Vista OS

I dual-boot Vista Ultimate and XP Pro. I spent 10 hours getting it installed properly. And then after I got it working, I installed some drive-imaging software that gave me a BSOD every time I booted into Vista.

Vista is working again now, after about 4 hours of work, but I never use it. I've played with it, done that - nothing more to see. The new integrated search function is pretty handy for me, as I do a lot of game mod work and such that involves navigating through lots of folders and files.
That'd be about the only thing I'd like in XP, and I don't even need it.

Need more reasons to stick with XP? (or Mac : )
As others have said - games runs slower, programs run slower. Too much system overhead! You really pay for the pretty graphics and nice animated wallpapers.

And...it's still not stable enough for 'EDC' : D
Maybe when the Military and DOD move to Vista, in the far future, I'll try out Vista again.
Till then, XP all the way!

-David
 
Cripes ... Well, I've got a new Dell dual core desktop coming with Vista. Bought 2 meg of ram as well. The machine is supposedly a Vista machine. I'll let you know how it goes. I suppose that if things are crap right out of the box then I can spend the $30 and return it to Dell, but I'm hoping that many of the Winter / Spring 2007 early adoption bugs have been sorted out.

I did have a Windows 2000 / ME low end desktop and got by. I remember OS stability issues though. I was glad to see it go. If I'm remembering correctly, Win ME had the hard drive running most of the time. Never figured that one out.

Razz
 
Razzierb said:
Bought 2 meg of ram as well.
Click to expand...

WOW!!! :eek: A blast from the past! 2 meg of RAM! :D

I remember my first computer, a Commodore VIC-20 - it had 5 K RAM. My Amiga 500 had 512 K and I expanded it to 1 meg. It's (almost) hard to believe we're at 2 gig now.
 
My South African office upgraded my XP to Vista while I was out of the office. It was to ensure that all machines in the office were equal. Since I am only occasionally in that office and access through the internet the subsequent chaos caused more than a few rude emails to be sent through.

One nasty aspect is that doing a file search on Vista does not pick up word/XL files saved under XP. If I hadn't maintained strict folder/project designation I would have been in a serious mess.

Some programs don't function well under Vista unless you upgrade. Since they were my programs, not the office, I had to pay for the upgrades or forfeit. I reinstalled them on my home PC.
 
This is the way I use M$ when needed. :D

attachment.php
 
This is the way I use M$ when needed.
Click to expand...

Very cool. I've used emulators for running obsolete computer OSes and software within Windows. But if I were to need Linux and Windows, I'd do a dual-boot system instead. Very easy to set up, and hard drives have become so inexpensive. You can even boot 4 or more OSes from a single hard drive.

--------------------
I asked the office manager yesterday how she like Vista - boss bought her a very expensive Dell a while back. She said she never even uses it, because it can't run our software. :(
 
Since most people simply use whatever OS the OEM installed for them, their copies are completely legal and so the one change discussed in that blog is irrelevent to them. I doubt fixing that one aspect will make people love Vista any more than they do now.

I'm more concerned with compatibility issues and resource-hogging.
 
FWIW, I just recently bought 2 new HP laptops, a dv9428nr and a tx1215nr. I "downgraded" both of them to XP. Exactly 0 of the programs I use on a daily basis worked with Vista. Interestingly enough, I also saw an instance where Microsoft Money 2007, released after Vista, didn't work. During install, a message popped up stating something about "known compatibility issues, blah, blah, blah, etc." :rolleyes:
 
Thats interesting. I manage a number of networks and, contrary to the amazing amount of FUD being spread by people about Vista, it works just fine for my home and mobile systems and is working quite well in preliminary testing on my largest client network. It really isn't all that surprising though since when XP came out people ranted and raved against it in the same way...mostly the same people who now swear by how great XP is and rant about Vista :rolleyes:
 
Torm said:
Thats interesting. I manage a number of networks and, contrary to the amazing amount of FUD being spread by people about Vista, it works just fine for my home and mobile systems and is working quite well in preliminary testing on my largest client network. It really isn't all that surprising though since when XP came out people ranted and raved against it in the same way...mostly the same people who now swear by how great XP is and rant about Vista :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem running it. I'm mulitbooting Vista/XP/Linux. It's just that Vista is demonstrably slower than XP and doesn't offer the average user any real benefit. Yet. As software and patches come out, Vista will probably improve. But it's not a product really ready for primetime yet.
 
Torm said:
Thats interesting. I manage a number of networks and, contrary to the amazing amount of FUD being spread by people about Vista, it works just fine for my home and mobile systems and is working quite well in preliminary testing on my largest client network. It really isn't all that surprising though since when XP came out people ranted and raved against it in the same way...mostly the same people who now swear by how great XP is and rant about Vista :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My 22 year old son uses Vista and likes it , he has never had any problems. I use LINUX on my boxes. The emulator i showed the screen shot of is only used when I need to test a piece of software on a M$ kernel.
 
heatride said:
My 22 year old son uses Vista and likes it , he has never had any problems. I use LINUX on my boxes. The emulator i showed the screen shot of is only used when I need to test a piece of software on a M$ kernel.
Click to expand...

I've used a lot of 'flavors' of Linux on my computers. My alternate to XP is currently PC-BSD. Took a while to set up, but now it's working beautifully, and faster than XP or Vista.
I like emulators, although most of the ones I use are more of the arcade/gameboy advance/n64 type, rather different from that.

-David
 
Torm said:
Thats interesting. I manage a number of networks and, contrary to the amazing amount of FUD being spread by people about Vista, it works just fine for my home and mobile systems and is working quite well in preliminary testing on my largest client network. It really isn't all that surprising though since when XP came out people ranted and raved against it in the same way...mostly the same people who now swear by how great XP is and rant about Vista :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Comparing the release of XP to Vista is nowhere near the same. The cold reception that Vista from the tech community is nowhere near the same as it was when XP came out. Apples to saltine crackers.
Vista is extremely convoluted , XP is/was not.
Vista is a huge system hog , much moreso than XP was when it came out and the benefits are naught other than bells and whistles. Granted most systems sold now are more than capable of running Vista smoothly , no ? ;) XP was a step forward , Vista is a step into Glamour magazine. The only "good" Vista does is for the DRM crowd and their ilk.
Not to even mention the major problem of compatability.

No sir , there is no comparison.
 
rebeltf said:
No sir , there is no comparison.
Click to expand...

Vista has tighter security, a couple thousand more Group Policy options, far superior deployment options, tougher protection against malware, a more hardened kernel, the list goes on and on. People couldn't see past XPs UI when it came out either and now the same uninformed comments are being said again.

The only things that can really be said against Vista is that it requires more resources (which every Microsoft OS has done historically), it has a new UI which can be changed to an XP or 98 style UI with a few mouse clicks, and doesn't have a lot of vendor support for for legacy hardware yet (even though those same vendors have had access to SDKs and information on how to write Vista drivers for years now).
 
UAC is poorly implemented and annoying driving many users to bypass it completely. The other issues don't really apply to the user experience, they're more about the IT guy in business.

As to the UI, yes, i've continued to the use the Classic interface in XP and Vista. That's not the issue. Vista is SLOW, annoying and poorly supported. The low vendor support indicates they too don't think Vista is a particularly desirable platform for their products. I agree.
 
Here is a pic of my linux security in action .:D You folks should see em in the shotgun formation !

attachment.php
 
Thanks for the ME history.

I've pretty much decided that when this machine craps out I'm getting a Mac!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top