I happend to browse on Techpowerup.com, and i saw this thread slipping by. I have to tell you i've tried the beta version of vista, i know, a beta is not the final product, but it gives a nice impression on Vista itself.
After the First public version was released, i gave it a go. All my hardware was'nt incompatible so that would kill the issue with outdated hardware. The real problem is within the way vista works. UAC, the Permission denied on your own files thing
, the way some games don't work since the strange implementation of OpenGL (and i use a Ati card), the generally lower-fps in games, or 3dmark ofcourse, the stuck 345 days remaining on a simple folder of 3GB while trying to move / copy.
Other sidenote is that Vista uses your memory on a well matter. It caches alot and it makes your programs startup faster (hence they are cached in the system memory). XP instead only caches what it needs and keeps the rest of your memory reserved for applications. This part is indeed improved. Also the Disk caching looks improved, but this could be done on XP too by changing the default '512KB' towards '4096KB' which works like a charm on every system.
Outlook express is replaced by Windows Mail. Nice and all, but if your EVER trying to go back towards Outlook express, there's nearly no support except for 3rd party to use your imported mail from Windows mail back towards Outlook express. This is a real shame. They should have made it somehow backwards compatible.
I see some postings about how MS did not 'force' Vista into the crows, well wake your eyes up, OEM systems are these days with Vista only. There are hardly new systems with XP only, and the actuall selling of XP ends somehow soon.
If anyone used a Nforce 3 motherboard with an Ati Graphics card, they proberly figured out the issue with Nvidia about quitting their support on these combinations. I had alot of customers who angry returned their stuff for not getting any support based upon these combo. Vista does not work on these platforms.
Another nice example, of how MS really did 'force' to get gamers in the first place Vista, was Halo 2, which seemed impossible to play on any other OS then vista right? A few weeks later, some releasegroup showed how it wether was possible to even run this game on XP, and proved a point with MS still shoving vista upons alot of people their butts.
Btw... Another example is the implementation of Windows live messenger, how impossible its being made to even use an older version of MSN/Live messenger, and basicly forcing people with a slower computer to upgrade, in order to keep their computer running fine with Live messenger. Heck, i cannot even startup Windows messenger ( the classic one ) without getting a notice that i HAVE TO DOWNLOAD the new version in order to continue. And look, the latest live messenger with a shitload of ADS, TOOLBARS, FAMILY-SAFETY and what more! They control it, they decide how it goes, and sometimes i dont have a choice either to just click 'ok' and sigh the whole night about it.
DX10 was never really hacked/cracked or whatsoever to run on XP. This was a clear choice back on the release of Vista, to make it Vista only. Cause for what reason would vista be better if DX10 was also on XP?
it's technically possible to have DX10 on XP, but it requires adjustment of basicly half windows XP, and thats something MS is not going todo. Too much risk, and even John carmack said it , that DX10 is possible on XP. The choice is at MS , and they are not going todo it.
I might switch onto vista one of these days. Is there any reason why i should not to after i posted a few reasons for this?
a 40GB 2.5" drive over USB 1.1 got faster response times than the 15GB it has internally... made me realise a new drive just might make it faster.
" go the retrotechs, as they wander off in search of a Pentium II.