Haytch

zekrahminatorHe 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."QUOTE]

Thats right, Vista sucks.

I was one of them people that boycott Vista, and went on to replace Vista with XP Pro for every single customer i had. It seemed like a logical step seeing as the average customer did not have STEEP HARDWARE!

I refuse to ' get over it '. I respect my computer and expect from it!

It would be nice if they didnt compare Operating Systems to cars, but since they are, allow me;
Sure XP is an older model, but its like a Ferrari. Whereas, Vista is a brand new piece of crap that struggles to reach the speed limit.

If what is occuring with the general publics reaction to a pathetic solution to XP is effecting the company in a negative mannor, then perhaps they should address the issue!
The whole scam with DX10, exclusive to Vista is the only reason why someone would install Vista willingly, otherwise its simply to check it out.
95% of computers/laptops that come with Vista pre-installed run over 20% more productively and efficiently with XP Pro in it customized.

It's people like you that make a difference when it comes to an new OS, imagine how many other people are doing the same as you, you should sell your customers what they want, not what you want them to have. I can only imagine that some of them have wanted vista but you've been dead against it. I saw the same thing happen when XP came out. A certain local independent PC store wouldn't sell people XP even if they wanted it, as they thought it was a useless piece of crap. I bought a PC from them, I wanted XP, but they insisted that 2000 was much better, even made up lies about it to support it being better. I was about 13 at the time so I didn't know much or anything about computers, but I bought one anyway, I had it for a week and had it returned. So much for 2000 being solid as a rock. The computer was terrible, I had to learn to re-install windows and did so 5 times in the space of a week. I'm not blaming 2000, I'm blaming them, but they obviously didn't know what they were doing. Another thing, you say you think a customized XP pro would make it run over 20% better? I think that's rubbish really. I'm sure you'd complain if some said, why not customize the vista install too would you think "well it shouldn't need to be customized in the first place"? I've used vista my self on daily basis since it was released, and I also use XP on a daily basis at work, and I know which one is more productive my self. People really need to get over this vista vs XP crap. It's an OS, stop acting like MS is trying to take your kids away from you. All these people who "Hate" it, I bet haven't even used it properly before. :shadedshu

Rebo&Zootymusta tweaked the shit out of vista then, from all but a few reports i have seen vista dosnt like less than 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.

kylew

HaytchIt's people like you that make a difference when it comes to an new OS, imagine how many other people are doing the same as you, you should sell your customers what they want, not what you want them to have. I can only imagine that some of them have wanted vista but you've been dead against it. I saw the same thing happen when XP came out. A certain local independent PC store wouldn't sell people XP even if they wanted it, as they thought it was a useless piece of crap. I bought a PC from them, I wanted XP, but they insisted that 2000 was much better, even made up lies about it to support it being better. I was about 13 at the time so I didn't know much or anything about computers, but I bought one anyway, I had it for a week and had it returned. So much for 2000 being solid as a rock. The computer was terrible, I had to learn to re-install windows and did so 5 times in the space of a week. I'm not blaming 2000, I'm blaming them, but they obviously didn't know what they were doing. Another thing, you say you think a customized XP pro would make it run over 20% better? I think that's rubbish really. I'm sure you'd complain if some said, why not customize the vista install too would you think "well it shouldn't need to be customized in the first place"? I've used vista my self on daily basis since it was released, and I also use XP on a daily basis at work, and I know which one is more productive my self. People really need to get over this vista vs XP crap. It's an OS, stop acting like MS is trying to take your kids away from you. All these people who "Hate" it, I bet haven't even used it properly before. :shadedshu

in point of fact, till sp2, 2000 was better then xp, and if the system itself dosnt suck, it stills is.

there are a few reasions for this, XP was put out far to early, it was rushed out because ms needed to replace ME asap, and couldnt use 2k for that since they had pushed hard with marketing that 2k was only for buisness.

2k was brought out as a workstation AND SERVER at same time, same os just server had more stuff preinstalled(server apps), this means that all the updates for 2k pro are the same as the updates given to 2k server, hence ms didnt put out updates untested that could/did bugger peoples systems, buisness's would have gone rabbid if they had.

XP was the first time ms pushed out a desktop/workstation OS so much earlyer then the server side that was ment to support it, 2003 got around 2 years more dev time then xp got(this is from the time that ms marked xp RTM(relese to manufacture) ) by the time 2k3 came out it was rock solid(as a server needs to be) where as xp even with sp2 still isnt reliable enought to be used in a production server roll.

now they did it again with vista, pushed out the home user/desktop/workstation os a year early, then finnely got the server out a year later.......

sp1 was sposta bring vista to the same level as 2008 but.....by some reports it didnt update everything to the same level....another ms promise that didnt come true....like sp5 for windows 2000.

"trust not the microsoft, screw you they will, yesss"

Black HadesWell yes as a conclusion to what many said on this thread, vista is mostly being plagued by the lack of quallity drivers.
Others do not like the negative impact it has on most game's fps..

But come see and listen to what the guru has to say::laugh:
Bill Gates says Vista sucks

I like Vista, I can always turn of what I dont like, but I dislike companies that do not make decent drivers for it. Like my Aetheros chipset WiFi that works whenever it pleases.:mad:

kylewThat's your problem, you act like you won't accept something unless you've seen it yourself, but then say reports on the internet affect your opinion on something. I have ran vista on a 2800 sempron with 512mb RAM and an x800 GPU, it ran good enough for me, but I later added another 512MB and it was smoother and just right. Obviously a higher spec PC would do better with vista, but that's missing the point really. Even a low spec PC is pushing it in XP depending on what you want to do. No one has high spec PCs to just look on the internet and type a few word documents. A low end PC will run vista fine, if you're just doing simple tasks, internet, email, word, and the occasional video or MP3s. In reality (which you don't seem believe exists) a low end PC is what it is, and will always have limited usage. Get over it seriously. As for "tweaking the shit out of vista", I used a vista ultimate installation, and applied NO tweaks.

tigger69I use vista and i record tv using the media centre.

i agree the only bummer is the sound thing,but i've ran vista for a long time now and i have no problems with it.i even got my new sata hdd caddy to hot swap while windows is running.It connects to my onboard sata connectors while its in the machine and usb when i use it portable.I like vista and nothing anyone else says will change my mind.

i think this thread is funny,sooo much vista hate.If you dont like it,fair enuff but why spend so much time in this thread trying to convince people its crap.some people like it and some dont.

And wile e,dont waste any more of your time in this thread mate,your flogging a dead horse.

FreedomEclipseI havent read all the comments yet since there are so many but i though id make this post in light of issues with vista.

- the other day I picked up a fairly big project from one of my mothers friends who had a few problems with their 2 computers & wanted them fixed.

no prizes if u can guess what O/S they were using....vista

- also on the same day. One of the lodgers/guests staying at my mothers friends place also had a problem with their laptop & Internet.

I managed to get their internet working but their laptop was a totally different story I cant even begin to tell you whats wrong with their laptop because it baffles me completely.

what O/S were they using??? = Vista.


not trying to slag/bash vista. but a great majority of average users arent familiar with vista.

some would say its how vista inhibits the straight forward functionality of the O/S

some would say its utter tripe anyway.

im not taking any sides - im trying to remain neutral...

everyone likes new tech. vista is one & cant bash a company with trying to come out with something new.

& its not because most retailers are forcing consumers to run with vista since vista comes pre installed on 90% of all pcs/laptops - but i have been asked by people to fix their vista related issues & even revert their vista to XP for them

I have done about 10 or more downgrades to XP form vista for friends & family

its not that us more advanced users are quick to critasize when something doesnt work. but if is genuinely FAIL then theres nothing more that can be said about it.

& you would think that the sap who was telling people to let go of XP & move to vista would understand.


People hold on to XP for a reason. its simple, basic, straight forward no BS approach while also hogging less resources. - IT WORKS!!!! (the most important thing)

Vista - ok....where do i start? 'whats "NOT" wrong with vista?' IMHO its just a pretty face.

she may look like an angel but can she cook??


If the analyst blames the consumers for holding back progress - its not our problem. we all have the right to decided weather we want to run with XP or Vista.

its not that we dont have the balls to use Vista but the fact is M$ never had any in the first place

--------------

I have tried to keep a totaly unbias approach to my post, I am not mindlessly bashing
- my facts/points are gatherd from events/things that actually happend or are still happening

I will not reply to trolls/flames/flame baits etc

however if you do wish to discuss the topic in a more civil manner please dont hesitate

Wile EI 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.

jocksteelukFor myself XP was a true software upgrade, Vista on the other hand is a sidestep with very little benefit or improvement over xp and no doubt the majority of PC users would agree which is why Vista isn't doing so well.

Rebo&Zootyhow about it blocking recording of tv shows when using its media center fetures?

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)

Wile Eand who cares that MS releases an OS to make money? .

jonmcc33What did Windows XP have that Windows 2000 didn't? Uses far less system resources than Windows XP does too.



Who uses Windows Media Center? Wouldn't it be a good idea to use the software that comes with your TV card? Hmmmmm... :rolleyes:

Easy Rhinothis just in....windows vista requires a faster cpu and more ram to run effeciently than windows xp! in other news...windows xp requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 2000! and in related news...windows 2000 requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 98! coming up on tpu news brief...windows 98 and 95 both require faster cpus and ram than dos 6!!! consumer outcry heard around the world!

beyond_amusiaHere's an example of Vista doing something really good. www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146256/vistas_despised_uac_nails_rootkits_tests_find.html
And to the ppl hatin on Vista because your hardware sucks\lacks drivers, that's not the fault of MS. I got one XP machine for a reason - to use Sony Acid Pro 6 and to use my AIW. Everything else is on my Vista rig.

EDIT: I TOO WAS A VISTA HATER UNTIL I TRIED IT.

kylewOh, wow, atleast you admit it. I wonder how many of the vista haters have actually used vista them selves?

Easy Rhinothis just in....windows vista requires a faster cpu and more ram to run effeciently than windows xp! in other news...windows xp requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 2000! and in related news...windows 2000 requires a faster cpu and more ram than windows 98! coming up on tpu news brief...windows 98 and 95 both require faster cpus and ram than dos 6!!! consumer outcry heard around the world!

jonmcc33What did Windows XP have that Windows 2000 didn't? Uses far less system resources than Windows XP does too.

beyond_amusiaAnd to ppl that installed Vista and hated it because it seemed slow - disable indexing and Windows Search. Also, it speeds up after a couple days of use.