Neowin.net

If that's the case, care to explain why my 3 year old 3ghz P4 Northwood CPU, ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe motherboard, and ATI X800GTO AGP video card running Vista Ultimate edition manages to run things just as fast and smooth as XP ever did? And manage to be a LOT more stable to boot?

My PC is on 24/7, Vista has more than halved my needed reboots. NO software incompatabilities, NO slower gameplay, NO random blue screens (unlike XP).

I'm waiting.

I'm not even going to justify that with a response, except to say that even the most optimistic reviews of performance and stability admit that the OS is plagued with a slew of problems, so for you to make such claims is ridiculous to the point of not being entirely trustworthy.

I don't believe you when you say that that Vista system you're descibing (or any other Vista system, for that matter) can "run things" just as fast as the same system running WinXP could. Simply put, all the relevant benchmarks I've seen tell me that what you're claiming just isn't so.

Feel free to doubt all you like; however it doesn't alter the fact that my machine runs everything I ask it to just as well as XP ever did, and is a lot more stable to boot.

Perhaps you should look at relevant benchmarks without wearing your anti-Vista tinted glasses? Feel free to dismiss such results as given here.

I'd have to also agree with FloatingFatMan, Vista runs exceptionally well here as well.

put the tin foil hat away...

Dude get serious..

Vi$ta was supposed to be wayyy faster than xp due to the "new" driver structure blah, blah..

It's BARELY managing to keep up and XP STILL beats it in 99.9% of the test.. and in the test where it "fails" you talking TENTHS of frame per sec..!!! LOL

And the "review" doesn't even mention stability or any of the other multitudes of problems.. and the fact that it focuses on gaming where the drivers ARE SPECIFICALLY TWEAKED certainly also speaks volumes.

You hardly make a convincing arguement.

You fail to see the point. The above is hard fact that Vista's drivers, which where the major failing on launch day, is slowly being corrected as Nvidia / ATI rewrite their drivers. Drivers get tweaked for all OS's and relevent games, nothing new there. What the results prove is that Vista runs modern games fine - which crushes the fanboyistic screams that Vista runs games like a dog.

Your wearing your tinted glasses again. Could you elaborate on "stability or any of the other multitudes of problems" because these rants of yours do not match the experience I have using Vista.

Only if you justify this piece of marketing gold first..

"Vi$ta was supposed to be wayyy faster than xp due to the "new" driver structure blah, blah.."

Your an XP-fanboi, whatever response a content Vista user offers, your glasses continue to blur your vision and dictate your Vista rants accordingly. Fair enough. Each to their own for OS preference, you choose to stick with XP and I Vista.

So you're not even going to attempt it then.hmm?

As for glasses.. I think that it's YOU who is wearing an ANTI-anti-Vi$ta pair.

I stopped reading after the $ in Vi$ta. What was that... 3 words in? You demonstrated your childishness almost immediately.

Thank you, and in the end your opinion means as much to me as mine does to you.

As for the "$".. in the end, that all it was.. a grab for cash.

I'm sorry, but didn't I just offer a modern, demanding benchmark that proved Vista's performance in mainstream gaming? Thus pointing out it's performance improvement since it's initial release thanks to Nvidia/ATI learning curve concerning Vista's new driver model? It's taken years for XP to have such optimised drivers, did you expect Vista to have the equivalently performing driver from day one? lol.

Aside from ranting, what have you brought to the modern-day benchmarking debate? What concrete evidence can you offer to substantiate your claim of "being slow, unreliable and clogged"? No matter how many times I reply and tell you that everything runs exceedingly well you simply refuse to accept this fact. Perhaps your glasses could do with a clean or better still replaced?

Have you made sure your tinfoil hat is firmly secured? Good. We don't want any American Intelligence Services listening in on things. Vista is not the only program/hardware that uses DRM. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that applies to iPods (used to lock iTunes AAC media), XP has it for DVD playback and HD-DVD's / Bluray playback requires that DRM is in place in all systems.

It's really pointless to continue your running-in-circles ranting. In your eyes Vista is Satan, to me, Vista is the best OS to use for my modern hardware and my computing needs.

Last edited by ManMountain on 07 Dec 2007 - 12:23

Have you ever used a new OS before? If you have, then you would understand what is happening.

yes, you did offer it.. and I just told you that it wasn't worth the time it took you type it.



And what you say point blank refutes 99% of the rest of the reports on the net.. btw.. you still haven't justified the marketing blurb that I asked you to.



And this take the biscuit for blind comment of the moment.. a cursory google search will back up what I wrote.. so why didn't you before posting.. as for the dvd drm... your seriously need to look at hdcp.

Why don't people like you use google before posting.. you would come off so uninformed otherwise..

..tinfoil hat.. lol.

Again you miss the point. I'm somehow failing to get the point across that DRM is not somehow a Vista specific featureset. I guess that one just flew over your tinted glasses and bounced off that tinfoil hat.

There really isn't any point in replying to your groundless, monotonous anti-Vista rants. I'll just keep on using Vista and you just keep on ranting and using XP

The version and support of the TYPE of drm and how it handles it, is the entire problem...

What's wrong with you?.. aren't you bothering to READ what I'm typing

Walker. You're a conspiracy theory nutter.

Nope, not any more. With the baseless drivel you've so far spewed, your another Vista hating forum troll. You've proven one thing, that your incapable of expressing any factual evidence to your ranting and conform to the sterotypical dronelike Borg mindset of the Vista hating club. Congrats.

Thankfully I don't live in a cave and won't be beating my 360's HDDVD to death with a club.

Last edited by ManMountain on 07 Dec 2007 - 13:01

So true.

Justify that statement.. but first do yourself a favour.. go use google.. it's even in the Vista prep log if you'd bothered to read them.

Jesus some people.. do you all just think something then convince yourself that you are right.. because you OBVIOUSLY don't bother doing any reading on the subject.

Here brainless.. I'll throw you a bloody bone..

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/10/...tasecure_1.html

At the end of the day, if you wan't an OS that works the same way that XP does, runs all the software that XP does and has all the features and options in the same place as XP does, then...... stay on XP. Kinda obvious really.

However if you want something new, are willing to re-learn some things, wan't some new features and the ability to run DirectX 10 games like Crysis, then get Vista.

The pointless arguing and trolling is getting tiresome.

Actually wouldn't you HAVE to be reading in order to write this?

Given up at any pretense of a sensible arguement then.. GOOD.. because your utterly blinkered views, especially when you aren't even willing to do your own research to see if what I'm saying has at least a modicum of truth, is beginning to bore me.

See what I mean?..

You don't even BOTHER to check what I'm saying.. you just post pictures, as if that's supposed to illustrate that you have the upper hand..

Dude.. SERIOUSLY.. a PICTURE???!?!?

i agree to your statement... you HAVE to be reading in order to write this. However, all you did was READ in order to write this. All you did was read reviews on the net and compiled all the articles into this one thread. But considering how you did not state your own experiences, not to mention sidestepping someone's comment asking you whether or not you had used vista before, I think it is justified that you have not touched vista.

XP screwed over my laptop... but when I upgraded to vista, Vista was amazingly fast, faster than what xp could ever deliver on my laptop.

Say what you want about vista using your "acquired booksmarts" but in the end only experience matters. Therefore your opinion is useless.

OK.. I could have wrtten that my experience was crap.. but unlike the rest of you who base EVERYONE's experience on their own.. I didn't neccessarily think that one persons view was conclusive enough to argue over..

However if that's all it takes.. then... Vista is CRAP, because I say so.

Wow.. that was easy.

And just how do you know he didn't check? How do you know he doesn't already know all the FUD that's been spread about Vista, and having actually USED IT HIMSELF, has come the conclusion that it IS nothing but FUD.

What are you considering conspiracies now?

"Everyone is speading unfounded FUD about Vista just 'cos they hate it?"

Jeez...and that's exactly what I'm saying, you CERTAINLY can't disregard all of the stuff on the net just because someone thinks it's coolx0z.

Seriously dude.. I prefered your arguements when your WEREN'T trying.

Oh I don't base off everybody's experience off my own, but I certainly don't base my opinion off those biased reviews. My point is that vista is a great os. Many things that you and others claim suck in vista don't really affect the average joe. DRM only affects people who use HDDVD or Bluray, as well, I think HDMI specs require the use of DRM.

As for feds being part of vista's development... what was microsoft supposed to do? encourage piracy? I hate to break it to you, but piracy is a form of stealing.

Vista is the most reliable, most stable, and most secure version of Windows as of yet. When explorer.exe crashes (once in a blue moon, if ever) it doesn't cripple your system, it will automatically restart the process instead of a complete reboot. In the same amount of time after both OSs were released, the # of flaws found in Vista are less than what have been found on XP. In XP when a program stops responding, the entire system slows down. In Vista, if a program freezes, big deal... you wouldn't notice any slowdown.

All you did was centralize the negativity of many opinions into one concentrated post.

Why would you say this when XP utilises hdmi perfectly well as it is?



And I hate to break it to you.. but any kind of policing over MY purchases us utterly unwarented, I don't give a damn what your justifications are... I'll decided what my hardware is capable of not some faceless authority who own moral and ethical behaviour are as bent as any criminal organisation...

And NO.. IT ISN'T the job of my equipment to police what I do.. regardless of any wrong doing, with regards to something as trivial as a profit motive, if the companies can't protect their own product that is their tough sh*t. (I'm not advocating piracy, I just object to it being automatically assumed that I am one)



This is utterly subjective.



I don't see any difference to XP here.. I can even close explorer and restart it, what's you point?



And I call "FUD".



Again subjective, I don't notice too much of a slow down, and the increased HW specs can certainly account for response times



Because all I see is the negative with Vista..Eye candy and a big brother operating system aren't what I call advances in technology, never mind usability and production.

I purchased and installed XP the day it was put out on retail store shelves, and I've been using Vista on my laptop for 2 months.

Long story short: Vista's launch and first year is hella better than XP's.

For any new OS, you need great hardware and great drivers for that hardware. If you don't, you'll notice nothing but problems until those two issues are resolved. It's as simple as that.

I'm happy with Vista. With decent hardware and decent drivers, anyone would.

I used the exact same hardware for an HTPC. It was slow as molasses during boot and after 5-10 hours of use, it would slow down to a crawl. It couldn't play any mkv files after the second day, as the HD would thrash for hours, and pressing reboot took around 10 minutes because of this. After turning off all effects, I guess explorer was comparable to XP, but nothing else was. I had to go out and buy a Pentium Dual Core in order to get decent performance, and it still needs a reboot every couple of days with 1.5gb of RAM.
I would think an HTPC only running Media Centre 24/7 would actually not slow down anymore once it finishes loading...

What you say is true in general, but you're completely ignoring just how much of a system boost you need to run Vista smoothly. I had zero problems running Windows XP very smoothly on a computer that came from the Windows ME era. It wasn't quite as snappy, but it ran very nicely on a system that came from the Windows 98 era (Pentium III 550 MHz). I was even able to port it backward to a system from the end of the Windows 95 era, a Pentium II clocked at around 266 MHz. For the basic web applications and such that the system was used for, it ran very smoothly.

I'll admit that I haven't tried porting Windows Vista to a number of systems, but from many reviews that I've read, it sounds like Windows Vista practically requires the best of the best to run smoothly. The guy who said he had a 3 GHz P4 and questioned why he could run it smoothly was totally off mark - the setup he has isn't the best of the best, but it's far from being an outdated system. If Vista can run even somewhat decently on a Pentium III system below 1 GHz, I'd consider that to be the equivalent of how Windows XP was able to run on a Pentium II.

The Linux zealots can probably do a nice job of explaining that new Linux versions don't require massive boosts in hardware, and they'd be right. As I use Macs at work, I can say that you don't need massive hardware boosts between OS versions there. The oldest system I work with came with OSX 10.2, I believe. I've loaded OSX 10.4 onto it and, with the exception of high-level tasks and some multitasking, it's just as responsive as the fastest dual G5 that we have in there.

The difference between Linux and Mac OSX vs. Windows is that Windows versions are released after greater periods of time, so perhaps you could make an argument that it'd seemingly require greater jumps between versions. You may be right, but previous Windows versions didn't require nearly as large of a jump as did going from XP to Vista.

I like Vista well enough - it's a step in the right direction for Microsoft, it has a better security model, and it looks very nice. But many reviewers have found flaws on the performance end of the OS, which is disappointing. If you're just word processing and web browsing, I'm glad that Vista offers you a better experience than XP. Don't ignore the setbacks with the OS, though. I stick with XP not because I'm an XP zealot, but because it's the better tool for the job for me. And in the end, computers are tools so we should use what works best for each of us.

Oh quiet you. This isn't about the Mac, it's about Vista. You can drop the Apple agenda, no one is buying it; and stop repeating the Apple commercial dribble.

Last edited by ANova on 08 Dec 2007 - 00:51

Translation, "I wish I could afford a Mac"

Can we get Internetworld7 banned please? I'm tired of EVERY SINGLE post of his repeating the same crap over and over and over again. Neobond... please? I'll send you a case of beer!!

Ok buddy, not to worry, he's banned.

I can easily afford a mac and I even like OSX but don't be another zealot who spouts Apple PR's mindless rhetoric like the Bible. You can climb out of that Steve Jobs reality distortion field if you really try, go ahead, you can do it.

what is this "Vi$ta" thing you are talking about?

It must not bore you since you seem to care so much that you have to reply to anyone who doesn't like it.

When you mis-spelled Vista with a dollar sign it's pretty clear who the children are in this discussion.

That's getting to be a rather old and tiresome attempt at an insult. Sorry but Vista exists precisely to make people more money, so the use is perfectly reasonable despite whatever you might think. Vista sucks, don't like it too bad but the numbers speak volumes with Vista adoption at around 2%. If you like Microsoft so much go get a job with them, sheesh.

When you get your check from Apple, please take it and buy some concern. We don't have any for you.

I would expect such a comment for internetworld7 but I think you're grasping at straws here. Walker knows more than most about what really goes on under the hood.

I'd love as much as anybody to stay out of this debate but, excuse me? You think he knows as much as anybody? He's never even f*cking used it.

I don't care how many articles you read on google. Seriously, I don't. I'm not even going to go into the validity of becoming a Vista genius off of google searching. Before you link me to another one, just don't. I read all that **** before I used it to, and guess what, it works fine anyway.

I'm sorry, I don't remember him ever saying he never used it, no that was automatically assumed by the idiots trying to refute him. Btw, I have used it extensively and I know what it does, so don't try to tell me otherwise.

No, I didn't say he knows as much as anybody, I said he knows more than most; there is a difference. Maybe you need english comprehension skills. Funny how you have no problem with the moron making assumptions about him being an Apple shill and basically attacking him for his views (based on fact no less) but you have a problem with me calling him out on bs.

Last edited by ANova on 08 Dec 2007 - 23:21

XP wasn't ready for release at RTM, either. And most of the detractors are die-hard XP fanatics.

Another tiresome argument based no part in fact. XP had a few driver and software incompatibility issues when it was released, but it was a perfectly solid, fast and reliable os otherwise; much more so than win98 which is what most people were upgrading from. Vista is nothing alike, don't pretend otherwise; it may not have stability issues but it most certainly does have performance and other issues. Everyone likes XP because it is a good os, plain and simple.

Er, yeah..and we all know how bad advertising sells products by the millions...

I've got both Vista and XP installed on separate hard drives and just today tried XP after using Vista for quite a while. While XP did run at least Crysis a bit faster, in general Vista just responds better and is more enjoyable to use in many ways. Hopefully with driver and Windows updates the performance gap will close.

MS did some totally idiotic design choices like how UAC works by pestering the user constantly. I truly hope they try to improve the OS's behavior with things like this.

Vista is still a typical Microsoft OS, meaning that the OS itself is mostly fine but the bundled programs are generally going to only satisfy the casual user. Thankfully nearly all of the programs I use work in Vista now so for me the change from XP to Vista wasn't that drastic.

Some trolls never get out from under their same old bridge, do they?

Neowin is a broad "technology" site. Not an exclusive Windows-Only site. Heck, it even runs on Linux.

Now, please search through all of my comments, because you are about to receive the first ever statement like this from me:

Shut up!

thank you

Microsoft should have learned from how badly (or how ever you want to describe it) the release of XP went and not made the same mistake with Vista. Personally I don't think you can compare XP at release with Vista at release. They've had years to prepare for the release of Vista. They have knowledge of the mistakes made with XP, so they shouldn't have made them with Vista.

I was just waiting for someone to say this.

THIS is FUD.

I remeber when XP first came out.. of course it had problems, bsod was a bitch at times, but I went from the hardware that was running '98, straight to XP and kept it that way for a couple of years.

And the OCASIONAL bsod was certainly worth putting up with for the sheer advance in usability.. Vista is not much of an upgrade, except for DX10.. and even that is because it's been coded that way.. there nothing you can do with DX10 that can't be done on DX9... it's even capable of running on XP if it wasn't so utterly locked to the Vista OS. Apart from that, actual usability and production haven't increased ANYWHERE NEAR what XP brought to the table over '98.

I went straight from hardware that had been running XP for 2 years, with regular crashes and apps just plain refusing to start until I rebooted, to running Vista Ultimate with no crashes and no apps refusing to start; and has been for the year it's been out. So what's your point there?

I've never HAD a BSOD in Vista. When an app rarely crashes, Vista tidily shuts it down and asks me if I'd like to restart it; no muss, no fuss, and no crashed OS.

DX10 being Vista only; yes there's no technical reason why MS couldn't port it to XP. However they've made the design choice to not do so, and who can blame them? Afterall, XP is an old OS now and they can't keep supporting it forever.

Oh, and my production has gone up since installing Vista. Seeing as I'm a professional developer by trade, I find the new capabilities offered to developers to be a LOT of fun to work with.

You know fatman, that's funny, because in the last five or so years of using XP, I have never experienced any of what you claim unless I had a corrupt installation or bad hardware. I don't honestly think you have a clue about how this stuff works, otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are.

Last edited by ANova on 08 Dec 2007 - 00:36

I know exactly how this stuff works, and yes, I'm well aware my XP installation was in dire need of wiping and reinstalling; again. Well, I did wipe; but when I reinstalled I put Vista on my main drive, and Mandriva on my second. I still run XP, but in a virtual machine for backwards compatibility testing on software I develop.

I've nothing against XP, it's a great OS. but so is Vista. The only reason people are jumping on its case so much is because they can't get over their disappointment that it doesn't match up to its original promise. Ignore that part of it, and there's not a thing fundamentally wrong with it. People are just being crybabies and in need of their whaaaaaaaambulance.

That's not it at all. Vista has fundamental problems, probably much more so than you are aware of or understand.

The guy with the laptop wasn't me; it was Dynames00 in post 1.28. One should check ones facts before making oneself look stupid.

The arguments are caused by the zealous Microsoft supporters who jump on these articles like rabid dogs foaming at the mouth, it's really quite a pathetic spectacle. The consumer has every right to express how they feel about a product, whether it is good or bad and no matter what company makes it, that's why there are reviews.

IMHO, the failure on the development side is that they were not able to deliver the product that was promised in the first place. Unfortunately for us consumers, what we got was a stripped down version of Longhorn that included almost none of the cool features that made, Longhorn, Longhorn. On the design side the problem is that there is almost nothing in Vista over XP that will help the average business user (typically MS's main market).

Let's just all hope that the kids in Redmond apply what they learned from the Vista failure to Windows 7.

He doesn't care what a few mindless individuals think, maybe that will click in your head.

You're right, we don't want people with half a brain; so by all means, go elsewhere.

People tend to see what they want to see also.

You choose to waste your time reading and responding, don't pass the buck. Don't like someone else's opinion? You can ignore them.

Vista sales stared off strong, but few months after release XP was outselling it!
Vista = bomb.

So I guess OS X and Linux are bombs too? Because Vista is sold more than both put together. And I like the citation you gave for your claim that Vista was outsold by XP after a few months, basically nothing at all like every other anti-vista, anti-ms claim..

That's besides the point. Did Vista outsell XP? XP sales continue to top Vista sales globally even now. Vista sales are slowing to a trickle compared to the first six months after release. Whoever planned on buying Vista has already bought it and businesses are avoiding it like the black plague.

Leopard has outsold Vista in some parts of the world and Linux isn't sold at all. Don't try to compare them.

That isn't the case now, by end of December Vista will have 10%.

"we are free to do whatever we want"

For your information, that includes OS-bashing as well...

Sad isn't it.