ViperAFK Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I've been using vista x 64 on my desktop for ages and have been completely satisfied with it, it has been fast, stable and secure. I just got a laptop recently and am running vista x 64 on that as well with no issues. I game tons on my desktop and everything has been great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lsdn Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Currently running Vista Ultimate X64 on my desktop. I have been running vista since RC phase and I can say it's stable and really fast. Games are not a problem whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+vlsi0n Subscriber¹ Posted August 21, 2008 Subscriber¹ Share Posted August 21, 2008 Me: 95 -> 98 -> XP -> Vista -> Windows 7 :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doli Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I have Vista and im happy with it on my Core 2 Duo 1.8 Ghz, the bottom line Core 2 when it came out and Vista runs like a champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted August 21, 2008 Veteran Share Posted August 21, 2008 Get back to us when you make an OS in less time than that.Remember that Windows ME have had a shelf life of just over a year (September 14, 2000 to October 25, 2001). Sure, Vista will not last as long as XP, but XP is rather the exception than the norm if you look at how Microsoft and Apple have released new OSes along the years. Vista's shelf life, as planned, is what you should expect a solid, reliable OS to have. And yes, such is Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#Michael Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I have said it before and I will say it again....Vista is a very solid product and one that I will use. I have 4 different machine using 4 different flavors of vista. All run it just fine. I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and figure out that vista is here to stay. Either use it...stay with xp....or switch to something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneAvail Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 WTF!!! This is still going on? It's been almost 2 years now, come on and SP1 already came out for Vista. The Mojave experiment should have been done on the idiots that are on the internet. You guys don't have any idea what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalE Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Lately I've been getting the impression that XP might've been very bad for the computer industry. Hardware vendors became too comfortable with it and forgot how to learn--Vista's demand for new drivers startled them so badly they couldn't think of anything to do but blame Microsoft while they tried to remember how to do something other than patch. IT guys who could've gone five years without learning anything new were suddenly reminded that technology meant being a student for life. No more wasting time calling their clients n00bs--time to become n00bs themselves.It just strikes me as strange that someone certified with Windows in 2006 might not be any more (or less) skilled with the OS than someone certified in 2002. XP put so many people into a standstill, it's like they forgot they had legs. I wholeheartedly agree. It seems that most people are simply complaining that Vista is "not XP," and that's why it sucks. Get with the times, people, technology changes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhangm Supervisor Posted August 21, 2008 Supervisor Share Posted August 21, 2008 It's true. XP has become a liability to all parties. It has retarded development of the computing industry for long enough, and really should be put out of its misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cork1958 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Who's waiting for a replacement? There are tons of replacements out there. For me, it's Zenwalk 5.2!! It'll probably take until AT LEAST SP3 for Vista to even be close to right, or before I buy a SUPER computer just so I'm able to turn it on!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huleboeren Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I read it in pc magazine which I get monthly. And this is why I dont read written magazines - usually outdated and full of crap :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhangm Supervisor Posted August 21, 2008 Supervisor Share Posted August 21, 2008 And this is why I dont read written magazines - usually outdated and full of crap :p Magazines exist to sensationalize and prostitute themselves out to public opinion. If they can make the majority of users (i.e. people stuck on XP) feel good about not upgrading by bashing Vista, then they'll do it faster than you can say WinFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rev Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I'm on Vista now, and I have been since before it was even out to the public. I have had very few problems with it on my laptop. I do agree that it was a bit rough around the edges when it first came out, but it's really nice now. This fits my experience to a T. Ive been using it as well since before it reached the public. I couldn't STAND to go back to XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Majesticmerc MVC Posted August 21, 2008 MVC Share Posted August 21, 2008 Get back to us when you make an OS in less time than that. Ubuntu's turnaround is a new version every 6 months. That means that between Vista and Win7, there will have been 6 versions of Ubuntu. Vista is fine for me. I even had a computer with broken RAM, and it still ran. Like has been said, XP was an exception. Microsoft's turnaround for operating systems prior to XP was 2-3 years, and the constant delays for Vista meant that it lived for a lot longer than necessary until Vista was 'completed'. Like it or not, XP is completely out of date. It's lack of support for any modern hardware is abysmal (don't take "lack of support" to mean "doesn't run". XP doesn't utilize memory and/or CPU cores even slightly as well as Vista does, and Vista's driver model offers more stability than XP ever offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1759 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Linux has been on the verge of taking over the desktop for 10 years, and I'm still waiting. It's getting better, but so have Windows and Mac. If you want a stable, fast, widely supported *nix, OSX it is. Vista pretty much requires 2 GB to run properly, but luckily, RAM is cheap and plentiful on new PCs. XP wasn't exactly fast on it's min. required specs either (PII 300, 128 MB), but it's been almost 7 years, and some people are now running quad-core/4 GB behemoths, and yet still bitch if a program uses over 100 MB of RAM. My switch to Vista was less strenuous than XP (when back to 2000 for awhile), and I remember how people back then complained about games running slower or not working in XP too. Oh, how times have changed. People don't though; hate change, hate new things, like to complain and spread FUD. I also ran Vista beta 2 and one of the RCs as well, but hated both of them, RTM has been fine since Nvidia and ATI got their drivers together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsupersonic Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Wow, OP, you act like Vista just came out. News flash: It's been out for over a year, get with the times. Also, probably the wrong place to ask, a tech community where you find statistics that won't match with real world statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 It's been out for over a year It's much closer to two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsupersonic Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 It's much closer to two years. A year and a half...either way doesn't make a big difference. OP's question should've been asked on/before Vista came out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjrambo Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Linux -> Tried Windows 9x (hated it) -> Windows 2000 -> Windows XP -> Windows Vista -> Mac OS Windows Vista won't be adapted by Businesses. Microsoft failed there. But, most likely business will go for Windows 7, heck might not even that. I think Microsoft could just go out with Windows Vista SP2 instead of calling it Windows 7. But, then maybe they want to get rid of name Vista since it got bad reputation. I use Vista x64 at home, works great...still needs improvements though and GUI is terrible. I think Windows 7 compared to Windows Vista is same as Windows XP compared to Windows 2000 even though i prefer Windows 2000 over Windows XP I hope they redesign GUI in Windows 7 completely, cause it just sucks in Vista. GUI in Office is just perfect. It's so intuitive and eye appealing. They should replace Windows GUI with Office 2007 GUI cause it just works perfect. Also Outlook 2007 for some reason stands out compared to other Office products. Don't know why? Ribbon is really awesome, already played with it in some of my .NET projects. Also Defragmentation Utility called Perfect or something like that uses Ribbon. It just works awesome. I think it should be a new standard so other companies uses it which would perfectly blend with OS. How hard would be for Microsoft to replace any menu in Windows with Ribbon, WordPad, Pain, even Notepad, Movie Makes, even Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer etc... Edited August 21, 2008 by jjrambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Veteran Posted August 21, 2008 Veteran Share Posted August 21, 2008 Did someone miss all the existing poorly-rated threads that are exactly like this one? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMaster23 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I would go for the replacement as I am already running Vista on every PC I own. Even my crappy slow 10" netbooks runs Vista just great. People who claim Vista is slow, don't know how to use an OS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Who's waiting for a replacement? There are tons of replacements out there.For me, it's Zenwalk 5.2!! It'll probably take until AT LEAST SP3 for Vista to even be close to right, or before I buy a SUPER computer just so I'm able to turn it on!! It's people like you that spread this ridiculous misinformation about vista, my old p4 (socket 478) with 2 gigs of ram ran vista flawlessly as does my laptop and other two desktops. You do not need anything CLOSE to a "super" computer to run vista, stop spreading this stupid crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Horror Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Get back to us when you make an OS in less time than that. well, one can always ask the ubuntu guys :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 well, one can always ask the ubuntu guys :D They don't really 'make' any of the core components of Ubuntu. It's just a distribution, an assembly, if you will, of other people's software components (The linux kernel, various libraries, utilities, pieces of software, etc.). I'm sure some of the people working on Ubuntu contribute to those projects, but it's not like they actually 'make' the OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldier1st Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 i waited till sp1 for vista was released before moving to vista from xp as i heard alot of bad things about how crappy vista was without the service pack and it was true and it works good even on a 2003 system thats being upgraded still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts