this was better than a timewaster @ ebaumsworld....


----------



## Motoxrdude

ThatGuy16 said:


> Ok, that makes vista suck how? you can argue all day trying to make your "opinions" statements. When your saying vista *is* crap, but have nothing to support it? the only things i have seen is the computers you have tried to run it on are the bare minimum requirements. Yes vista is more demanding and if you dont have a rig to support it, then its simple dont install it. I believe vista is a much more stable OS over XP and it also utilizes its resources better. I think what alot of people mistake vista as a "memory hog" as PC eye said, part of this can be caused by superfectch which is a good thing. Also, the areo theme can take up more memory, but as soon as you launch a memory intensive app such as a game, it automaticly switchs to vista basic. And when you close the app, it will go back to areo.
> 
> One thing i just don't understand, if you hate vista SO bad, then why have myself and many others found vista to be better? either you are trying to run it on a system that just can't handle it or its something else, i don't know.


Wow, i find it amusing how some people still can't read, or understand concepts. He said that vista was a let down because it still uses ntfs, a horrible file system by any standards, still uses registries, a horrible, original, concept of microsoft that has plagued every OS that has it implemented. That's why he says it sucks .

Now why i don't like vista, along with every microsoft operating system. After using linux based distros for over three years, i find a lot of things implemented in vista originated from linux. That whole aero effect came from linux in a program called compiz, and later beryl, then compiz fusion which combines the two. Not only did microsoft steal the concept of a 3d desktop environment from linux, it turned it into garbage. It uses an insane amount of resources and has basic plugins, at best. Fading windows, zoom effects, tiling, all very basic yet taxes the computer like no other. Linux, good ole' linux however takes a 3d desktop environment and it flourishes. Not only is it faster when running a 3d desktop environment in linux, but all around more efficient. Since linux is resource friendly, it distributes the resources with the video card to run the desktop environment, thus an all-around better multi-tasking. The reason vista can't do this is because when running a 3d environment, aka aero, it takes more resources then what can be distributed to the video card, thus a slower interface.
Linux also uses a superior file system then NTFS. Linux uses EXT3 and JFS2 file systems which are better in almost every way. There are no programs to defragment them because they don't fragment files! As soon as a file is written, it is checked for corruption and fragmented. 

I could go on, but i am getting bored of writing this, lol.


----------



## ThatGuy16

ok, if it still uses all of that, then why isn't XP crap? 

please... please, tell me how much sense this makes?

I mean, you have no choice. Its not like you make the OS, what you see is what you get, like it or don't like it. If you want to play games and or use 90% of the apps on the market. You have to use windows.

If i couldn't read, you wouldn't have anything to write about now would you?


----------



## INTELCRAZY

Motoxrdude said:


> Wow, i find it amusing how some people still can't read, or understand concepts. He said that vista was a let down because it still uses ntfs, a horrible file system by any standards, still uses registries, a horrible, original, concept of microsoft that has plagued every OS that has it implemented. That's why he says it sucks .
> 
> Now why i don't like vista, along with every microsoft operating system. After using linux based distros for over three years, i find a lot of things implemented in vista originated from linux. That whole aero effect came from linux in a program called compiz, and later beryl, then compiz fusion which combines the two. Not only did microsoft steal the concept of a 3d desktop environment from linux, it turned it into garbage. It uses an insane amount of resources and has basic plugins, at best. Fading windows, zoom effects, tiling, all very basic yet taxes the computer like no other. Linux, good ole' linux however takes a 3d desktop environment and it flourishes. Not only is it faster when running a 3d desktop environment in linux, but all around more efficient. Since linux is resource friendly, it distributes the resources with the video card to run the desktop environment, thus an all-around better multi-tasking. The reason vista can't do this is because when running a 3d environment, aka aero, it takes more resources then what can be distributed to the video card, thus a slower interface.
> Linux also uses a superior file system then NTFS. Linux uses EXT3 and JFS2 file systems which are better in almost every way. There are no programs to defragment them because they don't fragment files! As soon as a file is written, it is checked for corruption and fragmented.
> 
> I could go on, but i am getting bored of writing this, lol.



I am amazed when ppl can't read titles of an XP or Vista thread and always have to bring Linux in here.... Seriously, WTF!?

No, no, as tlarkin might say, "I am horrified of the very basis of your knowledge in letter recognition skills".


----------



## Motoxrdude

INTELCRAZY said:


> I am amazed when ppl can't read titles of an XP or Vista thread and always have to bring Linux in here.... Seriously, WTF!?
> 
> No, no, as tlarkin might say, "I am horrified of the very basis of your knowledge in letter recognition skills".



Why, you are on a smartarse role tonight aren't you
As far as the title i didnt read it, lol. I just saw someone say something about linux and vista and how vista sucked and i just went on with that topic, lol.

EDIT: Well, now that i think about it, that post wasnt too off topic. Just take everything i said on how vista was a let down and there yeah go


----------



## INTELCRAZY

Motoxrdude said:


> Why, you are on a smartarse role tonight aren't you
> As far as the title i didnt read it, lol. I just saw someone say something about linux and vista and how vista sucked and i just went on with that topic, lol.
> 
> EDIT: Well, now that i think about it, that post wasnt too off topic. Just take everything i said on how vista was a let down and there yeah go



EXT3 was so related to Vista... You went off talking about how Linux made up for Windows' problems, don't cover it up... Jeez, that's about as bad as lying on something..


----------



## tlarkin

ThatGuy16 said:


> What does this have to do with this topic?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, that makes vista suck how? you can argue all day trying to make your "opinions" statements. When your saying vista is crap, but have nothing to support it? the only things i have seen is the computers you have tried to run it on are the bare minimum requirements. Yes vista is more demanding and if you dont have a rig to support it, then its simple dont install it. I believe vista is a much more stable OS over XP and it also utilizes its resources better. I think what alot of people mistake vista as a "memory hog" as PC eye said, part of this can be caused by superfectch which is a good thing. Also, the areo theme can take up more memory, but as soon as you launch a memory intensive app such as a game, it automaticly switchs to vista basic. And when you close the app, it will go back to areo.
> 
> One thing i just don't understand, if you hate vista SO bad, then why have myself and many others found vista to be better? either you are trying to run it on a system that just can't handle it or its something else, i don't know.
> 
> Also the sad thing is, jabes sig does apply to some people i know.



When you look at Vista as a whole OS you have to compare it to other, modern, already out and in use OSes.  The features and technologies they offer and what Microsoft has to offer for $300.00.  Compare it side by side with Linux and OS X, and Unix and you will see how they are progressing into everything I have previously described and Microsoft is just hanging in the back. I have been running vista for over a year and a half on systems that well beat its minimum requirements.  Vista is XP, with a flashy UI.  Read all my previous posts on this thread and you will see I have clearly pointed out this very thing.  I may not come out and exactly say it verbatim, but by using basic deductive logic you can see what I am saying.

I brought up the RAID and SLI to a previous poster on this thread.  You all just babble on benchmark scores and don't realize that is not the end all be all.  I am making a point that no one makes a deductive logical statement and whenever I try to explain my opinion I get told I am wrong.  Even when I explain the pros and cons of running a Mac hijackers come in and steal the thread.  I am using these as examples to prove the advice given on these exact here forums.  Which I think is completely relevant to the topic of this thread.



> use TXT talk when I text, not on the forum.... Noticed this?



Yet, you constantly spell the word people, as ppl.  I think you need to turn on spell check on your browser.



> Crashing is one thing, responsiveness and speed is another...
> 
> Most PC's have more hardware performance ability than Macs. (Why?) Gaming...



Convoluted, twisted, and totally not true.  Gamers are a small niche market.  You know why PCs have more third party choices?  There is more competition and more companies making PCs, where as Apple is Apple.  They also have a bigger market share, so duh, companies will make more third party if there is more of a market.  This also coming from someone who once told me Mac is crap, then discovered how cool Mac is and lobbied for a mac only slot on the forums...



> SLI is proven not be as efficient as Crossfire, but a marketing scheme? Somewhat yes, but when I see a percentage of increase, I am pretty likely to utilize it I like to test my hardware, going from Stock to OC'ed shows an increase, which one do you think I would rather have bragging rights to?



So is RAID 0 proved to be 40% faster, when modifying and moving giant chunks of data, but not in gaming or anything else.  SLI may be 40% faster at a few things, but overall performance I say it is most likely under 10%.  



> You didn't say anything new there, I would call my self a gamer and an enthusiast... Most *ppl* would, just because they build...
> 
> Of course, they do... They don't gear cathodes and glass side panels toward your boring network personnel... You don't say a whole lot about Mac, eh? White/black and chrome? They are actually pulling for a status symbol, you know it, too..



I never said it wasn't a status symbol, I am saying it is the prestige and bragging rights of over clocking, SLI, and RAID.  



> Where did OC'ed RAM come from? Simple solution: Micron D9... Seriously, where did you dig this up from? Did a relationship go sour with you tonight? You are just digging up random stuff...



It is quite relevant to my argument, stating that no one here is actually look at anything past spec.  If you were a consultant for my company and your answer was to just upgrade thousands and thousands of machines because they don't quite run the newest OS right from Microsoft, I would find myself a new consultant.



> Show me an example of a useless panel.. To disable UAC, it takes 7 clicks... Wait, no, show me more than one example, so that it becomes redundant..
> 
> I think you're the only person in the world who has cared so much that Microsoft puts EFI in an OS or removes the registry. Jeez...Am I talking to Bill 'Flipping' Gates? Who gives a dog's excrement?



I never said it was useless, I clearly said it was non intuitive.  It has a clunky feel to it.  Where before in XP things were more centralized.  They dumbed down the options and you go through loops a lot of the times trying to find the menu.  EFI is awesome, go read up on it, it will revolutionize all hardware, and do a lot for gaming.  The registry has been a long promise of MS to get rid of it.  It is clunky, and it is a crappy method of setting system wide preferences.  If they got rid of it, when to user level preferences and self contained applications, the OS would run a whole lot smoother.



> I didn't question your knowledge, just your opinion. No, scratch that, WE questioned your opinion...
> 
> How are we not having an actual conversation? You are one of the guys that are the one that were beating up about the sig...
> 
> The word "Noob" is in a few dictionaries... Whatever works, I could put in my sig "If you don't like Vista you're a smacktard" or in your language, Mr. Educated individual, "If you don't like Vista, you're an egocentric ninny". This is blasphemy: you curse the god OS--Vista.
> 
> You're gonna end up working for one of these noobs when you're about 50yo, and they are gonna lay you off *b/c* you're "knowledge has expired"... Doesn't feel good to have people put you down in the future, does it?



Oh, I see, you are right.  I don't keep up with technology at all.  I don't renew my certifications every year, or when they expire (depending on the cert), and I don't try out new things nope, I sure don't.  Yup, and some noob is going to one day come in and automatically get over my head and become my boss with no work experience because they will be more cutting edge, and will know that RAID 0 in a desktop machine is a great idea.  They will all go right through the door and right on up to being my boss.  The reason I haven't begun to even think about migrating anything to vista at work is because it would be seriously irresponsible of me to do so unless everything is proven to work.  Consumer products do not drive computer business, enterprise products do.  Consumers don't go out and spend millions of dollars on machines and then upgrade them to vista.  Vista takes a band aid approach, it is the exact same as XP but with a different UI.  Where are all the features and benefits of upgrading?  Where are they?  I don't see any new bundled applications or anything!  I just see windows XP, repackaged and resold with some changes here and there but nothing deal breaking.  Look at each new release of any other OS and you will see the added features and benefits that each release has.

I have always given my opinion to all of you for free.  Normally, when I consult it would be for at the very least minimum $50/hour.  As of right now I wouldn't charge anything less than $100/hour because if it is any less it is just not worth my time.  I am trying to share my knowledge with this forum, not argue with kids who still live with their parents.


----------



## Motoxrdude

INTELCRAZY said:


> EXT3 was so related to Vista... You went off talking about how Linux made up for Windows' problems, don't cover it up... Jeez, that's about as bad as lying on something..



I justified vista's shortcomings using linux? Ummm, is there something i'm not understanding here or do you not know wtf you are talking about?


----------



## tlarkin

ThatGuy16 said:


> ...I mean, you have no choice. Its not like you make the OS, what you see is what you get, like it or don't like it. If you want to play games and or use 90% of the apps on the market. You have to use windows.
> 
> If i couldn't read, you wouldn't have anything to write about now would you?



That is a great point, which relates to what I am saying.  Windows is a huge let down because of what developers have to do, and how windows functions as an operating system.  When you allow every developer and their dog access to the kernel you are asking for security flaws, and people write sloppy code.  I mean ever try to write a script?  Did you always use full command paths?  Sometimes I don't because I can't remember where everything lives and I am too lazy to use the whereis command for every command I want to look up.  

The market is changing though, and it will change over the next few years.  I think you will see Macs gain market share and Microsoft will lose desktops to Linux as well.  However, Microsoft will still have a very strong market in the server side technology.  Active Directory is not a bad thing, it is just hard to get to properly work with third party.  Once all other clients become more compatible with Windows Server products I think you will see a huge market shift.  I already know some places around town where I live that have in the last two years switched over to a 50:50 Mac/PC environment.


----------



## Motoxrdude

tlarkin said:


> That is a great point, which relates to what I am saying.  Windows is a huge let down because of what developers have to do, and how windows functions as an operating system.  When you allow every developer and their dog access to the kernel you are asking for security flaws, and people write sloppy code.  I mean ever try to write a script?  Did you always use full command paths?  Sometimes I don't because I can't remember where everything lives and I am too lazy to use the whereis command for every command I want to look up.
> 
> The market is changing though, and it will change over the next few years.  I think you will see Macs gain market share and Microsoft will lose desktops to Linux as well.  However, Microsoft will still have a very strong market in the server side technology.  Active Directory is not a bad thing, it is just hard to get to properly work with third party.  Once all other clients become more compatible with Windows Server products I think you will see a huge market shift.  I already know some places around town where I live that have in the last two years switched over to a 50:50 Mac/PC environment.


Yes, anyone can change the kernal, but it won't make it into an official release unless approved by the majority of well-known kernal developers.


----------



## tlarkin

Motoxrdude said:


> Yes, anyone can change the kernal, but it won't make it into an official release unless approved by the majority of well-known kernal developers.



No, I am saying that by design, Windows allows third parties access to the OS's kernel hooks.  Which is a huge security flaw by design.  Windows is a closed kernel, and only MS developers work on it.  However, they give developers like symantec and Macafee access to their kernel hooks so their applications can access the Windows Kernel.  Which is why you see so many exploits and viruses for Windows, they don't need to run as root or admin if they can just access the kernel hooks.


----------



## Jabes

wow I have better things to do then read dumb posts ^^^^^^ tlarkins


----------



## Motoxrdude

tlarkin said:


> No, I am saying that by design, Windows allows third parties access to the OS's kernel hooks.  Which is a huge security flaw by design.  Windows is a closed kernel, and only MS developers work on it.  However, they give developers like symantec and Macafee access to their kernel hooks so their applications can access the Windows Kernel.  Which is why you see so many exploits and viruses for Windows, they don't need to run as root or admin if they can just access the kernel hooks.



Yeah, it can go both ways, don't give them access then you can't do anything when virus's embed themselves in it, but make it easier on viruses to get into the kernal. Don't allow access, makes it harder to get access to the kernal, but impossible to remove once embedded.


----------



## mep916

Jabes said:


> wow I have better things to do then read dumb posts ^^^^^^ tlarkins



That's a very immature and stupid comment. No offense.


----------



## PC eye

mep916 said:


> That's a very immature and stupid comment. No offense.


 
 I'm forced to agree with Jabes there. After reading over the last two pages it sounds like a school yard brawl rather then a poll on strictly two versions of Windows.


----------



## mep916

PC eye said:


> I'm forced to agree with Jabes there. After reading over the last two pages it sounds like a school yard brawl rather then a poll on strictly two versions of Windows.



Albeit heated, it's been a very good debate, IMO. Discussing the differences between the two operating systems' is germane to the poll, and w/ a few exceptions, the comments have been relatively peaceful.


----------



## PC eye

The introduction of Linux and OS X, Apple/Mac etc. along with XP and Vista should be saved for a poll on OSs in general like one some time back. We're trying to share notes on what we are finding as far as pros and cons with XP and Vista in that sense. You can sure it took some time before many looked at XP as the option to 98SE some years back. Likewise the hesitation for any new version is common regardless of improvements or hinderences.


----------



## mep916

PC eye said:


> The introduction of Linux and OS X, Apple/Mac etc. along with XP and Vista should be saved for a poll on OSs in general like one some time back. We're trying to share notes on what we are finding as far as pros and cons with XP and Vista in that sense.



Yeah, discussion about OSX and Linux don't really belong in this thread. I see your point.


----------



## PC eye

And now for the latest update on the poll's results:

XP = 42 count = 61.76%

Vista = 26 count = 38.24%

There was one or more OS threads seen while maybe we should poll who first went for XP over a previous version sometime to see how it was looked at then. Likewise Vista is getting it's own mixed reviews depending on user.


----------



## amosf

Jabes said:


> wow I have better things to do then read dumb posts ^^^^^^ tlarkins



I didn't read them either. But then I've been away.

BTW your sig does give the impression of 'smartass'

And anyone who thinks an AMD 3000 is a POS is a noob. Not everyone should need a dual core 6000+ to browse the net and do everything they want with a PC. 

I still have a P3-1000 desktop here in the house. But then I've probably been around a bit longer than you have   Ah, the days when 512meg was a really big HDD rather than a small amount of RAM 

If Vista means needing a 6000+dual core PC, then it's no wonder many people are sticking with XP as they are. 

And where did you get the 3000 laptop, etc, if not from your parents? Must be a well paying afternoon job?


----------



## DrCuddles

I loved Vista when it first came out, but i have now gone back to XP

it runs faster ten vista imo as i can visibally see it running better now and wat of te new features in Vista do people really use? Because i didnt use any...

Thats just my mini-rant


----------



## p5n32

Windows XP ftw eve ntho i have vista in my sig i out XP back on!


----------



## INTELCRAZY

mep916 said:


> Yeah, discussion about OSX and Linux don't really belong in this thread. I see your point.





PC eye said:


> The introduction of Linux and OS X, Apple/Mac etc. along with XP and Vista should be saved for a poll on OSs in general like one some time back. We're trying to share notes on what we are finding as far as pros and cons with XP and Vista in that sense.



Someone agrees....



amosf said:


> I didn't read them either. But then I've been away.
> 
> BTW your sig does give the impression of 'smartass'
> 
> And anyone who thinks an AMD 3000 is a POS is a noob. Not everyone should need a dual core 6000+ to browse the net and do everything they want with a PC.
> 
> I still have a P3-1000 desktop here in the house. But then I've probably been around a bit longer than you have   Ah, the days when 512meg was a really big HDD rather than a small amount of RAM
> 
> If Vista means needing a 6000+dual core PC, then it's no wonder many people are sticking with XP as they are.
> 
> And where did you get the 3000 laptop, etc, if not from your parents? Must be a well paying afternoon job?



A 3000+ becomes junk when you try to run Vista on it and complain... Vista was never meant to run on this 90nm technology. You know Vista requires more than that, so why try it... Seriously, did you expect Vista to say "Exclusive P4/A64 Support"? NO!! You didn't!


----------



## patrickv

lol, i've been reading, guys if i were a mod, this would be closed like right now..lol


----------



## funkysnair

nah its fun


----------



## Jabes

is my sig better now btw funkysnair I like urs to


----------



## patrickv

you know what happens in these thread, someone says he doesn't like vista, then start criticizing each and every damn fault about vista, while a vista fan boy reads the post he gets pissed and replies back, now this is where the war starts.
And somewhere in the middle an advance tech comes in and tries to explain the problem diplomatically and he also gets involve in the forum wars...lol
thanks god i ain't a part of it...lol


----------



## tlarkin

INTELCRAZY said:


> A 3000+ becomes junk when you try to run Vista on it and complain... Vista was never meant to run on this 90nm technology. You know Vista requires more than that, so why try it... Seriously, did you expect Vista to say "Exclusive P4/A64 Support"? NO!! You didn't!



So, by that logic anyone who just wants to run MS word and surf the internet and maybe once in a while burn a CD, must upgrade their hardware because Vista says so.


----------



## funkysnair

Jabes said:


> is my sig better now btw funkysnair I like urs to



yeh just changed it since i read this thread-might aswell throw my bit in


----------



## Jabes

tlarkin said:


> So, by that logic anyone who just wants to run MS word and surf the internet and maybe once in a while burn a CD, must upgrade their hardware because Vista says so.



this thread isn't telling people to get vista its seeing if people like vista



funkysnair said:


> yeh just changed it since i read this thread-might aswell throw my bit in


haha nice


----------



## funkysnair

did i ever say i like'd it? vista that is

well i do and my computer loves it too cos it pures like a little pussy cat every time it boots up.

lmfao


----------



## Jabes

IMAO just because people can't run vista on their rig is why I think that they'res so many xp voters right? wasn't this poll meant for people that actually tried vista?


----------



## Motoxrdude

Jabes said:


> IMAO just because people can't run vista on their rig is why I think that they'res so many xp voters right? wasn't this poll meant for people that actually tried vista?



I thought it was for what you preferred?


----------



## tlarkin

No its not at all.  At home I have a e6300 w/ 2 gigs of RAM and a 9800 pro (256 meg version) in it.  It is a secondary system.  Something I use to play around with and load OSes on.  I have it booting Linux, Vista business, and XP.  These more than meet the minimum spec requirements for Vista.  The requirements can be found here.  

When I do side by side comparisons of XP versus Vista I get no performance increase at all.  Things run pretty much about the same.  I use it on the basic level.  Ripping music, burning CDs, surfing the web, opening office documents, and the XP machine performs the same or in some cases faster due to buggy software.

However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds.  It is pointless.  So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.


----------



## Jabes

tlarkin said:


> No its not at all.  At home I have a e6300 w/ 2 gigs of RAM and a 9800 pro (256 meg version) in it.  It is a secondary system.  Something I use to play around with and load OSes on.  I have it booting Linux, Vista business, and XP.  These more than meet the minimum spec requirements for Vista.  The requirements can be found here.
> 
> When I do side by side comparisons of XP versus Vista I get no performance increase at all.  Things run pretty much about the same.  I use it on the basic level.  Ripping music, burning CDs, surfing the web, opening office documents, and the XP machine performs the same or in some cases faster due to buggy software.
> 
> However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds.  It is pointless.  So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.


ok then we'll miss you


----------



## Kornowski

> However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds. It is pointless. So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.



C'mon dude, just leave this thread...

Stay! Who else am I going to ask for my help with OS'


----------



## massahwahl

tlarkin said:


> No its not at all.  At home I have a e6300 w/ 2 gigs of RAM and a 9800 pro (256 meg version) in it.  It is a secondary system.  Something I use to play around with and load OSes on.  I have it booting Linux, Vista business, and XP.  These more than meet the minimum spec requirements for Vista.  The requirements can be found here.
> 
> When I do side by side comparisons of XP versus Vista I get no performance increase at all.  Things run pretty much about the same.  I use it on the basic level.  Ripping music, burning CDs, surfing the web, opening office documents, and the XP machine performs the same or in some cases faster due to buggy software.
> 
> However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds.  It is pointless.  So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.



geez you guys were scaring everyone off! Take your opinions for what they are, either you like something or you dont. If you dont like and dont use it then why bash people that do like it just because you dont? Everyone needs to chill out a bit. I learned my lesson after the naked chick left a couple weeks ago.


----------



## zaroba

vista is newer, has more features, is far more stable, and runs games great.
so vista for me

to those that prefer xp over vista due to gaming speed, well duh.  of course xp will run games better, it uses less resources then vista.  if you run a game like Half Life on Windows 2k or 98 i bet it'll run even faster then on XP.  vista uses a minimum of 512mb and will easily use 700mb or more.  xp only used 64mb.  if you only have 1 or 2gb of ram when you install vista, then of course your going to notice a drop in performance.  you just lost a good portion of your available ram.

its quite funny that some people think stuff should run the same with less resources.
its as if some people expect vista to eliminate the need for ram 


whats even funnier is seeing people crying that a game wont run when they put it on there pc with a quad core cpu, duel 8800GTXs in SLI, vista, and only 1gb of ram


----------



## Kornowski

> I learned my lesson after the naked chick left a couple weeks ago.



She left? I didn't know... Shame!


----------



## massahwahl

Kornowski said:


> She left? I didn't know... Shame!



Yeah she bailed after a bunch of people were pretty rude to her. I think she manifested again as someone else but only time will time...(cue 'eerie music')


----------



## Jabes

<----- look at my pic its kinda hard to see but its legible


----------



## Kornowski

ukulele_ninja said:


> Yeah she bailed after a bunch of people were pretty rude to her. I think she manifested again as someone else but only time will time...(cue 'eerie music')



I knew that there were a few people being rude, I mentioned something but I don't think it got noticed, in the recycle bin thread, right?

lol, Yeah, Whip out you ukulele mate!  I'll grab my guitar!


----------



## Geoff

I've actually begun to like Vista better then I did before, mainly because i've found out more and more tweaks to make Vista more to my liking.


----------



## massahwahl

Kornowski said:


> I knew that there were a few people being rude, I mentioned something but I don't think it got noticed, in the recycle bin thread, right?
> 
> lol, Yeah, Whip out you ukulele mate!  I'll grab my guitar!



We'll get this forum jammin'


----------



## Kornowski

> I've actually begun to like Vista better then I did before, mainly because i've found out more and more tweaks to make Vista more to my liking.



You'll have to show me a few to get me ready for it, eh! 



> We'll get this forum jammin'



Damn right! Bit of Led Zep?


----------



## massahwahl

Kornowski said:


> You'll have to show me a few to get me ready for it, eh!
> 
> 
> 
> Damn right! Bit of Led Zep?



Lol, I LOVE zeppelin! Ill grab the mandolin for battle of evermore and some gallows pole on the Uke? Maybe Stairway? The possibilities are endless!


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> So, by that logic anyone who just wants to run MS word and surf the internet and maybe once in a while burn a CD, must upgrade their hardware because Vista says so.



Haha...You crack me up... No kidding, it's new software meant to go along with new hardware, why don't we have a FarCry vs. Crysis thread, oh wait, no one would complain about Crysis' higher requirements..

And that's the case where you run XP.. Besides, anyone WITH simple logical abilities would definitely know that they didn't need to upgrade their PC, so that would probably put them back at 98SE or 2000/ME.



			
				[-0MEGA-];824696 said:
			
		

> I've actually begun to like Vista better then I did before, mainly because i've found out more and more tweaks to make Vista more to my liking.



Good! You didn't make your decision after running it for three days and are you probably are mentally talented enough to turn off UAC, unlike some of the other ppl who use their 'logic' to determine Vista isn't good and these are the type that bias themselves upon one little tiny imperfection, they don't seem to 'weight-out' their Pros and Cons.


----------



## Jabes

INTELCRAZY said:


> Haha...You crack me up... No kidding, it's new software meant to go along with new hardware, why don't we have a FarCry vs. Crysis thread, oh wait, no one would complain about Crysis' higher requirements..
> 
> And that's the case where you run XP.. Besides, anyone WITH simple logical abilities would definitely know that they didn't need to upgrade their PC, so that would probably put them back at 98SE or 2000/ME.



lmao darn true


----------



## zaroba

heh, i like that line in your sig jabes.  mind if i copy it and use it on other forums?


----------



## tlarkin

INTELCRAZY said:


> Haha...You crack me up... No kidding, it's new software meant to go along with new hardware, why don't we have a FarCry vs. Crysis thread, oh wait, no one would complain about Crysis' higher requirements..
> 
> And that's the case where you run XP.. Besides, anyone WITH simple logical abilities would definitely know that they didn't need to upgrade their PC, so that would probably put them back at 98SE or 2000/ME.



You aren't listening to what I have been saying this whole time.  I compare it to every OS, even the previous MS OSes.  Take into account that every other OS which has better built in Open GL flashy UI stuff that has and boasts lower system requirements and better performance.  Aqua, Beryl, Compiz, etc all out perform vista and on lower specs.  Vista is a marketing scheme, and like i said it doesn't run faster, it creates the illusion of running faster.  Microsoft is not the only OS that is guilty of this either, but that will be saved for another thread.

You have to update your OS at some point, its not like MS has fixed all those zero day exploits for 98 and 2000, and developers stop supporting it eventually, and applications do require more system requirements, however none of them come close to requiring what Vista does.  Also, I am not talking about video games, gaming is something that is taxing on your system as is by its very nature.  Gaming is also a niche market, only a small percentage of computer users are considered hard core gamers.  I am talking about basic usage on my e6300 with 2gigs of RAM.  Firefox, opera, with the exception of IE all run faster in XP, take up less memory and allow faster basic usage.  If you want to get into high end stuff, I would like to see vista edit video or render 3D objects compared to any other OS.  

So stop taking it out of context what I post and see it for yourself.  Take two identical systems (or the same one) load XP and Vista on them, run all your basic applications, do all your basic things and see what performs better.  My XP install never crashes, but when I boot into vista tons of applications are still buggy.  For the cost of the upgrade, the lacking of features and the no real world performance increase Vista is not worth the money at all.  I am waiting on Vienna, it should have all the features to make windows a decent OS, at least I hope.

When your answer is upgrade your hardware every time something doesn't work smoothly is not a good answer.  The developers wrote sloppy code, and used the band aid approach to accomplish Vista.  Why do you think they had to keep pushing back the release date?  Why has everyone rolled back and why has so many companies offered XP?  When XP came out, and you bought a new computer you did not get the choice of going back to 2000.  It was a forced upgrade.  Now, with the release of windows vista you are seeing for the first time companies going against their contracts and allowing their customers to go back to windows Xp on new computers.  What does that tell you?


----------



## Jabes

zaroba said:


> heh, i like that line in your sig jabes.  mind if i copy it and use it on other forums?



nope u can even use it on here idc


----------



## zaroba

tlarkin said:


> You aren't listening to what I have been saying this whole time.  I compare it to every OS, even the previous MS OSes.  Take into account that every other OS which has better built in Open GL flashy UI stuff that has and boasts lower system requirements and better performance.  Aqua, Beryl, Compiz, etc all out perform vista and on lower specs.  Vista is a marketing scheme, and like i said it doesn't run faster, it creates the illusion of running faster.  Microsoft is not the only OS that is guilty of this either, but that will be saved for another thread.
> 
> You have to update your OS at some point, its not like MS has fixed all those zero day exploits for 98 and 2000, and developers stop supporting it eventually, and applications do require more system requirements, however none of them come close to requiring what Vista does.  Also, I am not talking about video games, gaming is something that is taxing on your system as is by its very nature.  Gaming is also a niche market, only a small percentage of computer users are considered hard core gamers.  I am talking about basic usage on my e6300 with 2gigs of RAM.  Firefox, opera, with the exception of IE all run faster in XP, take up less memory and allow faster basic usage.  If you want to get into high end stuff, I would like to see vista edit video or render 3D objects compared to any other OS.
> 
> So stop taking it out of context what I post and see it for yourself.  Take two identical systems (or the same one) load XP and Vista on them, run all your basic applications, do all your basic things and see what performs better.  My XP install never crashes, but when I boot into vista tons of applications are still buggy.  For the cost of the upgrade, the lacking of features and the no real world performance increase Vista is not worth the money at all.  I am waiting on Vienna, it should have all the features to make windows a decent OS, at least I hope.
> 
> When your answer is upgrade your hardware every time something doesn't work smoothly is not a good answer.  The developers wrote sloppy code, and used the band aid approach to accomplish Vista.  Why do you think they had to keep pushing back the release date?  Why has everyone rolled back and why has so many companies offered XP?  When XP came out, and you bought a new computer you did not get the choice of going back to 2000.  It was a forced upgrade.  Now, with the release of windows vista you are seeing for the first time companies going against their contracts and allowing their customers to go back to windows Xp on new computers.  What does that tell you?





to me, all your saying simply states that you expect stuff to run on vista the same as it would on xp despite the fact that you'll have less ram available.  especially that first line in the last paragraph about upgrading, LOL.  if something comes out that uses more resources, like vista, then of course you'll have less available for gaming, video editing, etc.  and of course it'll run slower.  its not exactly brain surgery. 

companies?  lol.  your basing it on that?  companies are in things for the money.  if they see people crying there pc with 1gb of ram is slow with vista, of course they will offer xp as an alternative.  it makes happy customers and happy customers are return customers.

and geese, sloppy code? 
hats the typical excuse i hear from anybody that is anti-microsoft and/or refuses to upgrade there pc.  instead of just accepting that it'll run faster with more ram, you just make up excuses.

maybe 'everyone has rolled back' because most people out there seem to think theres never a need for more then 2gb of ram, and/or have PCs with only 1gb of ram.  then they find vista running slow on it, cry that vista slows down there pc, and downgrades to the less resource using xp.  i don't see anybody with 3+ gb of ram crying that vista slows down there pc and downgrading.  hmm...why could that be?

its pure common sense that anybody knowledgeable about PCs should know of.  its a little thing called System Requirements.  if your gonna install vista (which needs 512mb of ram MINIMUM) on a pc with only 1 or 2gb of ram, then of course it's gonna run slower then when you had XP (which only used 64mb ram).  you've just lost a good amount of available ram.  hence the need to upgrade to compensate.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> You aren't listening to what I have been saying this whole time.  I compare it to every OS, even the previous MS OSes.  Take into account that every other OS which has better built in Open GL flashy UI stuff that has and boasts lower system requirements and better performance.  Aqua, Beryl, Compiz, etc all out perform vista and on lower specs.  Vista is a marketing scheme, and like i said it doesn't run faster, it creates the illusion of running faster.  Microsoft is not the only OS that is guilty of this either, but that will be saved for another thread.
> 
> You have to update your OS at some point, its not like MS has fixed all those zero day exploits for 98 and 2000, and developers stop supporting it eventually, and applications do require more system requirements, however none of them come close to requiring what Vista does.  Also, I am not talking about video games, gaming is something that is taxing on your system as is by its very nature.  Gaming is also a niche market, only a small percentage of computer users are considered hard core gamers.  I am talking about basic usage on my e6300 with 2gigs of RAM.  Firefox, opera, with the exception of IE all run faster in XP, take up less memory and allow faster basic usage.  If you want to get into high end stuff, I would like to see vista edit video or render 3D objects compared to any other OS.
> 
> So stop taking it out of context what I post and see it for yourself.  Take two identical systems (or the same one) load XP and Vista on them, run all your basic applications, do all your basic things and see what performs better.  My XP install never crashes, but when I boot into vista tons of applications are still buggy.  For the cost of the upgrade, the lacking of features and the no real world performance increase Vista is not worth the money at all.  I am waiting on Vienna, it should have all the features to make windows a decent OS, at least I hope.
> 
> When your answer is upgrade your hardware every time something doesn't work smoothly is not a good answer.  The developers wrote sloppy code, and used the band aid approach to accomplish Vista.  Why do you think they had to keep pushing back the release date?  Why has everyone rolled back and why has so many companies offered XP?  When XP came out, and you bought a new computer you did not get the choice of going back to 2000.  It was a forced upgrade.  Now, with the release of windows Vista you are seeing for the first time companies going against their contracts and allowing their customers to go back to windows Xp on new computers.  What does that tell you?



I don't care about the other OS's in this thread, I really dont... (Why?) The thread title is "Xp or Vista", there is one "or" in that statement and just so happens it's suspended between the words "XP" and "Vista".. We could debate about the age-old "Mac vs. PC" but, I would simply say that both have their specialties, and you know this to be true...

If it can humor that "illusion" of speed, it must be doing something right... It meets my eye, therefore I think I should give it a chance of belief, don't you?

You'll get p'd with Vienna, too. Maybe it will have your God-forsaken EFI support... Vista actually came to me.. (Why?) Because, I KNEW darn well I had the hardware to support it, I could fully utilize my gfx card, and I figured I would try something new.

You don't have to tell me about MS's patchwork... They did the same with XP, up until SP2.


----------



## Jabes

I thought u said u were leaving this thread tlarkin?


----------



## zaroba

lol.  waiting for Vienna.  its not expected to release until between 2010 and 2012.  have fun using xp for possibly another 4 years.  you'd be as good off as using windows 98 now.   hmm...what kind of hardware will we have by then?  i can bet that Vienna will use more resources then vista.  simply because the available hardware will far exceed what we have now.

oh, and yes, you DID always have a choice to use an older operating system.  even back in the 2000/98/me era.
nothing in the world was stopping you from going down to a local computer store, BUYING the OS you wanted, and installing it.


btw, i do 3d modelling and video editing on vista.  works great for me.
of course, i also know how to make my pc run faster by upgrading it.


----------



## Jabes

zaroba said:


> lol.  waiting for Vienna.  its not expected to release until between 2010 and 2012.  have fun using xp for possibly another 4 years.  you'd be as good off as using windows 98 now.
> 
> hmm...what kind of hardware will we have by then?
> i can bet that Vienna will use more resources then vista.  simply because the available hardware will far exceed what we have now.



yea it will probably have more features then vista and thus it would use more resources


----------



## amosf

Jabes said:


> nope u can even use it on here idc



Have you thought about using English?

Anyway, Jabes. If a 3000+ machine can't run Vista, then it's vista that is the problem, not the machine. It's just an OS, no a high end game or application. It's just getting very silly. Many people just buy a Dell or some other cheap PC, not a high end gaming system, and they come with Vista. And yet they are a POS? If so then it is only because of Vista as they would run other OS's fine thanks.

And I don't much like Vista for numerous reasons, but I am a ways from being a noob. Maybe MS will fix it in a couple of SP's, and top end machines may handle the load, but at the moment it's a work in progress. 

It's always nice to have a teen around as they know everything, of course. Enjoy it while it lasts 

BTW, where did you say you got the money for your vista capable PC? Was it those computer illiterate parents?


----------



## tlarkin

zaroba,

That only applies to gamers.  1 gig of ram should be sufficient to run Vista on a basic level for internet browsing and office documents.  Not to mention most systems come standard with 2 gigs of RAM these days, and if not it is a simple and easy upgrade you can add when you purchase your computer (nominal fee, like $60 for an extra Gigabyte).  So, if that was truly the issue anyone buying a new computer could simply add more RAM.  On top of that companies even recommend more RAM and some models come standard with 2gigs that have vista pre loaded.  Vista sales are amongst some of the lowest sales of any MS release and they are losing market share as we speak.  Apple has out sold almost every PC company in every month of 2007 in laptop sales.  I haven't followed it too closely but I know back in like June they had still out sold everyone and I can only imagine that the ipod touch and iphone have only boosted their sales even further.

What new bad ass features does Vista offer end users?  I can't even think of any, besides the UI.

NAP - not for end users

SMB 2 - not really for end users

IIS 7 - not an end user feature

IE 7 - not exclusive to Vista

Photo gallery, movie maker, dvd maker - hmm sounds like ilife to me, and I have used these and they pretty much suck, you are better off going with third party on this, perhaps an end user feature, but very limited compared to lots of third party.

Direct X - definitely an end user feature but no where near being the new standard yet and not even fully supported by games yet, so there is yet no advantage to DX in Vista.  There will be in the future though

The new improved Admin tools - not for end users

Media center - only found in Home premium or Ultimate, and not really that great VLC can do all of that with a lot less resources and its free open source software that runs on all OSes.  Sure, I suppose this could be features for those who are used to windows, but I don't see any advantage of paying $200 for an upgrade to get these features when things like VLC can do most of that, plus will play all formats with out codecs (native support), and it costs zero dollars.  I will give this to the end users though, it is a feature.

Encrypted file system - not an end user feature, nor would I want end users encrypting their hard drive, especially since no one backs up their data.

IPV6 - not really an end user feature, and not needed just yet, and it could be patched into XP rather easily if need be.  It will be needed sometime in the near future but its not a deal breaker by any means.

QoS policies - not an end user feature

ReadyBoost - hmm, put virtual memory on an external flash drive that is slower than RAM or the hard drive itself....not a feature and not a good idea.  Also, do you think end users grasp how memory management works?  Not an end user feature, maybe a power user.

New security features - sure I guess, but they are ultra annoying and IE 7 is still the least secure browser, and Vista still has had some zero day exploits happen to it.  Make sure you patch up all the time!

under the hood - nothing has changed under the hood, and this is both a good and a bad thing.  good because those who are familiar with the command line and registry and other under the hood workings do not have to familiarize ourselves with the new and improved under the hood features, the down side is, they are still using the same old and busted methods.

As for sloppy programming just talk to any decent software developer, there are tons of ways to make sloppy coding work.  A lot of times certain environments even ignore errors, and bad syntax.  I know because I get lazy when I write scripts, which is my only basis to programming and it doesn't even scratch the surface.  When I am in a hurry or don't have a lot of time, I don't write the full command paths.  However, typically I go back when I finalize something and add in all the proper pathings, to make it both secure and less sloppy.  Sloppy code is a good way to get your application exploited.


----------



## Jabes

amosf said:


> Have you thought about using English?
> 
> Anyway, Jabes. If a 3000+ machine can't run Vista, then it's vista that is the problem, not the machine. It's just an OS, no a high end game or application. It's just getting very silly. Many people just buy a Dell or some other cheap PC, not a high end gaming system, and they come with Vista. And yet they are a POS? If so then it is only because of Vista as they would run other OS's fine thanks.
> 
> And I don't much like Vista for numerous reasons, but I am a ways from being a noob. Maybe MS will fix it in a couple of SP's, and top end machines may handle the load, but at the moment it's a work in progress.
> 
> It's always nice to have a teen around as they know everything, of course. Enjoy it while it lasts
> 
> BTW, where did you say you got the money for your vista capable PC? Was it those computer illiterate parents?



so if a old celeron won't run xp its xp's problem lmao and u say that I should use english is btw english and no I bought my pc myself wen I worked during the summer


----------



## INTELCRAZY

amosf said:


> Have you thought about using English?
> 
> Anyway, Jabes. If a 3000+ machine can't run Vista, then it's vista that is the problem, not the machine. It's just an OS, no a high end game or application. It's just getting very silly. Many people just buy a Dell or some other cheap PC, not a high end gaming system, and they come with Vista. And yet they are a POS? If so then it is only because of Vista as they would run other OS's fine thanks.
> 
> And I don't much like Vista for numerous reasons, but I am a ways from being a noob. Maybe MS will fix it in a couple of SP's, and top end machines may handle the load, but at the moment it's a work in progress.
> 
> It's always nice to have a teen around as they know everything, of course. Enjoy it while it lasts
> 
> BTW, where did you say you got the money for your vista capable PC? Was it those computer illiterate parents?



Alright, seriously, what is with the parental support matter? Who cares if his parents bought it? Who gives a flippin' care? Why are you arguing this in a thread in which I see this to be your best comeback?

Have you thought about learning to read TXT?

If his parents bought it for him, it's still his, he has learned Vista and at least used it... IMO, you have no room to talk, if you can't debate better than that, step aside!


----------



## tlarkin

zaroba said:


> waiting for Vienna.  its not expected to release until between 2010 and 2012



try 2009 to 2011 is the projected release date, and though you may be right it could get pushed back to 2014 the way Microsoft releases OSes.  However, due to the lack of sales, and all the dropped features Vista was suppose to have, I bet it will come out earlier than that.  It is almost 2008, its not that long of a wait.


----------



## zaroba

tlarkin said:


> try 2009 to 2011 is the projected release date, and though you may be right it could get pushed back to 2014 the way Microsoft releases OSes.  However, due to the lack of sales, and all the dropped features Vista was suppose to have, I bet it will come out earlier than that.  It is almost 2008, its not that long of a wait.


and guess what?  2-3 years after that another new OS will be released.  its nothing special.  MS usually releases an OS every 2-3 years.  3.1, 95, 98, me/2k, xp, 2k3, vista.  most only 2-3 years apart.  and you know what?  half of them had the same exact anti-upgraders that vista has.  crying over performance loss when they refuse to upgrade there pc.  and yet, eventually they accepted that they would be better off after upgrading and did upgrade.




> That only applies to gamers.  1 gig of ram should be sufficient to run Vista on a basic level for internet browsing and office documents.


well, obviously it isn't if your complaining about it being slower when those with more ram see no performance loss.  you can say 'it should be fine' all you want, but guess what, it obviously ISN'T fine with that 1gb if its slow and laggy.  1 gb of ram and vista would give you a pc as slow as 256mb of ram and XP.




> Not to mention most systems come standard with 2 gigs of RAM these days, and if not it is a simple and easy upgrade you can add when you purchase your computer (nominal fee, like $60 for an extra Gigabyte).  So, if that was truly the issue anyone buying a new computer could simply add more RAM.


yet you still see many people with PCs with 2gb or less ram.  and yet, its these very people and usually ONLY these people who cry about it being slower with vista.



> On top of that companies even recommend more RAM and some models come standard with 2gigs that have vista pre loaded.


your point?  you can also goto Circuit City, Walmart, or Best Buy and buy a pc for $1000 when you can build it for less then $500



> Vista sales are amongst some of the lowest sales of any MS release and they are losing market share as we speak.


once again, i bring back my earlier post, and your earlier statements, and even stuff i said above.  people are getting vista, putting it on there PCs with 1 or 2 gb of ram, and expecting it to run as good as it did with XP.  they are disappointed due to the system requirements issue i mentioned in my first quote of your post.  then know what they do?  they post about in forums, crying that it slows down PCs (like you are) and saying other falsifications about it when its really their own fault.  other people read and believe this misinformation and thus don't buy it.  its typical and common word of mouth negative publicity.



when i see people complaining about a game, os, or other software i'm familiar with the first thing i always do is look at there PC specs.  something that i have noticed is that despite how many different setups people have tried or use vista on, there is always one similarity between the PCs owned by people who dislike vista, and between the PCs owned by people who have no trouble with Vista.
know what that similarity is?  *ram*

nearly *ALL* the people who have had problems running vista have 2gb of ram or less.
nearly *ALL* the people who have no trouble with vista have 3gb of ram if they have 32bit or 4gb+ if they have 64bit vista.

seeing how ram is the one similarity between all the PCs that have trouble and all the PCs that have no trouble, it is quite obvious to me that ram is the key piece of hardware that bases whether or not your PC will run vista fine.


so, you can say all the junk you want.  you can list all you think is bad about it.  you can continue to cry and mope acting like your pc is perfect when it obviously isn't.  or you can just accept that it obviously isn't good enough to run vista and upgrade it.  its not exactly hard or expensive.


----------



## oscaryu1

Ah well. A poll is everything. XP wins 

(I bet there's more people downgrading than upgrading)


----------



## Motoxrdude

oscaryu1 said:


> Ah well. A poll is everything. XP wins
> 
> (I bet there's more people downgrading than upgrading)



More ungrading


----------



## INTELCRAZY

Another thing that really gets on my nerves is ppl that complain about hardware compatibility ...

Microsoft is the 'top-dog' OS, the $55 Billion net worth of Gates, says that pretty well... Why should Microsoft, being as powerful as it is, conform to the smaller companies? That new Mac ad got me thinking about this... The operating system of a computer is the basis for the system's operation, why on Earth would the OS company build an OS around Photoshop, a printer driver, or another company's style of programming? If it wasn't for the OS, the other programs would be screwed anyway. I mean, this just seems to be the point that you guys are trying to make and, IMO, it's fighting a losing battle and out of nothing less than absolute stupidity.. Sorry, to offended anyone, not really, I don't care..



oscaryu1 said:


> Ah well. A poll is everything. XP wins
> 
> (I bet there's more people downgrading than upgrading)



Easily said with a 2600+...


----------



## tlarkin

zaroba,

It does run fine with 1 gig of RAM on a basic level.  It doesn't run as fast as XP, Linux, OS X, Unix, Live Distros - like Knoppix, windows 2000, etc.  Upgrading to 2 gigs of RAM doesn't really make a difference.  I was never out of memory, because I had a minimal install and minimal processes running.  More RAM is only useful when using more memory.  You can have 20 tera bytes of RAM and it won't make your system faster until you start to need 20.1 tera bytes of RAM, then adding in that extra RAM will boost performance.  More RAM does not equal more performance until you actually use that RAM.  At boot I was maybe using 500mb of RAM in Vista and with office and firefox maybe 700mb of RAM total, in my system that had 2 gigs.  RAM is not the issue here dude (to quote the big lebowski).

I have listed tons of new features of Vista that do not benefit the end user.  In fact almost all of Vista's new features cater towards the IT/Enterprise environment.  Stability monitor, better logs and crash reporters, NAP, IPv6, SMB 2 (which is actually bloated), Encrypted file systems, better remote desktop, IIS, QoS, so on and so forth.  Really, there are not a lot of benefits to the end users at all for Vista.  It is not worth the money at all.

What features benefit the end user?  Not really any.


----------



## Jabes

oscaryu1 said:


> Ah well. A poll is everything. XP wins
> 
> (I bet there's more people downgrading than upgrading)


yea ur rig is a pos thats why u don't run vista 



INTELCRAZY said:


> Sorry, to offended anyone, not really, I don't care...



lol y r u even saying srry then? 

oops that was txt


----------



## tlarkin

INTELCRAZY said:


> Another thing that really gets on my nerves is ppl that complain about hardware compatibility ...
> 
> Microsoft is the 'top-dog' OS, the $55 Billion net worth of Gates, says that pretty well... Why should Microsoft, being as powerful as it is, conform to the smaller companies? That new Mac ad got me thinking about this... The operating system of a computer is the basis for the system's operation, why on Earth would the OS company build an OS around Photoshop, a printer driver, or another company's style of programming? If it wasn't for the OS, the other programs would be screwed anyway. I mean, this just seems to be the point that you guys are trying to make and, IMO, it's fighting a losing battle and out of nothing less than absolute stupidity.. Sorry, to offended anyone, not really, I don't care..



I know why.  Because with out third party, the OS is just an OS.  Its not like Microsoft has all those nifty features natively built into the OS.  In fact the only thing close to that is maybe the Ubuntu studio or OS X, which has built in features that are powerful enough to get jobs done.  Editing photos, video, authoring DVDs, office productivity, multiple desktops, virtualization, c compilers, remote management, etc.  

Microsoft needs third party support, or they need to develop their own version of photoshop.  You stop supporting a market and it stops supporting you.  Enterprise drives business standards.  Why do you think every major server side technology generally supports the same open source standards across all platforms?  Third party compatibility.


----------



## massahwahl

Jabes said:


> yea ur rig is a pos thats why u don't run vista



Whoa Whoa Whoa! Thats not cool. Your directly attacking someone now and thats not cool. If he has XP and he likes who cares if his computer can or cannot run Vista? I run Vista because my rig can run it and I like it, but I dont think it makes me any better than someone running XP because they like XP.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> zaroba,
> 
> It does run fine with 1 gig of RAM on a basic level. It doesn't run as fast as XP, Linux, OS X, Unix, Live Distros - like Knoppix, windows 2000, etc.  Upgrading to 2 gigs of RAM doesn't really make a difference.  I was never out of memory, because I had a minimal install and minimal processes running.  More RAM is only useful when using more memory.  You can have 20 tera bytes of RAM and it won't make your system faster until you start to need 20.1 tera bytes of RAM, then adding in that extra RAM will boost performance.  More RAM does not equal more performance until you actually use that RAM.  At boot I was maybe using 500mb of RAM in Vista and with office and firefox maybe 700mb of RAM total, in my system that had 2 gigs.  RAM is not the issue here dude (to quote the big lebowski).
> 
> I have listed tons of new features of Vista that do not benefit the end user.  In fact almost all of Vista's new features cater towards the IT/Enterprise environment.  Stability monitor, better logs and crash reporters, NAP, IPv6, SMB 2 (which is actually bloated), Encrypted file systems, better remote desktop, IIS, QoS, so on and so forth.  Really, there are not a lot of benefits to the end users at all for Vista.  It is not worth the money at all.
> 
> What features benefit the end user?  Not really any.



Who wants to run Basic? Besides, someone that doesn't want it...

A little redundant at best?

BS! You would gripe more if it didn't have any of that... And say "Oh, we were promised this, this, and that." With a new PC and with XP being $89.99 and Vista Home Basic being $94.99, why not go with newer software with your hardware? We are just now getting to where a basic PC can run it without too many complaints, which in the end are caused by a sorry user..


----------



## Jabes

ukulele_ninja said:


> Whoa Whoa Whoa! Thats not cool. Your directly attacking someone now and thats not cool. If he has XP and he likes who cares if his computer can or cannot run Vista? I run Vista because my rig can run it and I like it, but I dont think it makes me any better than someone running XP because they like XP.



its kool were friends and he was waiting for that


----------



## massahwahl

Jabes said:


> its kool were friends and he was waiting for that



ah... ok then.


----------



## oscaryu1

> Easily said with a 2600+...



I see a Vista fan. FYI I never said I liked xp OR vista did I? Another thing you should know, I'll take Vista in like old XP anyday. I'm just waiting for prices to drop before I order my rig 




> yea ur rig is a pos thats why u don't run vista



Bet my 166 could outlast your rig in a fire and getting runned over race 

Don't leave out the older ones  This 166 is heavier than 3x my speaker set (X-230 btw)


----------



## tlarkin

INTELCRAZY said:


> Who wants to run Basic? Besides, someone that doesn't want it...
> 
> A little redundant at best?
> 
> BS! You would gripe more if it didn't have any of that... And say "Oh, we were promised this, this, and that." With a new PC and with XP being $89.99 and Vista Home Basic being $94.99, why not go with newer software with your hardware? We are just now getting to where a basic PC can run it without too many complaints, which in the end are caused by a sorry user..



You still haven't answered my questions, what features benefit end users switching to vista?????

You don't know what you are talking about, and if you do then prove it.  

Also, I wasn't running home basic, READ MY POSTS.  I own a copy of windows vista ultimate that was given to me by an intel rep, and a copy of Vista business via my works MSDN subscription.  I was running it on a basic level, doing basic things and it still sucked.


----------



## oscaryu1

Jabes said:


> its kool were friends and he was waiting for that



Whatcha think AIM was for? It's INSTANT  You should see how many IM's/Hour I have over XP and Vista


----------



## Jabes

oscaryu1 said:


> I see a Vista fan. FYI I never said I liked xp OR vista did I? Another thing you should know, I'll take Vista in like old XP anyday. I'm just waiting for prices to drop before I order my rig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet my 166 could outlast your rig in a fire and getting runned over race
> 
> Don't leave out the older ones  This 166 is heavier than 3x my speaker set (X-230 btw)



well ur rig can't run crysis


----------



## zaroba

tlarkin said:


> zaroba,
> 
> It does run fine with 1 gig of RAM on a basic level.  It doesn't run as fast as XP, Linux, OS X, Unix, Live Distros - like Knoppix, windows 2000, etc.  Upgrading to 2 gigs of RAM doesn't really make a difference.



ROFL.  you can't be serious right?

so...vista with 2gb of ram wont run any better then vista with 1gb of ram?  you actually think that? you have really got to be kidding me.

of COURSE vista with 1gb wont run as good as xp with 1gb.  have you not read a single thing i said yet?  VISTA's minimum requirement is 512mb of ram.  it will often use more then that, like 768mb.  that leaves at most 512mb free for other things.  xp only used 64mb of ram.  that left more then 900mb free for other things.  so of course the xp machine will run faster.

are you actually going to sit there and say that you seriously think that a pc with 512mb free ram should run as good as one with 900mb?  and that adding 1gb to that amount wont even effect it at all?  geeze, i'm starting to think you don't even know much about ram (not meaning to sound offensive or anything).


----------



## ThatGuy16

Im going to make some popcorn, anyone want some?


----------



## PC eye

"a dimension beyond sight and sound.... the Twilight Zone...http://www.scifi.com/twilightzone/gallery/index.php " is where one thread on XP or Vista seems to have vanished to. "don't touch that dial! we will control what you read for the next several pages of....". "HEY! Where did the poll go? I didn't know I was in the off topic section.".


----------



## tlarkin

zaroba said:


> ROFL.  you can't be serious right?
> 
> so...vista with 2gb of ram wont run any better then vista with 1gb of ram?  you actually think that? you have really got to be kidding me.
> 
> of COURSE vista with 1gb wont run as good as xp with 1gb.  have you not read a single thing i said yet?  VISTA's minimum requirement is 512mb of ram.  it will often use more then that, like 768mb.  that leaves at most 512mb free for other things.  xp only used 64mb of ram.  that left more then 900mb free for other things.  so of course the xp machine will run faster.
> 
> are you actually going to sit there and say that you seriously think that a pc with 512mb free ram should run as good as one with 900mb?  and that adding 1gb to that amount wont even effect it at all?  geeze, i'm starting to think you don't even know much about ram (not meaning to sound offensive or anything).



I had 1 gig of ram, basic stuff running like a web browser and word and had over 300mb free of  RAM, and it ran like ass.  Now I can boot up any other OS, use 700mb of RAM on it multi tasking and still have 300 free, and they all run better.  I test things out with the same control, that way it makes it a bit more fair on comparison.  Vista memory management is horrid, poorly written, and utterly busted compared to every other OS out there.  I put the vista machine in the same conditions as every other OS, 700mb used, and 300mb free (before I added another gig, and then that didn't change anything either).  The other OSes I had to launch other applications to make up for it, but photoshop will eat up some RAM so it wasn't too hard to accomplish.

I think you need to read up on how memory works, and don't get me started on how vista manages virtual memory, because it is way worse than any OS.


----------



## Jabes

ThatGuy16 said:


> Im going to make some popcorn, anyone want some?



we'll keep it active till u come back


----------



## tuxify

ThatGuy16 said:


> Im going to make some popcorn, anyone want some?



Haha always with the smartass remarks. I just entered this conversation, and I have to say it's intriguing.

*Edit* New avatar <-- to show my support.


----------



## Jabes

tuxify said:


> Haha always with the smartass remarks. I just entered this conversation, and I have to say it's intriguing.
> 
> *Edit* New avatar <-- to show my support.



ewwww its ugly


----------



## ThatGuy16

i can ship you some? it might get old.. maybe i can get next day air? 


we will work this out, trust me. your going to get some popcorn


----------



## zaroba

tlarkin said:


> I think you need to read up on how memory works, and don't get me started on how vista manages virtual memory, because it is way worse than any OS.



ahh, but you see, heres the thing...i actually TESTED this stuff with my pc.

i only had 1gb of ram in this pc when i went from xp to vista, and it did run slow (which you confirmed).  however, instead of downgrading, i decided to do the logical thing and upgrade my ram to compensate for vista's usage.  i upgraded to 3gb of ram but hit the 32bit limitation, then went to 64bit vista and got the 5gb that i have now

1gb -> 3gb *did* show an improvement in general usage.
3gb -> 5gb showed an improvement too, but not as great as the jump from 1 to 3


you can freely test it yourself.  go for it, its fun.  you learn so much via trial and error.
the funny thing is that its usually drastically different from what people like you say will happen.

you say you own copies of vista.  and have confirmed that they are slow on a pc with one gb of ram (which is no surprise, it was slow for me as well).  now, try installing vista on a pc with 4gb of ram to see how well it will work.  feel free to also install xp on the same pc to compare them.  you'll see no performance loss at all.


----------



## tlarkin

zaroba said:


> ahh, but you see, heres the thing...i actually TESTED this stuff with my pc.
> 
> i only had 1gb of ram in this pc when i went from xp to vista.
> then i upgraded to 3gb of ram but hit the 32bit limitation, then went to 64bit vista and got the 5gb that i have now
> 
> 1gb -> 3gb *did* show an improvement in general usage.
> 3gb -> 5gb showed an improvement too, but not as great as the jump from 1 to 3
> 
> 
> you can freely test it yourself.  go for it, its fun.  you learn so much via trial and error.  and the funny thing is that its usually drastically different from what people like you say will happen.
> 
> you say you own copies of vista.  and have confirmed that they are slow on a pc with one gb of ram (which is no surprise)
> now, try installing vista on a pc with 4gb of ram to see how well it will work.
> feel free to also install xp on the same pc to compare them.  you'll see no performance loss at all.




That won't make a difference because I don't utilize anything really over 1 gig of RAM on that system.  It is a test system I load OSes on and blow it away every so often to install and test out other stuff.  It is my trial and error machine, here are the specs

Intel C2d e6300
Intel MB - DG965
2 gigs of RAM
9800 Pro, 256 meg version
OSes: windows xp, vista ultimate, debian, suse, and for a while i had a smooth wall running on it to play around with it

I have a macbook pro which is comparable, but a bit more higher end than this system

C2D 2.2 Ghz
2gig of RAM
x1600 video card

So, that is my OS X comparison to what vista can do, with not the exact, but pretty close specs.  And, yes I have loaded both vista and Xp on my macbook pro via boot camp and virtualization both.

I was not gaming on this machine, not editing video or audio, just basic things.  Office productivity, web surfing, small time scripting and maybe some DVD and audio play back.  Nothing that any OS couldn't handle with just 1 gig of RAM, with the exception that Vista performed the poorest.  I never really got above using 1 gig of RAM and your system does not slow down until you use up all your RAM and then it has to start paging virtual memory to make up for the RAM you don't have.  So, having anything over 2 gigs of RAM does not help me.

A quick and dirty view to how memory works is this.  CPU gets an instruction, and it goes first to the CACHE to look for it, and that is the fastest way to get an instruction set.  Tons of common tasks are loaded into cache memory.  Some systems (limited) will have level 3 cache on the motherboard, I really haven't seen many that do this, but I have read that it is out there, so that would be the second place it looks for instruction sets if it is available.  If not, it moves on to the not as fast RAM, where applications and the OS load more instruction sets, the CPU pages the RAM next if its not found in Cache.  Finally, if you are out of RAM, then it pages virtual memory, which is allocated to your hard disk, which is the slowest way for the cpu to get an instruction set.  So, if you are not using any more than 1 gig of RAM at any given time, having 4 gigs of RAM is pointless and it is not faster by any means.  This is the basics of how it works, I suggest you google or wikipedia search it for more in depth and more accurate explanations.  I warn you though, its a pretty dry and boring read.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> You still haven't answered my questions, what features benefit end users switching to vista?????
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, and if you do then prove it.
> 
> Also, I wasn't running home basic, READ MY POSTS.  I own a copy of windows vista ultimate that was given to me by an intel rep, and a copy of Vista business via my works MSDN subscription.  I was running it on a basic level, doing basic things and it still sucked.



I didn't say you were running Basic... I said WHO, not YOU, but WHO...

You are the one who NEVER, I mean EVER, mentions pros of Vista...

-DX10
-It boots faster than XP, I have noticed this myself
-Definitely not the uglier interface, XP is a troll...
-As pointed out in an article, saves power, must be doing something right, again


Just for you:

    * Windows Aero: The new hardware-based graphical user interface, named Windows Aero  – an acronym for Authentic, Energetic, Reflective, and Open. The new interface is intended to be cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than those of previous Windows, including new transparencies, live thumbnails, live icons, animations, and eye candy.
    * Windows Shell: The new Windows shell is significantly different from Windows XP, offering a new range of organization, navigation, and search capabilities. Windows Explorer's task panel has been removed, integrating the relevant task options into the toolbar. A "Favorite links" panel has been added, enabling one-click access to common directories. The address bar has been replaced with a breadcrumb navigation system. The preview panel allows users to see thumbnails of various files and view the contents of documents. The details panel shows information such as file size and type, and allows viewing and editing of embedded tags in supported file formats. The Start menu has changed as well; it no longer uses ever-expanding boxes when navigating through Programs. The word "Start" itself has been removed in favor of a blue Windows Orb (also called "Pearl").
    * Instant Search (also known as search as you type): Windows Vista features a new way of searching called Instant Search, which is significantly faster and more in-depth (content-based) than the search features found in any of the previous versions of Windows.[8]
    * Windows Sidebar: A transparent panel anchored to the side of the screen where a user can place Desktop Gadgets, which are small applets designed for a specialized purpose (such as displaying the weather or sports scores). Gadgets can also be placed on other parts of the desktop.
    * Windows Internet Explorer 7: New user interface, tabbed browsing, RSS, a search box, improved printing,[9] Page Zoom, Quick Tabs (thumbnails of all open tabs), Anti-Phishing filter, a number of new security protection features, Internationalized Domain Name support (IDN), and improved web standards support. IE7 in Windows Vista runs in isolation from other applications in the operating system (protected mode); exploits and malicious software are restricted from writing to any location beyond Temporary Internet Files without explicit user consent.

Windows Media Player 11
Windows Media Player 11

    * Windows Media Player 11, a major revamp of Microsoft's program for playing and organizing music and video. New features in this version include word wheeling (or "search as you type"), a new GUI for the media library, photo display and organization, the ability to share music libraries over a network with other Vista machines, Xbox 360 integration, and support for other Media Center Extenders.(BUGGY)
    * Backup and Restore Center: Includes a backup and restore application that gives users the ability to schedule periodic backups of files on their computer, as well as recovery from previous backups. Backups are incremental, storing only the changes each time, minimizing the disk usage. It also features Complete PC Backup (available only in Ultimate, Business, and Enterprise versions) which backs up an entire computer as an image onto a hard disk or DVD. Complete PC Backup can automatically recreate a machine setup onto new hardware or hard disk in case of any hardware failures. Complete PC Restore can be initiated from within Windows Vista, or from the Windows Vista installation CD in the event the PC is so corrupt that it cannot start up normally from the hard disk.
    * Windows Mail: A replacement for Outlook Express that includes a new mail store that improves stability,[10] and features integrated Instant Search. It has the Phishing Filter like IE7 and Junk mail filtering that is enhanced through regular updates via Windows Update.[11]
    * Windows Calendar is a new calendar and task application.
    * Windows Photo Gallery, a photo and movie library management application. WPG can import from digital cameras, tag and rate individual items, adjust colors and exposure, create and display slideshows (with pan and fade effects), and burn slideshows to DVD.
    * Windows DVD Maker, a companion program to Windows Movie Maker that provides the ability to create video DVDs based on a user's content. Users can design a DVD with title, menu, video, soundtrack, pan and zoom motion effects on pictures or slides.
    * Windows Media Center, which was previously exclusively bundled as a separate version of Windows XP, known as Windows XP Media Center Edition, has been incorporated into the Home Premium and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista.
    * Games and Games Explorer: Games included with Windows have been modified to showcase Vista's graphics capabilities. New games are Chess Titans, Mahjong Titans and Purble Place. A new Games Explorer special folder holds shortcuts and information to all games on the user's computer.

Windows Mobility Center.
Windows Mobility Center.

    * Windows Mobility Center is a control panel that centralizes the most relevant information related to mobile computing (brightness, sound, battery level / power scheme selection, wireless network, screen orientation, presentation settings, etc.).
    * Windows Meeting Space replaces NetMeeting. Users can share applications (or their entire desktop) with other users on the local network, or over the Internet using peer-to-peer technology (higher versions than Starter and Home Basic can take advantage of hosting capabilities, limiting previous to "join" mode only)
    * Shadow Copy automatically creates daily backup copies of files and folders. Users can also create "shadow copies" by setting a System Protection Point using the System Protection tab in the System control panel. The user can be presented multiple versions of a file throughout a limited history and be allowed to restore, delete, or copy those versions. This feature is available only in the Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista and is inherited from Windows Server 2003.[12]

Windows Update with Windows Ultimate Extras
Windows Update with Windows Ultimate Extras

    * Windows Update: Software and security updates have been simplified,[13] now operating solely via a control panel instead of as a web application. Windows Mail's spam filter and Windows Defender's definitions are updated automatically via Windows Update. Users that choose the recommended setting for Automatic Updates will have the latest drivers installed and available when they add a new device.
    * Parental controls: Allows administrators to control which websites, programs, and games each standard user can use and install. This feature is not included in the Business or Enterprise editions of Vista.
    * Windows SideShow: Enables the auxiliary displays on newer laptops or on supported Windows Mobile devices. It is meant to be used to display device gadgets while the computer is on or off.
    * Speech recognition is integrated into Vista.[14] It features a redesigned user interface and configurable command-and-control commands. Unlike the Office 2003 version, which works only in Office and WordPad, Speech Recognition in Windows Vista works for any accessible application. In addition, it currently supports several languages: British and American English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese (Traditional and Simplified), and Japanese.
    * New fonts, including several designed for screen reading, and improved Chinese (Yahei, JhengHei), Japanese (Meiryo) and Korean (Malgun) fonts. See Windows Vista typefaces. ClearType has also been enhanced and enabled by default.
    * Problem Reports and Solutions, a control panel which allows users to view previously sent problems and any solutions or additional information that is available.
    * Improved audio controls allow the system-wide volume or volume of individual audio devices and even individual applications to be controlled separately. New audio functionalities such as Room Correction, Bass Management, Speaker Fill and Headphone virtualization have also been incorporated.
    * Windows System Assessment Tool is a tool used to benchmark system performance. Software such as games can retrieve this rating and modify its own behavior at runtime to improve performance. The benchmark tests CPU, RAM, 2-D and 3-D graphics acceleration, Graphics Memory and Hard disk space.[15][16]
    * Windows Ultimate Extras: The Ultimate Edition of Windows Vista provides access to extra games and tools, available through Windows Update. This replaces the Microsoft Plus! software bundle that was sold alongside prior versions of Windows.
    * Disk Management: A utility to modify hard disk drive partitions, including shrinking, creating and formatting new partitions.
    * Performance Diagnostic Console includes various tools for tuning and monitoring system performance and resources activities of CPU, disks, network, memory and other resources. It shows the operations on files, the opened connections, etc.

I don't use some of this stuff, as you or someone else said earlier, "Third Party"... Vista is my basis


----------



## zaroba

lol.  you can say its pointless all you want.  you can follow what you read all you want.
my pc is proof that it does in fact show a performence increase.

you see, like you with reading stuff, i too went that path.  i went threw the Microsoft Systems Engineer certification courses.  what i have found is that what the books tell you IS NOT what will most often happen in real life situations.

in fact, you will most often learn completely different things via real life trial and error then the books will tell you.
so, I suggest you actually try testing stuff before claiming it as truth.


----------



## tlarkin

Intel-

How does that benefit the end user?  I am talking about the end user, the average person who uses a computer. 

None of those things really benefit an end user, they benefit the power users or the IT/Enterprise users.

You think your average joe is going to watch the stability monitor, or the crash reporter, or look into using NAP at home?  Or perhaps the average user will encrypt their file system?  The average user can't even back up their own data, remember their passwords, or figure out how to fully use an email/calendar system.  I can't tell you how many passwords I reset every day at work.

None of those things really benefit anyone, because any advanced user is going to use more powerful third party apps, and the basic users aren't going to use any of that crap.

So, again, how does this benefit the end user?


----------



## Kabu

I did a lot of research before I decided to buy a new PC with a Vista OS.  Even though the majority bash it, I really like it.  Now I have Vista and 2 Gigs, works wonderfully and all of my proggies save one work with Vista.  I am even using a photo editing program that I got 8 years ago and it works fine. All my hardware and peripherals work just as well with Vista as they did with my XP and 1 Gig.

Vista runs slow because of Superfetch and all the little things it does automatically so you don't have to think about them, like defragging and such.  There are numerous tweaks you can use to make Vista's performance better and faster.  

One quick note, as it's been touched on in another thread (or it may have been this one) putting 4 Gigs in a 32 bit won't do you any good at all.  Here's a link to the explanation ... http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html


----------



## zaroba

tlarkin said:


> I was not gaming on this machine, not editing video or audio, just basic things.  Office productivity, web surfing, small time scripting and maybe some DVD and audio play back.  Nothing that any OS couldn't handle with just 1 gig of RAM, with the exception that Vista performed the poorest.  I never really got above using 1 gig of RAM and your system does not slow down until you use up all your RAM and then it has to start paging virtual memory to make up for the RAM you don't have.  So, having anything over 2 gigs of RAM does not help me.



actually, most OSs (vista included) use a paging file even when there IS ram still available.
currently my PC has 2.2gb of paged stuff while its only using 2gb of my 5gb of ram.



and that average user is the one who thinks vista is to blame for all there trouble when they don't know how to upgrade there pc and don't know about ram.  which takes us alllll the way back to the post about vista sales and negative publicity.


----------



## tlarkin

zaroba said:


> you see, like you with reading stuff, i too went that path.  i went threw the Microsoft Systems Engineer certification courses.  what i have found is that what the books tell you IS NOT what will most often happen in real life situations.
> 
> in fact, you will most often learn completely different things via real life trial and error then the books will tell you.
> so, I suggest you actually try testing stuff before claiming it as truth.



This we completely agree on.  I remember one question (i think internet security) on the MCSE was: (something like this)

You have two separate subnets sharing internet connections, what is the best way to accomplish secure internet access?

The choices were a bunch of different options, but the correct answer was  to build an ISA server.  Anyone with half a brain knows that a good decent router can accomplish everything an ISA server can, and is ultimately easier to maintain and cheaper.

I am not regurgitating anything from any certification test, training course or anything.  I am just explaining how memory works on a basic level, and that in your case you were probably using more than 1 gig of RAM and in my case the system was minimal and did minimal things and never really went over 1 gig of RAM usage, so your theory of adding more RAM would not have helped my situation is all I am saying.  What I described is not specific to any OS, it is specific to how memory works on the a basic level.  Every OS uses those same concepts to utilize system memory.  There are of course a few differences in how each OS approaches it.  Like Linux likes to use swap partitions for virtual memory instead of the root partition, otherwise they all function the same way.

Having been in the field for over 8 years I can attest and agree with you 100% you can't learn how to really do much in the IT field from a book or a class and that experience is the best teacher.  Trust me, I have broken and crashed enough things in my time to learn a lot.  Because really you learn more from failure than you do success.


----------



## zaroba

yes, but have you actually tested that ram process?

have you actually tested having 2gb of ram even when you wont be using more then 1gb?

keep in mind that just because its a web browser, doesn't mean it wont use alot of ram.  my firefox despite only being here, is using 200mb of ram.  1 firefox along with vista + aero, sidebar (which will easily use a few hundred mb depending on whats in it), plus other things in vista (listed by intelcrazy on page 24) will easily exceed 1gb of used ram.


----------



## PC eye

Gee? with all these pages the tally for the poll hasn't seen much change since 3:25AM. Let's see where it stands at the present moment.

XP = count = 45 = 59.21%

Vista = count = 31 = 40.79%

 It would seem Vista has edged a little in the last 16hrs. by 2%.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> Intel-
> 
> How does that benefit the end user?  I am talking about the end user, the average person who uses a computer.
> 
> None of those things really benefit an end user, they benefit the power users or the IT/Enterprise users.
> 
> You think your average joe is going to watch the stability monitor, or the crash reporter, or look into using NAP at home?  Or perhaps the average user will encrypt their file system?  The average user can't even back up their own data, remember their passwords, or figure out how to fully use an email/calendar system.  I can't tell you how many passwords I reset every day at work.
> 
> None of those things really benefit anyone, because any advanced user is going to use more powerful third party apps, and the basic users aren't going to use any of that crap.
> 
> So, again, how does this benefit the end user?



Sure they do... Did you miss Windows Update? 

You know what, I have made my point to ppl who can understand it... You are now trying to be jerk.. I have nothing for you, if you want to make everything complicated, go get on one of those nerdier forums that you spend time on anyway... God forbid EFI support, whatever the Hell it does, I won't use it... I looked it up when you started whining about that crap and if it has to do with Itanium server platforms, I am pretty friggin' sure that it won't be for your beloved end-user..


----------



## tlarkin

INTELCRAZY said:


> Sure they do... Did you miss Windows Update?
> 
> You know what, I have made my point to ppl who can understand it... You are now trying to be jerk.. I have nothing for you, if you want to make everything complicated, go get on one of those nerdier forums that you spend time on anyway... God forbid EFI support, whatever the Hell it does, I won't use it... I looked it up when you started whining about that crap and if it has to do with Itanium server platforms, I am pretty friggin' sure that it won't be for your beloved end-user..



hahaha

EFI - extensible firmware interface, look it up, its actually really cool and will revolutionize hardware and do tons for gaming.  It allows a more robust answer to drivers and hardware support via firmware level driven applications.  It also allows for no such thing as a driver, it will all be contained in the hardware.  No more boot sectors, the OS can be held on a flash drive on the motherboard and the HD is just for data.

Also, all you have to do to keep up is spend a few minutes on digg and slashdot every day, plus I am constantly researching stuff for work, its just the nature of the beast.


----------



## Kabu

PC eye said:


> Gee? with all these pages the tally for the poll hasn't seen much change since 3:25AM. Let's see where it stands at the present moment.
> 
> XP = count = 45 = 59.21%
> 
> Vista = count = 31 = 40.79%
> 
> It would seem Vista has edged a little in the last 16hrs. by 2%.



LOL - It seems that Vista isn't the monster it's made out to be


----------



## DirtyD86

vista reigns supreme. even more so once SP1 is released in 1st quarter 08


----------



## INTELCRAZY

tlarkin said:


> hahaha
> 
> EFI - extensible firmware interface, look it up, its actually really cool and will revolutionize hardware and do tons for gaming.  It allows a more robust answer to drivers and hardware support via firmware level driven applications.  It also allows for no such thing as a driver, it will all be contained in the hardware.  No more boot sectors, the OS can be held on a flash drive on the motherboard and the HD is just for data.
> 
> Also, all you have to do to keep up is spend a few minutes on digg and slashdot every day, plus I am constantly researching stuff for work, its just the nature of the beast.



Too early for that crap...


----------



## porterjw

Well, I thought I had washed my hands of this Thread, but after someone asked a question in another Thread, and the responding Poster linked to the 'Clean Interior' string, I thought for a moment, and decided I needed at least one more post.

So, to begin with, let's see some of what one of the most-adamant Vista fanboys has posted in just this Thread:



> but I don't want to dual boot xp so thats fine


_______


> yea vistas awesome


_______
Originally by paratwq:





> Oh she knows, besides I want to divorce her since she still runs XP, and you know that anyone that runs XP is a total idiot, just ask all of vista lovers!



>>Response: 





> of course I kno that


_______


> always be a better and more popular os


_______
Originally posted by jutnm:





> i think most ppl who choose XP bc they have only experienced XP only and not the side of vista



>>Response: 





> yea or its just like my sig lol


_______


> IMAO just because people can't run vista on their rig is why I think that they'res so many xp voters right


_______


> <----- look at my pic its kinda hard to see but its legible


(pic referring to avatar)
_______


> yea ur rig is a pos thats why u don't run vista


_______

Now, I'm all for irony, so when I saw this, I just had to  Never saw mention anywhere of a dual-boot either, so that just added to it 

http://www.computerforum.com/816281-post336.html



And just for the record...



> nope I'm a sophomore  and I don't kno because I'm homeschooled



...Tell your parents to work on your grammar.


----------



## INTELCRAZY

imsati said:


> Well, I thought I had washed my hands of this Thread, but after someone asked a question in another Thread, and the responding Poster linked to the 'Clean Interior' string, I thought for a moment, and decided I needed at least one more post.
> 
> So, to begin with, let's see some of what one of the most-adamant Vista fanboys has posted in just this Thread:
> 
> 
> _______
> 
> _______
> Originally by paratwq:
> 
> >>Response:
> _______
> 
> _______
> Originally posted by jutnm:
> 
> >>Response:
> _______
> 
> _______
> 
> (pic referring to avatar)
> _______
> 
> _______
> 
> Now, I'm all for irony, so when I saw this, I just had to  Never saw mention anywhere of a dual-boot either, so that just added to it
> 
> http://www.computerforum.com/816281-post336.html
> 
> 
> 
> And just for the record...
> 
> 
> 
> ...Tell your parents to work on your grammar.



Oh, look at you, eh? Nice try... I see what you're up to here...


----------



## porterjw

INTELCRAZY said:


> Oh, look at you, eh? Nice try... I see what you're up to here...



Then at least one of us does. Enlighten me?


----------



## INTELCRAZY

imsati said:


> Then at least one of us does. Enlighten me?



Just don't try to make ppl seem like bad ppl.... He is entitled to his opinion and who was the "over-confident" Vista user?


----------



## porterjw

INTELCRAZY said:


> Just don't try to make ppl seem like bad ppl.... He is entitled to his opinion and who was the "over-confident" Vista user?



I'm not. I'm just pointing out something I found odd. I thought I was done with this Thread 2 days ago. It just happened by chance that I saw the old Post, and being one for irony, thought I'd share it.

'over-confident' Vista user? From where?


----------



## Jabes

imsati said:


> Well, I thought I had washed my hands of this Thread, but after someone asked a question in another Thread, and the responding Poster linked to the 'Clean Interior' string, I thought for a moment, and decided I needed at least one more post.
> 
> So, to begin with, let's see some of what one of the most-adamant Vista fanboys has posted in just this Thread:
> 
> 
> _______
> 
> _______
> Originally by paratwq:
> 
> >>Response:
> _______
> 
> _______
> Originally posted by jutnm:
> 
> >>Response:
> _______
> 
> _______
> 
> (pic referring to avatar)
> _______
> 
> _______
> 
> Now, I'm all for irony, so when I saw this, I just had to  Never saw mention anywhere of a dual-boot either, so that just added to it
> 
> http://www.computerforum.com/816281-post336.html
> 
> 
> 
> And just for the record...
> 
> 
> 
> ...Tell your parents to work on your grammar.


hmm that looks like my post 

did u ever think that I may have used to run xp and vista but wen I installed vista I screwed around and got xp messed up so now I don't nemore heres my post about dual booting http://www.computerforum.com/97918-dual-boot-vista-xp.html did you ever hear of the search button?

I didn't post my pc in that thread to show how clean my pc is it was to show a guy wat a pc looked like with red lights 





gamer30 said:


> Does anyone have red led fans in their case, could you post a picture?


 and

have you ever heard of txt talk or are you that noobish that you never heard of that?

and have you ever heard of something called freedom


----------



## INTELCRAZY

> So, to begin with, let's see some of what one of the most-adamant Vista fanboys has posted in just this Thread:



There ya go...


----------



## porterjw

Jabes said:


> I didn't post my pc in that thread to show how clean my pc is it was to show a guy wat a pc looked like with red lights



And I didn't bring it up for any reason other than I found your endless 'Vista is supreme' stance in this Thread to be ironic when this is the only shot of your OS to-date.



> have you ever heard of txt talk or are you that noobish that you never heard of that?



Text-talk is one thing. Poor grammar is something completely different. Spelling/shorthand is not the same as proper sentence structure. Your sentences are diagramming nightmares. Do you post from your cell phone?



> and have you ever heard of something called freedom



This coming from an adamant MS-user to someone that is an equally-adamant Open Source user? Again, the irony.

I never once dared to question the freedom you have, nor was that the focus of any of my Posts.


----------



## ThatGuy16

imsati said:


> So, to begin with, let's see some of what one of the most-adamant *XP* fanboys has posted in just this Thread:



fixed 

im surprised this thread hasn't been locked already...

Just leave it alone... its going to be alright... i promise


----------



## Jabes

imsati said:


> And I didn't bring it up for any reason other than I found your endless 'Vista is supreme' stance in this Thread to be ironic when this is the only shot of your OS to-date.
> 
> 
> 
> Text-talk is one thing. Poor grammar is something completely different. Spelling/shorthand is not the same as proper sentence structure. Your sentences are diagramming nightmares. Do you post from your cell phone?
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from an adamant MS-user to someone that is an equally-adamant Open Source user? Again, the irony.
> 
> I never once dared to question the freedom you have, nor was that the focus of any of my Posts.



no I don't post from a cell phone y r u sayin that my I don't have proper sentece structure  most of the time I'm typing in between doing other stuff

well u don't like my sig right? 





> "IF YOU HATE VISTA EITHER THE PC YOUR TRYING TO RUN IT ON IS A POS OR YOUR A NOOB
> noob
> 1. (Internet slang, pejorative) A newb or newbie; refers to the idea that someone is new to a game, concept, or idea; implying a lack of experience.
> * Noobs are annoying, they never know the forum rules."
> 
> Ah, the ignorance of teenagers. And before my rant, for the record, no, I was never this bad...
> 
> So we bash people who don't like Vista, then bash their computers, and then bash their computer intelligence?


and then u bash peoples sigs? I see


----------



## porterjw

INTELCRAZY said:


> There ya go...



Ahhh, and here I was looking for 'over-confident'


----------



## porterjw

ThatGuy16 said:


> fixed
> 
> im surprised this thread hasn't been locked already...
> 
> Just leave it alone... its going to be alright... i promise



Heh, love the 'fix' 

I'm completely floored this Thread is still Post-able.


----------



## Motoxrdude

Jabes said:


> well u don't like my sig right?
> and then u bash peoples sigs? I see


Umm, wow. arguing with you, no pun intended, is like arguing with a dog; whats the point; it's not like it can understand you.


----------



## Jabes

Motoxrdude said:


> Umm, wow. arguing with you, no pun intended, is like arguing with a dog; whats the point; it's not like it can understand you.



haha its fun especially wen ur bored


----------



## INTELCRAZY

imsati said:


> Ahhh, and here I was looking for 'over-confident'



1.	utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion in spite of all appeals, urgings, etc.
2.	too hard to cut, break, or pierce.
–noun
3.	any impenetrably or unyieldingly hard substance.
4.	a legendary stone of impenetrable hardness, formerly sometimes identified with the diamond.


----------



## porterjw

Jabes said:


> no I don't post from a cell phone *y r u sayin that my I don't have proper sentece structure*



 Spelling, too, let's not forget the spelling.



> and then u bash peoples sigs? I see



I was not bashing your sig. I was implying that it is offensive, arrogant, and ignorant due to it's perception of the following:

1 - people who don't like Vista are idiots
2 - People who have an older system that works fine for their needs, but cannot run Vista are idiots
3 - new Posters to these Forums that have a question are idiots.


----------



## Jabes

INTELCRAZY said:


> 1.	utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion in spite of all appeals, urgings, etc.
> 2.	too hard to cut, break, or pierce.
> –noun
> 3.	any impenetrably or unyieldingly hard substance.
> 4.	a legendary stone of impenetrable hardness, formerly sometimes identified with the diamond.



hmm that sounds like me  did I tell you my friends list went up? lol


----------



## porterjw

INTELCRAZY said:


> 1.	utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion in spite of all appeals, urgings, etc.
> 2.	too hard to cut, break, or pierce.
> –noun
> 3.	any impenetrably or unyieldingly hard substance.
> 4.	a legendary stone of impenetrable hardness, formerly sometimes identified with the diamond.



Thank you for the definition, though I am well-aware of it's meaning. I was looking for a Post referring to 'over-confident' though, not 'most-adamant'.

Only semantics, it's all good


----------



## PC eye

Kabu said:


> I did a lot of research before I decided to buy a new PC with a Vista OS. Even though the majority bash it, I really like it. Now I have Vista and 2 Gigs, works wonderfully and all of my proggies save one work with Vista. I am even using a photo editing program that I got 8 years ago and it works fine. All my hardware and peripherals work just as well with Vista as they did with my XP and 1 Gig.
> 
> Vista runs slow because of Superfetch and all the little things it does automatically so you don't have to think about them, like defragging and such. There are numerous tweaks you can use to make Vista's performance better and faster.
> 
> One quick note, as it's been touched on in another thread (or it may have been this one) putting 4 Gigs in a 32 bit won't do you any good at all. Here's a link to the explanation ... http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html


 
 Since you like to research before commenting you may want to look over the additional information on the thread seen at  http://www.computerforum.com/98930-why-vista-slower-then-xp.html


----------



## INTELCRAZY

imsati said:


> Thank you for the definition, though I am well-aware of it's meaning. I was looking for a Post referring to 'over-confident' though, not 'most-adamant'.
> 
> Only semantics, it's all good



It's the same thing... Both could be boiled down to "stubborn"...


----------



## amosf

Jabes said:


> no I don't post from a cell phone y r u sayin that my I don't have proper sentece structure  most of the time I'm typing in between doing other stuff
> 
> well u don't like my sig right?
> and then u bash peoples sigs? I see



I'm typing between other things as well, silly. That's no excuse to post the mush you post. It just comes across as completely lazy. 

And I agree the sig is just offensive. If your parents can't buy you the latest gaming system then you are an idiot. 

Oh to be young again and know it all


----------



## Motoxrdude

amosf said:


> Oh to be young again and know it all



O i know, those where the days.


----------



## Jabes

amosf said:


> I'm typing between other things as well, silly. That's no excuse to post the mush you post. It just comes across as completely lazy.
> 
> And I agree the sig is just offensive. If your parents can't buy you the latest gaming system then you are an idiot.
> 
> Oh to be young again and know it all



why does everybody think my parents bought my rig isn't that wat ur saying I bought it myself when I worked during the sumer


----------



## tuxify

Ubuntu!!!!!


----------



## Motoxrdude

Jabes said:


> why does everybody think my parents bought my rig isn't that wat ur saying I bought it myself when I worked during the sumer



Why does everybody think my parents bought me this rig? Isn't that what you  are saying? I bought this myself using the money I made from working over the summer.

So how much more readable that is?



tuxify said:


> Ubuntu!!!!!



x2


----------



## Jabes

Motoxrdude said:


> Why does everybody think my parents bought me this rig? Isn't that what you  are saying? I bought this myself using the money I made from working over the summer.
> 
> So how much more readable that is?



yea I agree I guess I do need to look at my posts more


----------



## patrickv

jabes wazzap , with the sig ? still on it ?
haven't you removed it yet ?


----------



## Jabes

patrickv said:


> jabes wazzap , with the sig ? still on it ?
> haven't you removed it yet ?



I still got it I'm keepin it lol


----------



## Kornowski

> Im going to make some popcorn, anyone want some?



I'll have some! Jeez!


----------



## ThatGuy16

name, address? money for shipping??

It might be a little old and have some mold by the time it gets there.. but ill pack some extra butter for ya 

if you get sick... well atleast you won't be at home reading this thread


----------



## Kornowski

lol, Erm, 123 Fake Street, I'll fax you the money 

Yeah, that'd be a good thing wouldn't it... XP, Vista, what does it matter!


----------



## DrCuddles

Haha... Mouldy popcorn 

Cant be as bad as 10 year old curry powder, eh dan?


----------



## Jabes

ThatGuy16 said:


> name, address? money for shipping??
> 
> It might be a little old and have some mold by the time it gets there.. but ill pack some extra butter for ya
> 
> if you get sick... well atleast you won't be at home reading this thread



u sending mine I'll take it overnight


----------



## ThatGuy16

haha ok, by the time you get. all the fun in this thread will be over 

so one order for fake street?


----------



## tlarkin

INTELCRAZY said:


> Too early for that crap...



IBM and Apple are already using EFI, so no its not too early at all.  In fact every intel based Mac runs EFI as well as some of the more powerful Blade servers and such.


----------



## Kornowski

> Haha... Mouldy popcorn
> 
> Cant be as bad as 10 year old curry powder, eh dan?



lol, No way man! I can't believe you ate that!


----------



## tobywuk

Im currently using Vista and im thinking of going back to XP. My system is not the best, but its not the slowest either and I do get some issues with Vista. I find some programs close and sometimes I get bursts of lagg. Im also not so sure on the way things work an i just felt XP was more reliable.

I have just purchased a macbook and I have to say Leopard is amazing. Im not realy a mac fan but the more I use it the more I like it and i think im slowly turning in to one. This is coming from a windows fan by the way.


----------



## tlarkin

tobywuk said:


> Im currently using Vista and im thinking of going back to XP. My system is not the best, but its not the slowest either and I do get some issues with Vista. I find some programs close and sometimes I get bursts of lagg. Im also not so sure on the way things work an i just felt XP was more reliable.
> 
> I have just purchased a macbook and I have to say Leopard is amazing. Im not realy a mac fan but the more I use it the more I like it and i think im slowly turning in to one. This is coming from a windows fan by the way.



Just don't get too comfy with Time Machine, it is kind of buggy.  A lot of discussions going on with some of the bugs.  TM for me has worked so far, but I honestly barely use it.


----------



## DCIScouts

While there is a certain amount of leeway to be allowed, this thread has run its course, as made evident by the last few pages of off-topic posts...  Thread closed. (except the last 2 posts... )


----------

