I'm saying it's just as bad as XP. There are people out there that haven't ever had a problem with XP just same as there are people that haven't had a problem with Vista. There are even some people that don't understand what all the fuss was about WinME.
But there are plenty more people that have to put up with daily crashes and application hangs. It's totally a guess but I'd bet that the number of people that have trouble with Vista isn't any smaller than the number of people that have trouble with XP.
So, my original question was how is Vista better? Most responses are just that it isn't bad. There are a few that cite a particular case where one app or another runs faster but I don't think enough have been listed to say, ahh, ya, I get it- Vista is better.
I'm saying it's the same crap as the last one and things don't show any sign of improving.
vista's "better" to many people because "it looks kool" thats about it, they like the "sweet areo look" funny part is there are plenty of ways to get the same gui exp under 2k/xp/2k3/x64pro without slowing the system down.
windowblinds5.5 and 6 for example, older windowblinds 4.5 and older did slow the system, but in my exp thats not been true for quite some time, and 6 really works wonderfully.
i hear more complaints about stuff not working under vista then any other os, many times the user blamed the program for the problem not realising its bugged because of a flaw in vista not the app.
not saying xp was any better, sp2 broke nic/wireless drivers for likke 96% of cards (numbers are what i remmber from those days and having to work around the problem for clients) some companys had already put out fixed drivers, most hadnt because ms didnt spicificly warrn them that there was gonna be a problem.
as to the delay of sp3, the same flaw applys to vista sp1 if you read the artical, and its only a VERY small % of users who would be effected, also have seen reports of fixes for it after a little googling, some being simple reg patches.
its not a big issue, just an annoing one for the few users who it acctualy effects.
but at the same time, its probably going to require 64 bit CPU's, hardware virtualisation (vx bit on most new intel chips) and things we just dont even know about yet. The OS is supposed to virtualise heavily, which to me just screams current CPU's without hardware support (allendales, celerons, etc) wont be able to run it.
Yes windows 7 is a step in the right direction, but it will come at a price.
acctualy as i hear it and read it(i talk to ppl i know who work for ms not just ppl online) they are going to support32bit CURRENTLY, the dev's dont want to tho, and virtulization isnt going to be requiered BUT will help alot in some aplications.
I am hoping for them to cut out the 9x support from the preinstalled os, just keep it clean, 2k and up support only by default, yes i still want to beable to install my older games and have them WORK LIKE THEY SHOULD!!!!
dos games and 9x games are best run on an era computer anyway, one they where designed to run on, probbly best to have a voodoo card as well since back then voodoo was KING PERIOD.
im thinking of going into buisness with a buddy making custom game boxes, not just for new games tho, making era correct builds for retro gamers, stuff back then that they couldnt afford but wanted, along with games they wanted to play.
hes building himself an era accurate copy of a game pc that dual pentium2 chips with sdr and dual voodoo2 cards, scsi hdd's, the works, all stuff thats era accurate, should be great for older games that love GLIDE mode