Sunday, May 25th 2008

Technology Analyst: Get Over Vista Hate

A reporter and technology analyst for the Washington Post recently took a rather strong point of view regarding Windows Vista and XP. He accepts that Vista has it's flaws, such as "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products." However, he points out that the current market behavior, which is something along the lines of "don't upgrade until Vista gets better, and beg to keep XP on shelves" is not doing Vista or Microsoft any good. He points out that XP is not a historic monument in need of preservation, and is more like an old car: it's had a good run, but in view of some XP flaws when compared to Vista strongpoints, it's time to move on. The analyst also pointed out that fundamental supply/demand economics is keeping Vista from rising to greatness. As long as the market holds on to XP, and refuses to move on to Vista, software makers will not see a very good reason to adopt or support Vista, which causes most of the problems Vista has today. You can read more details at the source link.Source: Daily Tech
Add your own comment

157 Comments on Technology Analyst: Get Over Vista Hate

#1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
newconroer said:
Rather that was an initial impression, which was ballooned across the air waves, and those that don't know otherwise bought into it, especially those who are anti-MS, which is a ridiculously high amount of end-users.

If you learn how Windows is built, you would see where Vista differs quite a bit. You would also understand the differences and supposed minimal differences that result in this 'very little benefit' attitude that you and others seem to have, because you're such knowledgeable and informed computer engineers...

Vista runs like ass when it's not properly maintenanced and slimmed, because Windows, true to it's heritage, is bloated for the basic home user or gamer; because it's NOT Unix, and it's not suppose to be. The same is true of XP. It's just lighter on the resources, so thus 'slimming' and 'maintenancing' are less required.

Basically it comes down to "I don't know how to take care of my XP, but it still runs fine, so why bother?" Then the user runs Vista, doesn't get the same performance and says "Vista sucks."
Why should one care about what Vista is made of? I don't care what it's made of, I don't want such steep requirements, I don't want erratic behavior, I want all my DirectSound apps which were hardware accelerated in XP to work just the same. If Vista doesn't give me that, I won't go back to it. I'm not an idiot to go back to XP, all my apps work faster. I would be an idiot to let all my apps run slower just because the OS wants to show me pretty emo/gay graphics, animation, etc.

It was deliberate of MS to not release Direct X 10 for XP because then there's no real reason for me to upgrade.

newconroer said:
The author of the article was absolutley right. The more idiots hang-on to XP based on unfounded claims and myth-based reasoning, the more difficult it is for Vista to replace it, and subsequentley for developers to make use of it.
Let XP have DirectX 10, let users tell the difference.

The OS shouldn't be the most decisive factor, it should be something that's negligible and lets people run any compatible application on it. All Microsoft wants is $200 from each one of us every 2 years or so, so their bosses could take kids on a sail to Monaco. Who knows, there could just be a DirectX 11 that forces every user to spend $200 more and upgrade their OS in about a couple of years time.

People don't buy computers to run an OS, they buy it to run applications.
Posted on Reply
#2
Rebo&Zooty
btarunr said:
Why should one care about what Vista is made of? I don't care what it's made of, I don't want such steep requirements, I don't want erratic behavior, I want all my DirectSound apps which were hardware accelerated in XP to work just the same. If Vista doesn't give me that, I won't go back to it. I'm not an idiot to go back to XP, all my apps work faster. I would be an idiot to let all my apps run slower just because the OS wants to show me pretty emo/gay graphics, animation, etc.

It was deliberate of MS to not release Direct X 10 for XP because then there's no real reason for me to upgrade.



Let XP have DirectX 10, let users tell the difference.

The OS shouldn't be the most decisive factor, it should be something that's negligible and lets people run any compatible application on it. All Microsoft wants is $200 from each one of us every 2 years or so, so their bosses could take kids on a sail to Monaco. Who knows, there could just be a DirectX 11 that forces every user to spend $200 more and upgrade their OS in about a couple of years time.

People don't buy computers to run an OS, they buy it to run applications.
now see, you could have condenced that down to "vista sucks" and " microsoft are a bunch of greedy bastards who suck" but it wouldnt have had neerly the impact and infact would have looked a bit silly :P

i would bet you they put out dx11 with windows 7, even though they could support it with vista, just as you said simply to sell more units......
Posted on Reply
#3
Rebo&Zooty
Wile E said:
I agree with the analyst. People need to get over it. Vista is not a bad OS, and XP is getting long in the tooth. It's time to move on, so the developers do too.
ok so we should all shell out 200-300bucks to get vista, then if it runs slow on our systems shell out a few hunderd more to upgrade, oh not to mention the few hundred on top of that to replace possable vista incompatable hardware like 3 printers i own out of 3 one has "beta" drivers for vista and i dont see them ever becoming full drivers.

so yeah, everybody, Wile E says and microsoft say dump xp its shit, move to xp, and if your running server 2003 or xp x64, dump that as well, for servers you should move to server 2008 because 2003 is long in the tooth, and x64 since its based on 2003 is as well.

blah, ms fucking GAVE me vista ultimate, i tryed it, and have tryed it a couple times since as a dual boot, i honestly dont get why or how people can say its so much better then 2003/x64pro.......oh yeah areo......wait i dissable that useless shit............if i want areo effects under xp/x64 i got 5 ways i can get that with 1/10th the system requierments and performance impact........so without replacing hardware i can get that oh so pretty vista feel, then dissable it after a week or 2 when it gets boring :P
Posted on Reply
#4
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
Why should one care about what Vista is made of? I don't care what it's made of, I don't want such steep requirements, I don't want erratic behavior, I want all my DirectSound apps which were hardware accelerated in XP to work just the same. If Vista doesn't give me that, I won't go back to it. I'm not an idiot to go back to XP, all my apps work faster. I would be an idiot to let all my apps run slower just because the OS wants to show me pretty emo/gay graphics, animation, etc.

It was deliberate of MS to not release Direct X 10 for XP because then there's no real reason for me to upgrade.



Let XP have DirectX 10, let users tell the difference.

The OS shouldn't be the most decisive factor, it should be something that's negligible and lets people run any compatible application on it. All Microsoft wants is $200 from each one of us every 2 years or so, so their bosses could take kids on a sail to Monaco. Who knows, there could just be a DirectX 11 that forces every user to spend $200 more and upgrade their OS in about a couple of years time.

People don't buy computers to run an OS, they buy it to run applications.
The performance hit with Vista is vastly over-exaggerated, and in many cases, completely non-existent. That's no longer a valid excuse, yet it's the first one that haters mention.

And who cares that MS releases an OS to make money? They're a business, that's what they do. Releasing DX10 to XP would make no sense what so ever from a business standpoint. The whole computer industry is built on forced obsolescence, why should MS be any different?

Lets face it, most haters don't want to buy Vista just because they don't like it. And that's fine. It's their choice. But the FUD about it needs to stop.
Posted on Reply
#5
Wile E
Power User
Rebo&Zooty said:
ok so we should all shell out 200-300bucks to get vista, then if it runs slow on our systems shell out a few hunderd more to upgrade, oh not to mention the few hundred on top of that to replace possable vista incompatable hardware like 3 printers i own out of 3 one has "beta" drivers for vista and i dont see them ever becoming full drivers.

so yeah, everybody, Wile E says and microsoft say dump xp its shit, move to xp, and if your running server 2003 or xp x64, dump that as well, for servers you should move to server 2008 because 2003 is long in the tooth, and x64 since its based on 2003 is as well.

blah, ms fucking GAVE me vista ultimate, i tryed it, and have tryed it a couple times since as a dual boot, i honestly dont get why or how people can say its so much better then 2003/x64pro.......oh yeah areo......wait i dissable that useless shit............if i want areo effects under xp/x64 i got 5 ways i can get that with 1/10th the system requierments and performance impact........so without replacing hardware i can get that oh so pretty vista feel, then dissable it after a week or 2 when it gets boring :P
Aero has no performance impact. It's already been proven.

And you don't like a fancy UI. That's fine. Nobody said you had to. Vista still has the Classic UI as well.

As for printers, not having drivers is not the fault of Vista. It's the fault of whoever made them. Pester the manufacturer about it. But don't sit there and say Vista sucks because of it. How much hardware never got proper support in the ME to XP transition?

And this isn't about server grade OSes. I never made that claim, nor did I ever suggest that mission critical applications should switch to 08 or Vista. That's not the scope of this article. Desktop users are the scope of this article.

So far, all I ever see out of the haters is FUD. Hell, a good majority of the haters haven't even tried the OS, let alone actually know something about it.
Posted on Reply
#6
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Wile E said:
The performance hit with Vista is vastly over-exaggerated, and in many cases, completely non-existent. That's no longer a valid excuse, yet it's the first one that haters mention.

And who cares that MS releases an OS to make money? They're a business, that's what they do. Releasing DX10 to XP would make no sense what so ever from a business standpoint. The whole computer industry is built on forced obsolescence, why should MS be any different?

Lets face it, most haters don't want to buy Vista just because they don't like it. And that's fine. It's their choice. But the FUD about it needs to stop.
It's not only about performance hits, its about lack of hardware acceleration for DirectSound applications/games. So they remove a critical feature from the original DirectX 10., force people with hardware-accelerated sound-cards to use software acceleration, high latencies, etc. So I'm talking about a genuine issue.

Secondly, if they're in a mood to force us to upgrades, the best retaliation is already delivered, that I'm not interested in an upgrade just for the sake of pretty UI and DirectX 10, I'd rather buy a PS3. The reason people are clinging on to XP is because Microsoft didn't deliver the upgrade as a hospitable upgrade like Windows 98 -> XP where 98 was capable to run DirectX 9, and the latest hardware then carried drivers for both 98 and 2000/XP and so gradually people moved on to XP with upgrades in hardware. Now, they're forcing an upgrade. "No Vista, scr** off, no latest games for you."

If I'm just another Office software user, and I have the latest Office suite installed and third-party security software installed, there's simply no reason for me to switch to Vista, an OS that's heavy on the resources. The CEO of NVidia was damn right in saying "If you want the fastest machine for Excel, you've already made it two years ago".
Posted on Reply
#7
Megasty
I have so many people in my house using so many different setups its a shame. I update their rigs according to their needs & obiviously the kids' rigs are more similar to mine then the adults'. One thing is a constant with all the rigs: they all have vista. I don't have time to hear all the darn complaints about slow crashing desktops & laptops. The only thing I made sure of is that the systems could completely handle vista. I have my own problems with vista & I deal with them as they come up but if a house with 13 vista users can switch over from XP with minimum difficulty then I don't see what's all the fuss is about.
Posted on Reply
#8
Rebo&Zooty
Wile E said:
Aero has no performance impact. It's already been proven.

And you don't like a fancy UI. That's fine. Nobody said you had to. Vista still has the Classic UI as well.

As for printers, not having drivers is not the fault of Vista. It's the fault of whoever made them. Pester the manufacturer about it. But don't sit there and say Vista sucks because of it. How much hardware never got proper support in the ME to XP transition?

And this isn't about server grade OSes. I never made that claim, nor did I ever suggest that mission critical applications should switch to 08 or Vista. That's not the scope of this article. Desktop users are the scope of this article.

So far, all I ever see out of the haters is FUD. Hell, a good majority of the haters haven't even tried the OS, let alone actually know something about it.
first, i have had old printers that didnt have spicific drivers under 2k/xp, BUT i could install an epson printer driver(the basick one from windows) and could print text, vista wouldnt let me to that, and since all i tend to print is text i would have been happy, it kept telling me i needed a spicific driver, dispite using a printer port NOT USB(i could understand the usb thing, but ltp port.....should have a basic text compatable print driver built in for old printers alot of busnesses still use like dotmatrix,inkjet and even old laser printers that nolonger have a company behind them( i have an ANCIENT laser printer in the other room thats the size of a small copy machien, can get toner for it, its steller for text, but vista dont got a text only print driver)

and your saying i haven tryed vista because i dont like it and how it works?

and the "proof" that areo has no impact has from what i have seen only been done on higher end machiens, yet you and many other vista advocates would have ppl installing it on systems with nvidia fx line or intel GMA chipsets where, to be kind it would suck the life out of the system...i have seen what areo runs like on an fx5500 card, u know xp when your using the basic vga driver, how windows studder when you move them, thats about what it felt like, and yes thats with "up to date" drivers for the videocard, i dont even wana imagin areo on intel GMA chipsets they are so bad......

there are ways to get the same fx that areo gives without need for dx9 hardware with effectivly no perf impact.

oh, u know what i dont get, why didnt ms just dump dx9 support fully on vista, force you to dual boot xp so you could play dx9 games, and requier dx10 gfx card to get areo, i mean its good that they want to make as much $ as possable off people, so they could force OEM's to sell people xp and vista dubbling their licence sales per system!!!!

they should have done that, i guarntee there would be people on here saying it was the koolist best move ms ever made as they ordered another xp licence for 150bucks and a vista licence for 200.
Posted on Reply
#9
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
It's not only about performance hits, its about lack of hardware acceleration for DirectSound applications/games. So they remove a critical feature from the original DirectX 10., force people with hardware-accelerated sound-cards to use software acceleration, high latencies, etc. So I'm talking about a genuine issue.

Secondly, if they're in a mood to force us to upgrades, the best retaliation is already delivered, that I'm not interested in an upgrade just for the sake of pretty UI and DirectX 10, I'd rather buy a PS3. The reason people are clinging on Vista is because Microsoft didn't deliver the upgrade as a hospitable upgrade like Windows 98 -> XP where 98 was capable to run DirectX 9, and the latest hardware then carried drivers for both 98 and 2000/XP and so gradually people moved on to XP with upgrades in hardware. Now, they're forcing an upgrade. "No Vista, scr** off, no latest games for you."

If I'm just another Office software user, and I have the latest Office suite installed and third-party security software installed, there's simply no reason for me to switch to Vista, an OS that's heavy on the resources. The CEO of NVidia was damn right in saying "If you want the fastest machine for Excel, you've already made it two years ago".
Most of the latest hardware now carries drivers for both XP and Vista. The situation here is no different than the 98/ME->XP transition. In fact, as I remember it first hand, 98/ME->XP was even worse than this transition as far as driver support. I don't remember "hospitable" being one of the words used to describe it for me. lol.

As far as DX, I still don't get your argument. MS had every right to lock DX10 to Vista. It was a business decision, and one that will pan out for them in the long run. People need to get over it. Either choose to have DX10, or don't. But quit bitching about it, because it isn't coming to XP.

And again, Vista's resource usage is vastly over-exaggerated. It takes nowhere near the performance hit that the community makes it out to.

The only valid argument so far is the lack of audio acceleration. Which, I agree, is very upsetting. I would much rather have it hardware accelerated. I, personally, don't find that a big enough flaw to make me pass on Vista completely, but that's one of those "to each his own" things.
Posted on Reply
#10
Rebo&Zooty
Megasty said:
I have so many people in my house using so many different setups its a shame. I update their rigs according to their needs & obiviously the kids' rigs are more similar to mine then the adults'. One thing is a constant with all the rigs: they all have vista. I don't have time to hear all the darn complaints about slow crashing desktops & laptops. The only thing I made sure of is that the systems could completely handle vista. I have my own problems with vista & I deal with them as they come up but if a house with 13 vista users can switch over from XP with minimum difficulty then I don't see what's all the fuss is about.
you really got no idea how stupid the avrage user is.

homes with that many pc's DO NOT HAVE AVRAGE USERS, try dealing with "rich" people who think they know it all, but cant even understand that if something on their task bar is blinking they need to click it.

or who think they know alot and that they want the best, then who run out and buy referb compaq's simpley because they are so cheap(omg 150 bucks for a computer!!!!1111)

then try teaching them to switch from xp to vista, jesus, you have ZERO idea how hard it is to switch people to vista who have NO FUCKING CLUE about how to do even common everyday things most of us do, like copy and paist without using the edit menu........

vista also gives them fits when they buy a new printer, my father had to call dell and have dell remote desktop install his new color laser printer(i could have but theres a reasion i told him to get a dell) the HP drivers wouldnt install, it WAS NOT THE DRIVERS FAULT, vista was blocking them, even the dell guy took 3 trys to get it working, and he had done it before........

why make things so complicated/hard?

i tryed hard to like vista, i know some of you will say i have never used it, but honestly i really did try and like it, im not a noobie, i dont lack experiance with working around weirdness in windows or debuging settups, i was one of the first people running server 2003 as a workstation for example, i just couldnt take how vista acts, and performs compared to server 2003/x64pro, its slower, buggyer, and gives me problems with more apps.....how is that better?

oh yeah forgot, areo.........
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
I anticipate a "but you can play Crysis on XP" post. Let me clear the air:

Remedy Entertainment (the guys that made Max Payne) have announced more than six months ago that:

1. Their upcoming game Alan Wake will only run on Vista (and there will be an Xbox360 version).

2. They demonstrated the game during IDF 2007 to kiss Intel's arse and promoting Core 2 Quad saying "it runs best on quad-core, you can dedicate a whole core to physics processing....blah" but what's most funny is that the machine which demonstrated the game in the IDF was running an OC'ed GeForce 7900 GTX! (a card that isn't even SM 4.0 compliant).
Posted on Reply
#12
Wile E
Power User
Rebo&Zooty said:
first, i have had old printers that didnt have spicific drivers under 2k/xp, BUT i could install an epson printer driver(the basick one from windows) and could print text, vista wouldnt let me to that, and since all i tend to print is text i would have been happy, it kept telling me i needed a spicific driver, dispite using a printer port NOT USB(i could understand the usb thing, but ltp port.....should have a basic text compatable print driver built in for old printers alot of busnesses still use like dotmatrix,inkjet and even old laser printers that nolonger have a company behind them( i have an ANCIENT laser printer in the other room thats the size of a small copy machien, can get toner for it, its steller for text, but vista dont got a text only print driver)

and your saying i haven tryed vista because i dont like it and how it works?

and the "proof" that areo has no impact has from what i have seen only been done on higher end machiens, yet you and many other vista advocates would have ppl installing it on systems with nvidia fx line or intel GMA chipsets where, to be kind it would suck the life out of the system...i have seen what areo runs like on an fx5500 card, u know xp when your using the basic vga driver, how windows studder when you move them, thats about what it felt like, and yes thats with "up to date" drivers for the videocard, i dont even wana imagin areo on intel GMA chipsets they are so bad......

there are ways to get the same fx that areo gives without need for dx9 hardware with effectivly no perf impact.

oh, u know what i dont get, why didnt ms just dump dx9 support fully on vista, force you to dual boot xp so you could play dx9 games, and requier dx10 gfx card to get areo, i mean its good that they want to make as much $ as possable off people, so they could force OEM's to sell people xp and vista dubbling their licence sales per system!!!!

they should have done that, i guarntee there would be people on here saying it was the koolist best move ms ever made as they ordered another xp licence for 150bucks and a vista licence for 200.
There was something wrong with your test system if Aero affected performance. Aero runs fine on my neighbor's GMA equipped lappy.

And MS could've done that with DX9. You should be grateful that they didn't. My point is that there's no point in bitching about DX10 being Vista only.
Posted on Reply
#13
Rebo&Zooty
Wile E said:
Most of the latest hardware now carries drivers for both XP and Vista. The situation here is no different than the 98/ME->XP transition. In fact, as I remember it first hand, 98/ME->XP was even worse than this transition as far as driver support. I don't remember "hospitable" being one of the words used to describe it for me. lol.

As far as DX, I still don't get your argument. MS had every right to lock DX10 to Vista. It was a business decision, and one that will pan out for them in the long run. People need to get over it. Either choose to have DX10, or don't. But quit bitching about it, because it isn't coming to XP.

And again, Vista's resource usage is vastly over-exaggerated. It takes nowhere near the performance hit that the community makes it out to.

The only valid argument so far is the lack of audio acceleration. Which, I agree, is very upsetting. I would much rather have it hardware accelerated. I, personally, don't find that a big enough flaw to make me pass on Vista completely, but that's one of those "to each his own" things.
ok first, all your systems are above avrage m8, quad core, or ur old setup was what a 6400be? again well above perf of the avrage puter people own or what vista is sold on infact.
check the specs of most puters sold with vista, they come with 512mb-1gb ram.....way to little, enought to use for buisness under XP but not vista.......

as to your pointing at 98/me to xp, well if people would have learned to READ, they would have known that 2k drivers worked on xp, and most hardware from when XP came out had mature 2k drivers, infact every peice of hardware i owned other then a magneto optical drive had mature drivers( panasonic only supported that drive using a wraped unix driver that was beta under 2k, it worked on xp as well but was slow on both, unix it was about 3x as fast :P )

whats the lowist system you have swaped over to vista? full specs.
Posted on Reply
#14
Wile E
Power User
Rebo&Zooty said:
ok first, all your systems are above avrage m8, quad core, or ur old setup was what a 6400be? again well above perf of the avrage puter people own or what vista is sold on infact.
check the specs of most puters sold with vista, they come with 512mb-1gb ram.....way to little, enought to use for buisness under XP but not vista.......

as to your pointing at 98/me to xp, well if people would have learned to READ, they would have known that 2k drivers worked on xp, and most hardware from when XP came out had mature 2k drivers, infact every peice of hardware i owned other then a magneto optical drive had mature drivers( panasonic only supported that drive using a wraped unix driver that was beta under 2k, it worked on xp as well but was slow on both, unix it was about 3x as fast :P )

whats the lowist system you have swaped over to vista? full specs.
3800+ X2, 1GB ram, X300, 40GB IDE HDD. Swapped the X300 for an X1800XT a few weeks later, and played games at the same settings as XP.
Posted on Reply
#15
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Wile E said:
Most of the latest hardware now carries drivers for both XP and Vista. The situation here is no different than the 98/ME->XP transition. In fact, as I remember it first hand, 98/ME->XP was even worse than this transition as far as driver support. I don't remember "hospitable" being one of the words used to describe it for me. lol.
I would call it better because they did release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/Me. And that XP was for the win right away since it proved right away to be more stable than its predecessor and that I could run it smooth on a 400 MHz Celeron + SiS 630 onboard graphics system. I really can't run Vista smooth on a 2.4 GHz P4.
Posted on Reply
#16
Wile E
Power User
btarunr said:
I would call it better because they did release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/Me. And that XP was for the win right away since it proved right away to be more stable than its predecessor and that I could run it smooth on a 400 MHz Celeron + SiS 630 onboard graphics system. I really can't run Vista smooth on a 2.4 GHz P4.
There are people running Vista on P3's. It will run fine on a 2.4Ghz P4. And while it was better than ME, XP was far from stable at it's release. It wasn't a great OS until late SP1 and SP2.
Posted on Reply
#17
Rebo&Zooty
Wile E said:
There was something wrong with your test system if Aero affected performance. Aero runs fine on my neighbor's GMA equipped lappy.

And MS could've done that with DX9. You should be grateful that they didn't. My point is that there's no point in bitching about DX10 being Vista only.
no, u dont get it, i wish they had, because it would have been the death of vista period, i cant think of a singel sain person i know who would have bought vista then, because none of their currnet games would play, and games would be the ONLY thing that would get them to buy vista.

and the GMA i used was from an early 775 dell, also tested on a buddys OLD first gen pentium-m dell with GMA (intel onboard video sux)

weird thing vista says it has 32mb ram, when the bios only offer 1mb 4mb or 8 mb as options o.O must be some driver based forced boost, since i know areo requiers more video memory.

the fx5500 strangely enought ran windowblinds6 fine......no perf impact at all.......

i honestly wish ms had made vista its own product, dumping dx9 and lagacy app support, force everybody to buy new software and hardware, would have been a great way to force people to buy all new software when they got a new pc, or force OEM's to sell dual boot systems, or hell both.
Posted on Reply
#18
Rebo&Zooty
Wile E said:
3800+ X2, 1GB ram, X300, 40GB IDE HDD. Swapped the X300 for an X1800XT a few weeks later, and played games at the same settings as XP.
musta tweaked the shit out of vista then, from all but a few reports i have seen vista dosnt like less then 1.5gb ram.

as to cpu, thats above what many ppl have, x300, again is above what many people's systems have, i know alot of ppl that think they are gamers who have gf4mx cards or 9200 cards still( i know....it makes me lulz as a shake my head.....)

as to vista on a p3, yeah, and i could run xp on a 386 if i wanted, but it will WILL run like ass, infact for the lulz i did use nlite to remove the requierments from xp's installer and put it on a 386 dx40(with cyrex math unit) with 64mb of 32pin memory and a 4gb hdd, oh and the cd drive used was one of the ones pluged into a creative isa sb16 card 2x baby.

it only took like 4hrs to fully install, and ran horribly but it did run, in vista fanboi's eyes that means anybody with a 386 should be install xp since it will run.......rofl


oh and i installed vista on my old duron 1gz, 768mb pc133 ram, 12gb hdd, 32x scsi cdrom, it only took it a little over 3hrs to fully install, oh the videocard was an fx5200 agp with 128mb memory, and yes it ran poorly at 800x600 but it ran, so i guess that means that system should be running vista as well........its on vector linux now since that runs like lightning on damn neer any system with 200+mb ram.
Posted on Reply
#19
Megasty
Rebo&Zooty said:
you really got no idea how stupid the avrage user is.

homes with that many pc's DO NOT HAVE AVRAGE USERS, try dealing with "rich" people who think they know it all, but cant even understand that if something on their task bar is blinking they need to click it.

or who think they know alot and that they want the best, then who run out and buy referb compaq's simpley because they are so cheap(omg 150 bucks for a computer!!!!1111)

then try teaching them to switch from xp to vista, jesus, you have ZERO idea how hard it is to switch people to vista who have NO FUCKING CLUE about how to do even common everyday things most of us do, like copy and paist without using the edit menu........

vista also gives them fits when they buy a new printer, my father had to call dell and have dell remote desktop install his new color laser printer(i could have but theres a reasion i told him to get a dell) the HP drivers wouldnt install, it WAS NOT THE DRIVERS FAULT, vista was blocking them, even the dell guy took 3 trys to get it working, and he had done it before........

why make things so complicated/hard?

i tryed hard to like vista, i know some of you will say i have never used it, but honestly i really did try and like it, im not a noobie, i dont lack experiance with working around weirdness in windows or debuging settups, i was one of the first people running server 2003 as a workstation for example, i just couldnt take how vista acts, and performs compared to server 2003/x64pro, its slower, buggyer, and gives me problems with more apps.....how is that better?

oh yeah forgot, areo.........
Oh god you just struck a nerve :laugh:

My mother is the most computer illiterate person you can find. It took me 8 gd yrs to teach her to use one properly. My 81 yo grandmother is more adapt than her. You don't seem to get that people with those problems have more of a WTH is the screen doing - did I f' it up response when the screensaver comes on rather than why is vista making my pc so slow.

This analyst is more toward those who can upgrade but won't or tried it & said it was garbage. To each its own. If you hate vista then hate it. But to 9 of the folks in my circle, vista is just another pretty desktop screen. They don't even know its called vista & the 3 teenagers don't care as long as it works :roll:
Posted on Reply
#20
Rebo&Zooty
btarunr said:
I would call it better because they did release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/Me. And that XP was for the win right away since it proved right away to be more stable than its predecessor and that I could run it smooth on a 400 MHz Celeron + SiS 630 onboard graphics system. I really can't run Vista smooth on a 2.4 GHz P4.
you could run it smooth on that 2.4, if you overclock the 2.4, add ram, and tweak vista properly :P

as to more stable then its predicessor, wrong, nt4 and 2k where and still are more stable then xp, XP was/is more reliable then 98/me tho since im sure thats what your refering to ;)
Posted on Reply
#21
Rebo&Zooty
Megasty said:
Oh god you just struck a nerve :laugh:

My mother is the most computer illiterate person you can find. It took me 8 gd yrs to teach her to use one properly. My 81 yo grandmother is more adapt than her. You don't seem to get that people with those problems have more of a WTH is the screen doing - did I f' it up response when the screensaver comes on rather than why is vista making my pc so slow.

This analyst is more toward those who can upgrade but won't or tried it & said it was garbage. To each its own. If you hate vista then hate it. But to 9 of the folks in my circle, vista is just another pretty desktop screen. They don't even know its called vista & the 3 teenagers don't care as long as it works :roll:
its not about slow, its about making it harder to use compared to what they already know how to use, and yes i have delt with ppl like that for years, i use to work in computer shops, years and years worth of that, you get tons of that stuff, once had somebody come in because their internet stoped working.......it worked fine......turns out he somehow moved the icon for netscape over a row(his desktop was FULL of shit) and he couldnt see it.......

take an avrage xp user(aka moron) and move them to xp after years of all they have used being xp, they WILL bitch about things they cant get working how they are use to them working, i got a family friend that i finnely gave up and wiped her new HP and GAVE her a copy of xp because i was tired of her calling about not being able to get new hardware she just got working, i mean brand new stuff like epson/cannon photo printers, scaners, it goes on and on, she called and spent hours getting the photo printers working with epson and dell, then on restart it stoped working again.......(no shit 1 reboot and the drivers nolonger where there.....)

i just got tired of fixing it, now that shes back on xp, she can install her own drivers, and configuar her printers herself, as well as update all the system drivers herself, shes not a moron user, she just couldnt get vista to do what she wanted whenshe told it to, even after dissabling UAC(ms told her to re-enable it when she called them for support....rofl)

edit: for got to say, my 86yo great grandfather knew more about puters then my father or mother b4 he died, he lived with uus and asked me to teach him to look up news because he liked to read storys about world events and such, it was a long road, but he learned alot, and even started figuaring things out himself, but i wouldnt have ever considered vista for him, he would have hit me with his cain :P
Posted on Reply
#22
Wile E
Power User
Rebo&Zooty said:
musta tweaked the shit out of vista then, from all but a few reports i have seen vista dosnt like less then 1.5gb ram.

as to cpu, thats above what many ppl have, x300, again is above what many people's systems have, i know alot of ppl that think they are gamers who have gf4mx cards or 9200 cards still( i know....it makes me lulz as a shake my head.....)

as to vista on a p3, yeah, and i could run xp on a 386 if i wanted, but it will WILL run like ass, infact for the lulz i did use nlite to remove the requierments from xp's installer and put it on a 386 dx40(with cyrex math unit) with 64mb of 32pin memory and a 4gb hdd, oh and the cd drive used was one of the ones pluged into a creative isa sb16 card 2x baby.

it only took like 4hrs to fully install, and ran horribly but it did run, in vista fanboi's eyes that means anybody with a 386 should be install xp since it will run.......rofl


oh and i installed vista on my old duron 1gz, 768mb pc133 ram, 12gb hdd, 32x scsi cdrom, it only took it a little over 3hrs to fully install, oh the videocard was an fx5200 agp with 128mb memory, and yes it ran poorly at 800x600 but it ran, so i guess that means that system should be running vista as well........its on vector linux now since that runs like lightning on damn neer any system with 200+mb ram.
No, it ran fine on 1GB, even with gaming. It was untouched. And I never said that everyone should go Vista. You are putting words in my mouth. There's obviously limits. I only brought up the P3's running Vista as an example of how everyone completely over-exaggerates Vista's impact on performance. Vista runs fine on 1GB, even with some gaming. Vista runs fine on P4. Vista runs fine on GMA950. And by fine, I mean 100% usable, without lag, like you are insinuating. Vista may have had a few performance hiccups in the beginning, but those are pretty much taken care of now. And the hiccups it did have were primarily attributed to crappy drivers.

I still haven't seen one credible anti-vista argument here, other than the audio api.
Posted on Reply
#23
Rebo&Zooty
Wile E said:
No, it ran fine on 1GB, even with gaming. It was untouched. And I never said that everyone should go Vista. You are putting words in my mouth. There's obviously limits. I only brought up the P3's running Vista as an example of how everyone completely over-exaggerates Vista's impact on performance. Vista runs fine on 1GB, even with some gaming. Vista runs fine on P4. Vista runs fine on GMA950. And by fine, I mean 100% usable, without lag, like you are insinuating. Vista may have had a few performance hiccups in the beginning, but those are pretty much taken care of now. And the hiccups it did have were primarily attributed to crappy drivers.

I still haven't seen one credible anti-vista argument here, other than the audio api.
how about it blocking recording of tv shows when using its media center fetures?

http://www.betanews.com/article/EFF_says_Microsoft_is_complying_with_NBC_broadcast_flags/1211217801

a feture that was ruled ILLEGAL, and ms is using it to screw people using vista.......nice....guess MORE drm is a good thing tho, since the more drm they add the more it will limmit what your allowed to use their computer for....oh wait i mean your computer.....or wait.......basickly ms owns the system when ur in vista since they at will can fully dissable the OS leaving you with a large paperweight/brick......(check the licence, ms CAN do this and you cant sue for it)
Posted on Reply
#24
Wile E
Power User
Rebo&Zooty said:
how about it blocking recording of tv shows when using its media center fetures?

http://www.betanews.com/article/EFF_says_Microsoft_is_complying_with_NBC_broadcast_flags/1211217801

a feture that was ruled ILLEGAL, and ms is using it to screw people using vista.......nice....guess MORE drm is a good thing tho, since the more drm they add the more it will limmit what your allowed to use their computer for....oh wait i mean your computer.....or wait.......basickly ms owns the system when ur in vista since they at will can fully dissable the OS leaving you with a large paperweight/brick......(check the licence, ms CAN do this and you cant sue for it)
And the DRM is easily defeatable. Not only that, but we deal with crummy drm on any of the OSes. So that's not an argument either.
Posted on Reply
#25
Rebo&Zooty
Wile E said:
And the DRM is easily defeatable. Not only that, but we deal with crummy drm on any of the OSes. So that's not an argument either.
so if i tell you that xp,2k,2k3,x64pro, and any version of linux/unix would record that program without a problem your gonna say thats not vistas fault.

and no there wasnt a work around, i did a little research, the only "fix" is to find 3rd party software to use, and why would you buy a vista media system then want to buy 3rd party software in order to beable to use it for what you bought it for?

and ms CANT leigaly brick a pre vista machien at will, you can sue and will win if they do.
read your vista EULA closely, ms can do whatever they want to you and your system once you move to vista, not that it would stop me from moving if i saw the VALUE in doing so, or if their where more positives then negitives for me.

and as i have said b4, im not linux lover, but saddly, ms is driving more and more people to crappy linux distros like noobuntu and linspire by their acctions with vista.

no pre-vista windows had DRM built into it as part of its core design, do a bit of research, if the mpaa/riaa dont like your videocard/video drivers/sound card/sound drivers they can tell ms to dissable them, this can be a partial dissable or full on block of the driver reverting you to VGA mode/no sound OR they could also dissable it in such a way that you just get no image on your screen......fun.

vista can lower the quility of output on your audio and video subsystems if ms/mpaa/riaa deside your system dosnt meet their standreds, again, no other version of windows or os for that matter has this "feture".

wouldnt you be happy if your 8800 or 2900/38*0 just stoped being able to play movies one day because somebody desided that it wasnt suitable to playback HD content?
of if they degraded it to 320x240 res quility on all content you tryed to play?
or ur sound stoped working or degraded the quility to 32kbps mp3 levels?

these are all things vista CAN DO, and you dont even have to run windows update for this to happen, as the update that happened to the windows update files showed, ms can force an update any time they want, without letting you know they are doing it.

for that last update info, im sure it made these forums, i remmber how big a rough it was, people wherepissed when they found out that ms had snuk in an update to the windows update service files without permission, personaly i didnt care since it was to close a seirous hole in the update service that could have let somebody hax you easly.

but it shows how easly ms can access a windows system, especly vista where by installing it you give them permission to give you a sore ass if they feel like it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment