When choosing a new operating system, the first thing many people ask is, "What will it help me do?" In answer, much of this site shows you the great experiences Windows Vista helps you have. The second thing many people say is, "Prove that it's better." In particular, many of you have asked about performance and safety improvements. The following information provides specific proof that Windows Vista is faster and safer.
- The majority of Windows Vista-based PCs boot in less than a minute, which can be an improvement over Windows XP boot times. And the new Windows Vista sleep and resume features can bring your PC to life in a snap—in fact, the vast majority of all Windows Vista-based PCs resume from sleep in less than 6 seconds.
- PCs running Windows Vista that are equipped with 512 MB memory experience a performance boost of up to 40 percent with Windows ReadyBoost. Just plug a USB flash drive into your computer, and Windows Vista will automatically start using it to speed up memory access to important data.
- Out of the box, Windows Vista performs as well, or better, than Windows XP on common home and business tasks.
- Windows Vista users generally experience 20 percent fewer application "hangs" than those running Windows XP
- Superfetch helps your computer adjust to your schedule, so your apps are ready to go before you even launch them. Use Microsoft Outlook every morning? Superfetch will serve it up just in time for breakfast. Play the same game every night? Superfetch gets your computer ready for the next big win. Waiting less means you can do more
- Based on their first 180 days of availability, Windows Vista has been shown to have fewer vulnerabilities than Windows XP or MacOS X 10.4. PCs running it are 60 percent less likely to be infected with viruses, worms, and rootkits than PCs running Windows XP SP2. Windows Vista-based PCs are over 90 percent less likely to be infected than systems running Windows XP without a Service Pack. And the experts agree: "Windows Vista is arguably the most secure closed-source OS available on the market."
- The more people use Windows Vista, the more they like it. So dig in and learn even more about the new features in Windows Vista. Once you've tried it, you'll see
News source: Microsoft
Resuming from sleep is MUCH faster on my Dell E-1505 (2 gig ram). Superfetch actually does work quite well.
Other than that, unless you get it free, or with a new computer, configured with 2 gig of ram, or you play a lot
of games, I wouldn't get it. It's overpriced.
How sad, don't use Vista unless its free or comes preloaded eh.. You know your software is doing great when thats the general consensus, lol.
On another note, why is Neowin reporting what is basically an advertisement for Vista as news? I love how MS references articles by its own company as "proof", haha.
Let's see
Let's see
Chincane-Uk is the first to post that! ;-)
Anyway i use Vista at my laptop & my home pc, at work we use both Vista & XP (around 70% time i use Vista (its our main pc)...) we havent had any big issue now..because almost all the softwares we use are working fine...and we had minor issues with netgear wireless router...but that too got resolved with a updated driver from netgear...
Vista is great...but i am looking for Windows seven to be more great (in terms of UI)
Let's see
I would have expected better chokes!
It's not about 'Vista hating', it's about recognising a mature, stable, functional operating system that allows ME to take charge of my computer needs... Vista is unstable, incompatible, doesn't deserve anywhere near it's system requirements, and wrests computer control from us to give to Redmond..
BTW.. if M$ didn't think Vista was crap too, then it wouldn't be ramping up delivery of Windows 7, making take up of Vista utterly pointless.. do some research.. even BG said it was 'flawed', and for a copmany spokesman to say that is tantamount to setting it on fire.
Vista IS crap.. but that's not mindless hating.. it's balanced assessment bourne out of use and the awareness of what an OS should in reality do for production, economy of hardware and the evolution of an OS.
When people walk aroung swallowing the M$ PR line, saying 'OOO SHINEY', and blindly refuse to admit what a flawed and badly designed POS Vista really is... even it in the face of GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problems (...and btw, it's PURE FUD that XP was anywhere near as bad on release) THAT'S is the REAL PROBLEM.. because if you all continue to blythly accept inferior goods that are designed to restrict the control you have over YOUR purchased hardware.. then that's all that you will be given.
Let's see
I would have expected better chokes!
It's not about 'Vista hating', it's about recognising a mature, stable, functional operating system that allows ME to take charge of my computer needs... Vista is unstable, incompatible, doesn't deserve anywhere near it's system requirements, and wrests computer control from us to give to Redmond..
BTW.. if M$ didn't think Vista was crap too, then it wouldn't be ramping up delivery of Windows 7, making take up of Vista utterly pointless.. do some research.. even BG said it was 'flawed', and for a copmany spokesman to say that is tantamount to setting it on fire.
Vista IS crap.. but that's not mindless hating.. it's balanced assessment bourne out of use and the awareness of what an OS should in reality do for production, economy of hardware and the evolution of an OS.
When people walk aroung swallowing the M$ PR line, saying 'OOO SHINEY', and blindly refuse to admit what a flawed and badly designed POS Vista really is... even it in the face of GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problems (...and btw, it's PURE FUD that XP was anywhere near as bad on release) THAT'S is the REAL PROBLEM.. because if you all continue to blythly accept inferior goods that are designed to restrict the control you have over YOUR purchased hardware.. then that's all that you will be given.
I stopped reading right after you wrote "M$". That tells me and eveyone else right there what kind of person you are.
When people walk aroung swallowing the M$ PR line, saying 'OOO SHINEY', and blindly refuse to admit what a flawed and badly designed POS Vista really is... even it in the face of GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problems (...and btw, it's PURE FUD that XP was anywhere near as bad on release) THAT'S is the REAL PROBLEM.. because if you all continue to blythly accept inferior goods that are designed to restrict the control you have over YOUR purchased hardware.. then that's all that you will be given.Hello, Apple! King of shiny, inferior crap that requires you buy all new hardware when they change the slightest thing... "You don't need to know how to upgrade your computer, just toss it out and buy a new one from us. We raised the prices for you, even!"
EDIT: And here's the start of your FUD: XP not ready for prime time (from 2001)
The article begins:
things that don't work. This is not due to the machine it is due to
the Microsoft Windows XP product that comes loaded on the laptop. From
programs that the OS does not like to drivers for hardware that does
not exists. This new OS (XP) needs a service pack.
Sound familiar? I can find MANY more of those...
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 20 Jan 2008 - 19:22
Let's see
I would have expected better chokes!
It's not about 'Vista hating', it's about recognising a mature, stable, functional operating system that allows ME to take charge of my computer needs... Vista is unstable, incompatible, doesn't deserve anywhere near it's system requirements, and wrests computer control from us to give to Redmond..
BTW.. if M$ didn't think Vista was crap too, then it wouldn't be ramping up delivery of Windows 7, making take up of Vista utterly pointless.. do some research.. even BG said it was 'flawed', and for a copmany spokesman to say that is tantamount to setting it on fire.
Vista IS crap.. but that's not mindless hating.. it's balanced assessment bourne out of use and the awareness of what an OS should in reality do for production, economy of hardware and the evolution of an OS.
When people walk aroung swallowing the M$ PR line, saying 'OOO SHINEY', and blindly refuse to admit what a flawed and badly designed POS Vista really is... even it in the face of GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problems (...and btw, it's PURE FUD that XP was anywhere near as bad on release) THAT'S is the REAL PROBLEM.. because if you all continue to blythly accept inferior goods that are designed to restrict the control you have over YOUR purchased hardware.. then that's all that you will be given.
I stopped reading right after you wrote "M$". That tells me and eveyone else right there what kind of person you are.
LOL... ok what kind of PERSON am I then?
When people walk aroung swallowing the M$ PR line, saying 'OOO SHINEY', and blindly refuse to admit what a flawed and badly designed POS Vista really is... even it in the face of GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problems (...and btw, it's PURE FUD that XP was anywhere near as bad on release) THAT'S is the REAL PROBLEM.. because if you all continue to blythly accept inferior goods that are designed to restrict the control you have over YOUR purchased hardware.. then that's all that you will be given.Hello, Apple! King of shiny, inferior crap that requires you buy all new hardware when they change the slightest thing... "You don't need to know how to upgrade your computer, just toss it out and buy a new one from us. We raised the prices for you, even!"
EDIT: And here's the start of your FUD: XP not ready for prime time (from 2001)
The article begins:
things that don't work. This is not due to the machine it is due to
the Microsoft Windows XP product that comes loaded on the laptop. From
programs that the OS does not like to drivers for hardware that does
not exists. This new OS (XP) needs a service pack.
Sound familiar? I can find MANY more of those...
I assume that by the apple line you think that I am an Apple fanboy?.. nope never used it, been windows all my time.
Even 'IF'... XP was as bad as your 'article' says it was... (and that's by no means an admission of anything).. at least XP was cleaned up, so to speak.. there is NO CHANCE that Vista can be cleaned up.. it was designed to be bloated and restrictive and a resource hog..it was designed to move the control of your PC from you, to the way the corporate structure wants you to use it (please don't even try to dispute this.. these reasons have been well documented)... and that's the way it's going to stay.. you don't get a fix for those kind of things.
.. but going on to my other point.. With the news that W7 will be out 2009.. WHAT"S THE POINT OF 'UPGRADING' (lol)?.. Vista is already obsolete..by the time it is in any fit shape to be taken up by the vast majority of the market, it will be superceded by W7... the only possiblility of forcing it's use was in it being DX10 only (but even this can be done on XP).. BUT DX10 ISN'T BEING USED BY THE GAMING DEVELOPERS IN GENERAL.. maybe a few titles here and there, but it's gone down pretty much like a lead balloon, with other API's being used in the name of compatibility to serve the mass migration from windows (relatively speaking) that has been caused by the Vista blunder.
You can argue all you wish (which would be rather blind of you to do so), but the larger market share of both Apple and Linux, proves that Vista has been a HUGE let down, and quite frankly useless for the market it was aimed at.... even big business (which ALWAYS supports itself) won't even touch it with a bargepole.
So given THESE facts.. and the knowledge that Vista is about as desirable as herpes.. can you in ALL HONESTY still say Vista is a worthwhile and sensible 'investment'?
Let's see
I would have expected better chokes!
It's not about 'Vista hating', it's about recognising a mature, stable, functional operating system that allows ME to take charge of my computer needs... Vista is unstable, incompatible, doesn't deserve anywhere near it's system requirements, and wrests computer control from us to give to Redmond..
BTW.. if M$ didn't think Vista was crap too, then it wouldn't be ramping up delivery of Windows 7, making take up of Vista utterly pointless.. do some research.. even BG said it was 'flawed', and for a copmany spokesman to say that is tantamount to setting it on fire.
Vista IS crap.. but that's not mindless hating.. it's balanced assessment bourne out of use and the awareness of what an OS should in reality do for production, economy of hardware and the evolution of an OS.
When people walk aroung swallowing the M$ PR line, saying 'OOO SHINEY', and blindly refuse to admit what a flawed and badly designed POS Vista really is... even it in the face of GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problems (...and btw, it's PURE FUD that XP was anywhere near as bad on release) THAT'S is the REAL PROBLEM.. because if you all continue to blythly accept inferior goods that are designed to restrict the control you have over YOUR purchased hardware.. then that's all that you will be given.
ok so I actually read through your crap
now gimme some evidence for the crap you claim
Vista unstable ? give me proof, I could show you my reliebility monitor showing that Vista has been more stable than XP in the little over a year I've used it now. and for me XP was pretty dan stable too. but Bista got it beat.
Incompatibilty, what incompatibilities ? again, I'm not havign any real incompatibilites on my Vista and I run all kinds of crap from freeware ages old to high end 3D modelling software.
also what computer controlis Vista taking away from me ? please enlighten me, I do consider myself a proffesional, but I haven't noticed this so please tell me what I'm missing here.
and most importantly for your Widnows 7 point.
MS isn't ramping up the release of Windows 7, in fact windows 7 is on schedule like all previus OS released, wWin 95,Win98(,WinME), Win2k, WinXP. Notice how all these have a 2-3 year release span,actually closer to 2, except for win95-98. and that's not including 98r2, but then that's really more of a service pack release. Vista was an exception, it was supposed to launch according to the same schedule. But since Vista is such a big rewrite form previus versions replacing entire subsystems with new imporved versions and the fact that the codebase was changed and they "started over" mean they fell WAY outside this mark.
So MS isn't ramping up anything, they're just getting back on track.
as for what kind of person you writing M$ says you are, just like the rest of yoru post, it says you're uninformed and don't know what you're talking about. and you're the averag Vista/MS hater who doesn't even know why he hates MS/Vista, it's just a badnwagon thing.
No, they aren't ramping up, people just can't read. Vista was finnished in 2006, Microsoft said the succesor would be delievered three years after Vista was done -- WHICH WAS 2006
2006
+ 3
------
2009
When people walk aroung swallowing the M$ PR line, saying 'OOO SHINEY', and blindly refuse to admit what a flawed and badly designed POS Vista really is... even it in the face of GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problems (...and btw, it's PURE FUD that XP was anywhere near as bad on release) THAT'S is the REAL PROBLEM.. because if you all continue to blythly accept inferior goods that are designed to restrict the control you have over YOUR purchased hardware.. then that's all that you will be given.Hello, Apple! King of shiny, inferior crap that requires you buy all new hardware when they change the slightest thing... "You don't need to know how to upgrade your computer, just toss it out and buy a new one from us. We raised the prices for you, even!"
EDIT: And here's the start of your FUD: XP not ready for prime time (from 2001)
The article begins:
things that don't work. This is not due to the machine it is due to
the Microsoft Windows XP product that comes loaded on the laptop. From
programs that the OS does not like to drivers for hardware that does
not exists. This new OS (XP) needs a service pack.
Sound familiar? I can find MANY more of those...
I assume that by the apple line you think that I am an Apple fanboy?.. nope never used it, been windows all my time.
Even 'IF'... XP was as bad as your 'article' says it was... (and that's by no means an admission of anything).. at least XP was cleaned up, so to speak.. there is NO CHANCE that Vista can be cleaned up.. it was designed to be bloated and restrictive and a resource hog..it was designed to move the control of your PC from you, to the way the corporate structure wants you to use it (please don't even try to dispute this.. these reasons have been well documented)... and that's the way it's going to stay.. you don't get a fix for those kind of things.
.. but going on to my other point.. With the news that W7 will be out 2009.. WHAT"S THE POINT OF 'UPGRADING' (lol)?.. Vista is already obsolete..by the time it is in any fit shape to be taken up by the vast majority of the market, it will be superceded by W7... the only possiblility of forcing it's use was in it being DX10 only (but even this can be done on XP).. BUT DX10 ISN'T BEING USED BY THE GAMING DEVELOPERS IN GENERAL.. maybe a few titles here and there, but it's gone down pretty much like a lead balloon, with other API's being used in the name of compatibility to serve the mass migration from windows (relatively speaking) that has been caused by the Vista blunder.
You can argue all you wish (which would be rather blind of you to do so), but the larger market share of both Apple and Linux, proves that Vista has been a HUGE let down, and quite frankly useless for the market it was aimed at.... even big business (which ALWAYS supports itself) won't even touch it with a bargepole.
So given THESE facts.. and the knowledge that Vista is about as desirable as herpes.. can you in ALL HONESTY still say Vista is a worthwhile and sensible 'investment'?
Ahhh, you're one of those kind of people. "M$" and "Microsoft is an evil corporation! They are trying to control you!" Right. The corporations, as in a single entity. It's actually a giant conspiracy, all corporations are controlled by one super board of directors.
BTW, People who say "The Corporations" need to take an english lesson. Corporation is a noun...
I point you to South Park, Episode 902. 'Nuff said
..i gave up reading when i realised he couldn't spell or use basic grammar. He's even made up his own words
Honestly guys, you really need to improve so the called "news".
In my case, when I'm writing news, I figure most people don't want to scroll through hundreds of lines of text per story on the front page, so if I think an article will run long, I'll put the main points of the article on the first shown paragraph, so people won't necessarily have to click on it, and leave all the supporting info, etc. in the extended section for further reading.
I do like how vista handles Sleep mode.
Um yeah.. assuming the Windows XP machine is virus infested, heavily fragmented and running with 128MB of RAM, then and only then will Vista boot faster. How can an OS that boots into needing 300-400MB of RAM possibly boot quicker than one needing half (or in some cases 1/4) of that? The disk can only ready the data into memory so quickly..
Or stick with XP where 512MB is more than enough.
Like?
Hm. I'd like to see some figures to back that up - especially the MacOSX claim!
Well - i've tried to get on with it about 10 or 15 different times now and after about a week or two I end up pulling my hair out at the lethargic performance, and backwards way of doing most things. In fact its the opposite way around for me.. I get the 'wow' once i've installed it, and a week or two later I can't wait to get out.
Flame me all you want. I don't care. Vista just isn't the product I hoped it'd be. I use Windows for my professional career and Vista just didn't live up to the hype, or deliver the sort of product I wanted to use on my desktop. Microsoft have got to be worried if they have to dish up an article like this.. really.
I've had Vista installed 3 times now and even bought a brand new machine that has more than enough oomph to run it.
Can't stand it. Removed Vista from the brand new machine in 2 days. Longest I have been able to tolerate it. MS should be sued for releasing such trash!
And I thought XP sucked after initial release compared to nice, stable old W2K, at the time.
Secunia to the rescue!
http://secunia.com/product/13223/?task=advisories_2007
http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=advisories_2007
26 versus 17.
Um yeah.. assuming the Windows XP machine is virus infested, heavily fragmented and running with 128MB of RAM, then and only then will Vista boot faster. How can an OS that boots into needing 300-400MB of RAM possibly boot quicker than one needing half (or in some cases 1/4) of that? The disk can only ready the data into memory so quickly..
Or stick with XP where 512MB is more than enough.
Like?
Hm. I'd like to see some figures to back that up - especially the MacOSX claim!
Well - i've tried to get on with it about 10 or 15 different times now and after about a week or two I end up pulling my hair out at the lethargic performance, and backwards way of doing most things. In fact its the opposite way around for me.. I get the 'wow' once i've installed it, and a week or two later I can't wait to get out.
Flame me all you want. I don't care. Vista just isn't the product I hoped it'd be. I use Windows for my professional career and Vista just didn't live up to the hype, or deliver the sort of product I wanted to use on my desktop. Microsoft have got to be worried if they have to dish up an article like this.. really.
More mental effluvia... Why not tell all the Mac users to stick with OS 9?
Do you install every "desktop pole-dancer/stripper" program you come across? That could be the problem...
no one gives crap if u hate it cause the fact is its working flawlessly for the most of us.
so, take yr trolling behind back to Apple's forums.
Your logic sounds good, so I'll believe it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5_k3x61aM
I hold my hands up to concede that ultimately its down to personal choice - but I just sit here struggling to understand how you guys are so pleased with Vista. Can you honestly tell me there is NOTHING about it that dissapoints you?
For me its a kick in the balls because i've really enjoyed every Windows release prior to this. I eagerly got all the beta's I could and when the discs rolled in (MS Select customer) for 98, 2000, then XP I literally installed them the DAY they turned up. How can I be a "troll" when i've been using Windows for years and years? I'm a dissappointed customer - not a troll. And if you guys consider a customer who is vocal about his dissappointment with a product is a troll, you had better stay away from any customer facing business cause clearly you don't "get" criticism.
Because subsequent MacOS releases are usually a major improvement on the existing product. Vista just isn't.
I think Vista will end up getting pushed quickly under the carpet after the release of Windows 7 (much like WinME did after XP, but I'm not saying it is WinME) and quickly forgotten about. I suspect SP1 may be the only SP for Vista as well.
Finally, while I think Vista is fine for personal use, it is not good for business use. Where I work we rolled out Vista on some of the machines (brand new ones) and got nothing but trouble from them and as a result we are skipping Vista, will we roll out Windows 7 when the time comes? probally not either, as XP works perfectly. Win7 will need to be something special to convince us it is worth it (because of what happened with Vista).
I hold my hands up to concede that ultimately its down to personal choice - but I just sit here struggling to understand how you guys are so pleased with Vista. Can you honestly tell me there is NOTHING about it that dissapoints you?
For me its a kick in the balls because i've really enjoyed every Windows release prior to this. I eagerly got all the beta's I could and when the discs rolled in (MS Select customer) for 98, 2000, then XP I literally installed them the DAY they turned up. How can I be a "troll" when i've been using Windows for years and years? I'm a dissappointed customer - not a troll. And if you guys consider a customer who is vocal about his dissappointment with a product is a troll, you had better stay away from any customer facing business cause clearly you don't "get" criticism.
Because subsequent MacOS releases are usually a major improvement on the existing product. Vista just isn't.
While I could argue on your opinion of the Mac OS major improvements, I won't. But I apologize for assuming you were an Applephile.
Well i'm willing to concede that OSX releases are gradual improvements rather than major improvements.. but I definately take offence at Windows trolls who just refer to them as service packs, as they really are not. As a paying customer I feel that OSX increments are worth their price, to put it into perspective!
I do like Apple a lot - i'm not ashamed of that. I've got a couple of iPods and a Mac Mini but I use Windows for work, i'm a Windows sysadmin for my job, but I wish I could use my Mac more. That said i'm not a blind Apple fanboy.. when they do things that dissappoint me, i'm happy to say so. For example, I reeeeallly don't like or see the point of the Macbook Air! I'd much rather have had the 'home enthusiast' Mac we were talking about in the other thread!
Lol. I love it when people with a completely duff argument back it up with "I've been in IT for X years!". What exactly is the IT you refer to? you're strange little bubble world where you are king and everybody listens to you? [for reference, it's I.T.]
newb
newb
I worked in desktop support for approximately 8 years, and moved into System Administration a few years back. Working for one of the largest Universities in the UK as a system admin, part of a team that maintains approximately 200 Windows servers - that includes hardware and software maintainance.
I'm certainly not an 'old hand' but frankly I resent being called a newb.
come on guys!!
load windows 98 on to your good running XP system.., it will be much faster than xp..
load windows 3.1 on your windows xp system.. it will load super fast!!
Vista is not just about graphics its the technology! deal with it! if you need a system just to play road rash, chat on messenger, browse web 1.0 sites, get a low end super cheap laptop.. that will serve your purpose.
My laptop cannot run vista as good as it is running XP because it was designed to run XP well. if you cant get a system with minimum requirements, its not vista's fault!! seriously, im sick of the frontpage vista bashing!
XP is old now yet it can do most of your tasks that does not mean that Microsoft should stop making operating systems with good technology. ME was a change in technology. i agree that it was a failure but again.., its all about technology.
Vista took so long to develop just because it was developed from scratch. It can do lot of other functions that XP cant do. It takes a massive 500-600 MB service pack for XP to do some simple features of Vista! if you cant see the technology behind XP, its most obvious that you don't use those features.
Vista is over priced? some codecs are proprietary, people sue major companies and don't care about the companies they are fans of.. so to satisfy these guys.., it needs money.. thats is what it is charging you. Microsoft doesnot charge you for support as your favorite company does. it offers free updates. it does what it promised. complain if it does not but don't bash the poor OS for un-promised features.
Try again Microsoft, this time give us some solid proof.
Yes, I've seen your posts in the computer assistance forums here quite often asking for help.
Show some constructive criticism, ***.
This is for those aggressive anti-vista fans.
Face it Vista is a consumer product that makes people consume more in order to run it properly. It is designed that way and far too many are easily impressed by shiny things instead of real substance and get upset when others question this shallowness of theirs.
Show some constructive criticism, ***.
This is for those aggressive anti-vista fans.
Right on.
I classify anyone who bashes Windows Vista against Windows XP which's been in service for almost six years into one of the following categories:
1) Loyal but uneducated users just migrated from non-Windows operating system;
2) Clueless users who think it's too much hassle to click 5, 6 dialog boxes just to install a malicious application;
3) Those who think 48x48 true colour desktop icons and transparent window frames are going to make their computer bleed; and
3) Those people began their computing experience after Windows XP SP2, who missed the Teardrop, Code Red, Blaster, Sasser, etc eras and the entire course of evolution.
Face it Vista is a consumer product that makes people consume more in order to run it properly. It is designed that way and far too many are easily impressed by shiny things instead of real substance and get upset when others question this shallowness of theirs.
We're talking Windows, not Mac.
For instance, I use LabVIEW a lot for my job. Often, I have a millisecond timed state machine running on some hardware that I have setup. In Windows XP Pro, if I start moving windows around my state machine starts missing some beats. In Windows Vista, however, the graphics driver controls most of the display so moving windows around does not add as much burden on the CPU as it did with Windows XP and this makes my LabVIEW run more optimal.
I think whether or not Vista is better XP comes down to personal opinion and what applications and hardware you are running. People who say Windows XP is far better than Vista or vice versa have their heads up their ass and need to get a clue. It is not so black and white at the moment, but I think after SP1 (definitely after SP2) Vista will be the obvious choice.
That pretty much sums it all up.
That pretty much sums it all up.
Well I don't think there's anything better about XP except if you're running on a slower computer, where naturally you might want to stay with XP. There are a small number of unfinished interface elements and quirks in Vista, but they're not a big deal. Vista is mostly an improved version of XP. Of course you might disagree with that if you get bothered by things like a lack of a parent folder button or numerous other things that don't matter. But, while some people might want to stay with XP because of their situation, I just don't think it makes sense to say in any case 'xp is better than vista'
Shoot! I have a computer that still runs Windows 98se on it because it is a slower computer and it makes sense. XP/2000 run like crap on it and guess what THERE IS NO FREAKEN DRIVER SUPPORT! But there are still things that the computer is used for. If we take my example of this computer and spin it like some people are spinning XP being better than Vista, by this logic we should all still be using Windows 98se on modern machines.
Apologists? Who's apologizing? There's nothing to be sorry about.
The claim about Vista being more secure than XP SP2 goes without saying, you don't bring out a newer OS without learning from its predecessor lol.
"Same ****, different day"
Says it all really!!!!!
Telling people how awesome Vista is is useless. People have used it themselves, and the market will decide when/if to use it.
It's been out over a year, and neither me or my company suggests anyone use it. In fact, we've suggested people not use it.
Why are these necessary? What are they trying to prove?
Why are these necessary? What are they trying to prove?
It's the same exact page as Get a Mac except for Microsoft. What's the big deal?
Why are these necessary? What are they trying to prove?
It's the same exact page as Get a Mac except for Microsoft. What's the big deal?
I'm not particularly fond of the "Get a Mac" sites either. It's a biased site on disguised marketing labelled "facts". That's the big deal. Rubbish.
Over here in reality-land, Vista is a slow piece of crap that XP routinely outperforms.
Everyone knows it's true.
The benchmarks show it's true.
But Microsoft has some "Facts" they'd like you to read. I made some similar facts myself earlier today. They were stinking up the bathroom, though, so I had to flush them.
Last edited by Yogurth on 21 Jan 2008 - 08:50
The improved shell?
Wireless networking?
Absolutely no window tearing?
It was.
Xp loads in less than 30 secs for me, I think I know what i'll use!
I'm all for defending Vista from unfair criticism but there is a lot of grounds to legitimately criticise it. It's pretty pathetic for 6yrs work. Unfortunately my options are going back to XP (which is lacking in features, especially search and security / user accounts) or hang in for Windows 7 and upgrade if it turns out to be better (with a new guy in charge and Vista's terrible performance it seems unlikely it could be worse).
This happens every time Microsoft release a new OS. People form their little posse's and defend their version of Choice to the death. Microsoft still win either way, so what do they care?
Wait until Windows 7, then we can start this all over again.
This happens every time Microsoft release a new OS. People form their little posse's and defend their version of Choice to the death. Microsoft still win either way, so what do they care?
Wait until Windows 7, then we can start this all over again.
+1, well said
thats al us vista users are trying to say, that XP was as bad as vista on release
I was using XP from the beta stages as my default OS and while there were a few driver and software issues it was actually a very good experience. With Vista I trialled it on a backup computer from the RCs and on my main system from release but found myself having to go back to XP quite often due to issues. Things improved quite quickly but the sluggish performance is still here even with SP1 (Preview). XP had it's problems, especially some high profile security flaws, but overall I still maintain it was a better release and a much more significant jump. I still use Vista as my default OS but it is sometimes infuriating (especially some of the networking additions that make it very much more difficult to share drives).
This happens every time Microsoft release a new OS. People form their little posse's and defend their version of Choice to the death. Microsoft still win either way, so what do they care?
Wait until Windows 7, then we can start this all over again.
+1, well said
thats al us vista users are trying to say, that XP was as bad as vista on release
we know that XP wasn't great on release but whocares how good or bad somethign was on release. its how good it is right now that counts...when will people relaise that... of course software isn't as good on release than after 4 or 5 years of updates and patches to fix the issues...
oh yeah and i luv how they mention 'closed source OS' hahah
nahuh! Fresh install copy of vista takes 13-15 minutes to boot, check out the link above for parts i'm using. Its really fast with 32bit version of vista! I read some blogs with the same issue when you have 8gbs of ram installed with x64.
nahuh! Fresh install copy of vista takes 13-15 minutes to boot, check out the link above for parts i'm using. Its really fast with 32bit version of vista! I read some blogs with the same issue when you have 8gbs of ram installed with x64.
Might be mobo driver support. Not Vista's fault, more like the manufacturer's.
I am kind of bored right now, so I will add my few cents to the discussion...
from microsofts point of view, they have invested a lot of money in vista and they are gonna do anything to make us the users want it and use it and PAY for it... one way is to force manufacturers install it... if you are stupid enough and cant install any other OS then good for microsoft... if you are smart enough you have a choice, stop whining and complaining, do you thing and let the world be a better place by shutting up...
does anyone argue over apples and oranges?? which one is the better fruit? they are both round, they are both fruits, they are both filled with vitamins and whatnot... I like apples better, but I am not trying to convice every orange eater to change, its their choice... I can live with it...
I like windows, and I like Vista, I find that Vista is a bit sexier than XP but also a bit slower, but not too much, I dont understand why some people argue over boot up times, sure, vista might be slower, but, I dont reboot every 5 min, I start up my laptop in the morning, most of the times I just resume from hibernation which is faster than fresh boot, some times I boot up fresh, I dont mind the wait, because I always do something else, like take a **** or something, same goes for people in the office, you should turn your computer on when you get to your desk and then you can go get a cup of coffee or something and when you get back its ready for you...
comparing windows with linux or osX is totally useless, they have different uses, but tell me something that windows cannot do that linux or osX can... and dont give me **** about linux is more stable or ****, I am talking about doing something and getting entertainment or work done, they tried making games for linux and osx, but I guess since the market is in favour of windows with its 90% marketshare, it would be stupid for developers NOT to make games and software for windows only or a long time before the other oses...
I guess since microsoft just released office 2008 for osx and osx already have photoshop and other awesome applications for graphics and multimedia that there is no excuse not to use osx unless you want to play games... but then again, you can install vista on a mac, but if you are gonna run vista you should buy a pc, much cheaper and most likely faster... which leaves linux... works on any hardware, but doesnt really have anything worth using... open office is a joke, not too many good games, dont give me **** about ports of windows games that came to linux 2 years later... and all the other open source home made **** that is on linux, some of it is really good, but most of the times its just a try to make something work and look like a windows or osx application.
guess I went a little PRO WINDOWS too much there...
how many people have experienced a friend trying to promote their movie or music taste?? if I hear a song by ABBA on the radio and I say, ****ing ABBA is awesome... I love their music... some retard is gonna say, ABBA SUCKS HOW CAN YOU LISTEN TO THAT ****...
who else is tired of fan boys trying to change your likes and dislikes, I dont need to love the same things as you to be your friend so shut up about it already...
One thing I will give you i that you definately make me laugh....unfortunately not due to your intellectua grasp of it or sarcasm, but at your sheer ineptitude at delivering a valid arguement to back your opinion.
You spit out figures and 'facts' like they are goig out of fashion. Windows has a 90% market share, however that's across it's entire client base, not just XP. (not a fair comparison in my mind)
Linux is a perfectly valid operating system in it's own right. The main reason (notice I said main) the majority of businesses/users use a Windows client as opposed to Linux is it's support base and continued presence. Longevity in a business is a big deal and if they can comfortably predict that a support infrastructure and upgrade path is in place by the software vendor as well as inhouse IT, then they'll take that! It's called Risk Mitigation.
The fact is there are no "answers" to fit all the questions a potential OS needs to answer. Look at Novell and it's Salvage function, where Windows servers still use Volume shadow copying (something that was first used in it's Novell guise of Salvage absolutely years ago).
Whatever fits your needs, trial it, test it, use it.
Both mine and my partners machines are quad cores 1 Intel Q6600 and mine with AMD Phenom x4 both have Leadtek 8800 GTS's, 1 has 2gig DDR2 800mhz ram and mine has 4gig (2x2gb)....
And i can tell you THEY RUN EVERYTHING PERFECTLY!!!!
XP is stable but so is Vista on a GOOD PC
Firstly let me clarify my position: I use both XP and Vista and also support both as an IT Manager so I can see both sides of the coin.
Vista provides hardly any business benefits over XP unless you are a public sector enterprise with significant client-sensitive data which can make use of the limited new security functionality.
However Vista is not 'bad'. Vista can run quite smoothly on 1GB RAM for a start. XP however has the benefit of being a seasoned operating system (arguably Microsoft's best offering to date).
I eluded to some of the things that were missed from that story. Yes, 512MB uses can experience a speed boost by using a flash usb stick. However the amount of sticks I've tried, from Kingston to cheap memory sticks ranging in size from 512MB to 8GB has led me to believe that I'm never going to find a manufacturer of USB sticks with which Vista will say it is compatible. I've only ever had an adverse message when attempting to utilise this function.
There are, fairly by Microsoft's own admission, areas of improvement. whilst Vista isn't the killer-OS many were expecting (myself included) it's a decent OS.
The crux of it is...if you can find a reason other than "but it's new!" to jump ship from the "USS XP" to the "USS Vista", then ahoy matey and walk the plank - fact remains I refuse to believe that there is an actual reason.
and that will prove what exactly? i've never sent a fax from windows 3.11, 95, xp or vista. So how exactly does this alter my view on Vista? ...what a strange thing to say!
and that will prove what exactly? i've never sent a fax from windows 3.11, 95, xp or vista. So how exactly does this alter my view on Vista? ...what a strange thing to say!
OK, then that's OK for you. I send faxes frequently using the fax modem in my XP machine, and so I can't "upgrade" to Vista Home *. Judging by the number of complaints about this on the web, there are lots more like me out there.
And, while I'm a rant, how is removing Explorer's filmstrip view an "upgrade"? That's another XP standard feature that I use all the time.
That has to be one of the dumbest anti-Vista arguments I've ever heard. If you want to send faxes from Vista, either buy Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise version or just use 3rd party fax software. Not many home users have need to send faxes.
One thing that I know for sure is that it's become very boring, very quickly.
Last edited by SniperX on 21 Jan 2008 - 10:12
It's not even from a third party, but from the freaking biased source itself.
I've also seen these kind of articles since what feels like Day 1 of Vista's release? I know the facts, and I don't like them much. Thank you.
Yes, yes, I know, "don't read if you don't like", but this was one article too many on this topic for me. Let the old horse of Vista's feature set die. Please.
Either lots of people are reporting "news" that isn't specifically newsworthy (or double posting slightly different news items is probably more likely) or viral campaign it is!
Can I advertise on the forums too?
Some people love it, some people hate it. It's not complicated to understand.
im no ms hater, but i do hate dealing with vista, i own it, ms gave it to me(ultimate) i ran it for a month and removed it and went back to server 2003, just less headakes with apps and games and hardware for that matter.
posting news about an microsoft OS being good that comes from MS is like posting a news artical about the iphone being the best device ever made then sorcing it back to http://www.apple.com/ (apple/mac/ipod/iphone website)
or posting something prooving that mac is easyer to use and more reliable then sorcing it back to http://www.apple.com/
if your going to post "news" as proof something is good NEVER POST BACK TO THE MAKERS SITE.
ms effectivly has had to admit vista was a misstake to bring out when they did, its sales have sucked arse, most OEM's have had to start offering XP as an option because people dont want vista after using it.
please dont post FUD like this as news, im to tired to refute each of the articals BS reasions vista rules again so i refer you to this post.
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php...p;postcount=189
its a repost of this FUD post.......
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.