Discussion in 'General Nonsense' started by spearman914, Feb 13, 2009.
So my computer teacher is pretty much an XP fanboy, here's an exact quote i got from him.
omg wtf? lol!!!!! n00b teacher pwned!!!! kthnkxbye.
They should hire people with degrees in what they teach in public schools. :\
LOL, bet he was on the mojave commercial.
Yeah perfect mojave commercial material:
What would you rate vista?
Have you ever used vista?
NO I HEARD BAD THINGS SO I HAVE NEVER USED IT. I RATE IT ZERO.
Here's Windows Mojave moving pictures off a camera. What do you think?
PERFECT TEN. VOSTA SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE THIS.
What would you say if I told you this was vista?
I WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT BECAUSE VISTA IS BAD AND THAT WAS GOOD. OH WOW I WILL USE THE VOSTA NOW.
Nice! Kinda like the teacher that told her student to stop giving away Linux in class and wrote the distributor of the version to let them know that some kids were "pirating" their operating software.
She got a nice letter from the distro producer that ripped her to a grade school teacher. Wish I could find that again.
ahhh that's hilarious! I didn't hear about that.
That teacher needs a nice cup of STFU.
Schools are no place for propagation of bias (although it happens--a lot).
I agree 100%
Oh yea Vista .. progress ... needs 6000cc turbo diesel engine to run , but who cares .
You may agree, but that makes you incorrect.
I think hes kinda right but probably dosen't know why, vista is a memory hog, its not exactly crap but most of it is useless features and DX10, if it were not for DX10 I would NOT use vista, 7 maybe, vista hellz to the no.
it looks nice lol,
but i really don't like vista because when i tested longhorn, alot of the recommendations i sent i were not solved, but somehow are there in 7, which is why i look at vista as beta software still.
Vista is not a memory hog like people make it out to be. It's called Superfetch. It uses that ram for a reason. If a program comes along that needs that ram, Vista quits using it.
So having a bunch of free memory and nothing loaded, like your favorite programs so they launch faster, is a good thing? Personally after using Vista and now Windows 7 I hate my compy at work for how long it takes to load my normal everyday sfotware. Vista and Windows 7 keep it loaded, and or preload it. It takes little time to page out, or to just dump when the time for a program to get more RAM comes.
When I started using Linux may years ago, they had the same false bias by users, only those who understod what is going on really get it. More free RAM does NOT equate to better performance.
That is the complete truth; it aims to use about either half of your available RAM, or uses about 1 - 1.5 GB when you've got 3 GB or more (I have 4, only registers 3, and with 3 F@H processes running it uses 1.25 GB of RAM).
Most people complaining about Vista now are the same kind of people that tried XP without SP1 or 2 and are basing their judgements on that. Also, the driver issue was quite bad, mainly thanks to the manufacturers and not MS.
And to anyone reading this; please don't turn this into a Vista vs XP thread! We all know Vista wins, just ACCEPT it!
I actually wish vista used more ram. Currently, with Vista pretty much untweaked, excpet shutting services down that continualy piss me off like UAC, and others that piss me off in the background like remote access and remote registry. I did shut off the sidebar because it's useless IMO. The best thing about it was the weather thing that worked great until the temperature got stuck at 37*, even though it was over 50* outside. So yeah vista, superfetch, F@H gpu client, IE, utorrent and of course task manager I am using 1.24GB. Even Crysis takes 1.5GB at the extreme most, so I am still left with 5.26GB. I am thinking of selling 4GB of my ram to a friend who might be building a new computer. He has a PIII computer that my uncle built for him 10 years ago, and apparantly his dog ran into it, knocked it over and killed the motherboard, which sounds like a whole new computer to me considering that it was a PIII. I will probably sell him 4GB of my 8GB for $20. Win/win, I get $20, and he gets 4GB of kickass ram that wasn't really being used before anyway.
I think she's right...XP is the best...Peace...
LOL I'm upgrading from XP to Vista tomorrow I must say based from the threads here mostly have said Vista is better than XP from their experience.
As for me it's pretty much meh. I could go one way or the other. There are only 3 things I like about vista that XP didn't have:
Disk Defragmenter is supposed to be more thorough and defrags both discs at once
Anyone with a degree in something is intelligent enough not to become a teacher. Why would you waste your time teaching some annoying wiseguys when you can make money instead?
Fanboys don't speak truth. Your teacher did. Vista sucks, not because it's a memory hog and a snail slow OS when it comes to actually running anything, but because of these two simple questions: what can it do that XP can't? and how does that help you?
Run DX10 applications. Apart from that it offers new features like superfetch, improved security, aero (which I find useless though), etc.
It's certainly not a memory hog or a "snail slow OS when it comes to actually running anything", though feel free to show me some numbers that show I'm wrong.
Apart from that your logic is flawed, because not offering anything new in your eyes doesn't make it a worse platform, just the same.
If you're expected to pay money for it, it makes it a worse offer.
What DX10 applications?
Improved security is not a feature, it's a must.
Aero is also not a feature, it's a god damned theme and that's all. Vista without Aero is exactly like running XP in Classic Mode. Aero is the exact equivalent of Luna.
Here, numbers galore: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html
So yeah Superfetch is a beast. It makes your programs open faster though mainly because of it they run slower in fact making you waste more time.
But yeah man I remember having tons of conversations like this during the Windows Millennium times.
My conclusion: history will draw a conclusion over this matter not I. And in 1 years time Vista will be history...
I bet this same teacher thought the same about Windows ME!
(I still have nightmares about Windows ME)
XP isn't free either, so how is that an issue. Things being a must are still features. TCP support nowadays is also a must, but still a feature. Support to view pictures is also a must and yet still a feature.
Those tests are for 2007, we all know there have been plenty of improvements since then. And even when looking at the conclusion of those benchmarks, it's either the same or "slightly slower".
Fact is, Vista is the first of its generation so yes it's not as great as it could have been, Windows 7 should be a more mature version of it basically. XP had the same problems at launch. And XP was basically an upgrade of Windows 2000, same driver model and all.
And surely from a marketing standpoint you could find Vista nasty, pricing doesn't change anything about the product itself though. A product isn't suddenly worse when it's twice as expensive, it's the same product. Vista works fine, its different, it costs money, people have to get used to it. But overall I don't see any reason to flame it like you do.
The issues is that if you own XP and XP does everything that Vista does, that is money thrown away.
I meant to say new features, I thought it was clear, features that XP lacked. If you follow your logic the calculator would be also a feature. Sorry I didn't see the date on that article, the CES 2009 banner confused me, but that was the first semi reliable source I found.
So let me put it this way: for me Vista does nothing. If it works for you then good. It's not like I hate it or anything. It does it's job, only a bit slow for my taste. As for flaming, I wouldn't do that with a mod now would I?
Separate names with a comma.