Windows RG?

[Sigi]

Vista is performing more like ME than XP though currently.

LOL most bullshit statement i've ever read on this forum.

Vista isn't anywhere near as piss-poor as ME was when it was released.

Yeah, you're right. It's WORSE!
MS promised several things that would have made Vista truly unique and awesome. As it stands, it's essentially a nice bloated piece of eyecandy. Out of box XP is also 5000 more intuitive to naive (aka computer illiterate) individuals since it is logical. Vista is just... well, it's a gigantic sack of shit. Too much placebo security, not enough real security; horrible, non-intuitive interface; buggy, bloated... at least ME took 1/8th the memory to run, 1/4th the size to install as well as introducing something revolutionary at the time: System Restore. Perhaps the servicepacks will address the god-awful snarls Vista has (after all, it took SP1 for XP to truly start shining) and make it an OS that isn't Wipe Off Only.

[Cephius]

I run Vista on my laptop and XP on my desktop; though the laptop is a far superior machine in terms of hardware (much better gfx card, sound, dual processor, etc) I still prefer Xi on the desktop. Vista sucks at running things. It has a bunch of bullshit backing it up and I run more FPS on this shitty 4 year old Dell than on Vista machine.

Vista's interface in terms of Office 2007 is also stupid. An age-old rule of software development is to not drastically change your interface or you will confuse and ANGER the customer. Ribbons are fail.

It's pretty retarded to judge an operating system by the FPS you get running a game that was released 5 years ago. I guess XP sucks too compared to windows 95, I can run wolfenstein 3d on that old thing way better than I can in XP!

Also, is it really that hard to figure out the changes in Office 2007? They moved a few menus around, and now the file menu is the office icon. Oh no, whatever shall I do! If it bothers you that much, why not just keep using 2003? It's not like 2007 can run anything that 2003 can't. What does office 2007 have to do with Vista anyway?

Yeah, you're right. It's WORSE!
MS promised several things that would have made Vista truly unique and awesome. As it stands, it's essentially a nice bloated piece of eyecandy. Out of box XP is also 5000 more intuitive to naive (aka computer illiterate) individuals since it is logical. Vista is just... well, it's a gigantic sack of shit. Too much placebo security, not enough real security; horrible, non-intuitive interface; buggy, bloated... at least ME took 1/8th the memory to run, 1/4th the size to install as well as introducing something revolutionary at the time: System Restore. Perhaps the servicepacks will address the god-awful snarls Vista has (after all, it took SP1 for XP to truly start shining) and make it an OS that isn't Wipe Off Only.

Oh god, are you the guy who writes Mac commercials?

Seriously, if you're too computer retarded to use Vista, go get a "PC for dummies" aka a Mac and leave the real computers to people who know how to get the most out of them. Vista has several nice features that aren't immediately apparent to people not familiar to computers. Is anything in Vista groundbreaking? No. Is it a "gigantic sack of shit"? Certainly not. Vista x64 is a great OS in terms of system stability and gaming potential. Many people believe that Vista was meant to be a 64-bit OS and I tend to agree.

I would say 90% of problems I see people having with Vista are one or both of the following reasons:

1) Using hardware that has poor or no Vista driver support, causing crashes or blue screens
2) Trying to run it on a system that doesn't meet the system requirements

Guess what, Microsoft can't do much about that.

[Shuemue]

1) Using hardware that has poor or no Vista driver support, causing crashes or blue screens
2) Trying to run it on a system that doesn't meet the system requirements

Guess what, Microsoft can't do much about that.

They could have added a ton more native driver support and made it less bloated.

[Cephius]

You can't hold Microsoft responsible for making every driver for every component from every company... it's unrealistic. There has to be accountability on the part of the manufacturer as well.

As far as Vista being "bloated", it's still something that the user can control. If you call Superfetch and drive indexing "bloated" and not worth having then by all means turn them off and watch Vista's RAM usage drop like a rock.

[Alleya]

Seriously, if you're too computer retarded to use Vista, go get a "PC for dummies" aka a Mac and leave the real computers to people who know how to get the most out of them.

*nix users?

[Sigi]

Oh god, are you the guy who writes Mac commercials?

Seriously, if you're too computer retarded to use Vista, go get a "PC for dummies" aka a Mac and leave the real computers to people who know how to get the most out of them. Vista has several nice features that aren't immediately apparent to people not familiar to computers. Is anything in Vista groundbreaking? No. Is it a "gigantic sack of shit"? Certainly not. Vista x64 is a great OS in terms of system stability and gaming potential. Many people believe that Vista was meant to be a 64-bit OS and I tend to agree.

I would say 90% of problems I see people having with Vista are one or both of the following reasons:

1) Using hardware that has poor or no Vista driver support, causing crashes or blue screens
2) Trying to run it on a system that doesn't meet the system requirements

Guess what, Microsoft can't do much about that.

Ok, go go assumption time.

I am a woman for one thing. As far as "PC for Dummies aka Mac" I've been working on systems since 1993.

Vista *has* potential, however it does not yet achieve that potential. Honestly, I won't switch to Vista until it is more stable. On a system that exceeded it's requirements in *every* way... Vista STILL performed slower/ consumed more resources than XP SP2. Whereas I can take a CD, boot to it and have a fully-functional, STABLE GUI OS (Knoppix). Yes. Really. Oh yeah, and the claims about extended battery life when using Vista? Bullshit. Utter, unadulterated bullshit. XP SP2 run time off of clean install + hardware drivers only: 3.5 hours. Same system, Vista Ultimate + hardware drivers only: 2.5 hours.

[Cephius]

Oh god, are you the guy who writes Mac commercials?

Seriously, if you're too computer retarded to use Vista, go get a "PC for dummies" aka a Mac and leave the real computers to people who know how to get the most out of them. Vista has several nice features that aren't immediately apparent to people not familiar to computers. Is anything in Vista groundbreaking? No. Is it a "gigantic sack of shit"? Certainly not. Vista x64 is a great OS in terms of system stability and gaming potential. Many people believe that Vista was meant to be a 64-bit OS and I tend to agree.

I would say 90% of problems I see people having with Vista are one or both of the following reasons:

1) Using hardware that has poor or no Vista driver support, causing crashes or blue screens
2) Trying to run it on a system that doesn't meet the system requirements

Guess what, Microsoft can't do much about that.

Ok, go go assumption time.

I am a woman for one thing. As far as "PC for Dummies aka Mac" I've been working on systems since 1993.

Vista *has* potential, however it does not yet achieve that potential. Honestly, I won't switch to Vista until it is more stable. On a system that exceeded it's requirements in *every* way... Vista STILL performed slower/ consumed more resources than XP SP2. Whereas I can take a CD, boot to it and have a fully-functional, STABLE GUI OS (Knoppix). Yes. Really. Oh yeah, and the claims about extended battery life when using Vista? Bullshit. Utter, unadulterated bullshit. XP SP2 run time off of clean install + hardware drivers only: 3.5 hours. Same system, Vista Ultimate + hardware drivers only: 2.5 hours.

For someone who's worked on systems since 1993, you sure do overgeneralize a lot. Your problems with Vista and fail to take into account that many of Vista's memory hogging features can be turned off if you so desire. Namely drive indexing and Superfetch. These two programs provide a huge boost in performance at the cost of using up memory. Superfetch monitors your most-used programs and pre-loads them into memory so they load faster. Turn it off and Vista uses significantly less resources. There are other well known ways to further reduce these requirements, take 5 seconds to google it.

Futhermore, when you can play DX10 games on Knoppix or PCLinuxOS, you be sure to let me know. To compare Vista or XP to any Linux build, especially boot-from-CD GUIs, is a joke. They have completely different uses. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of open-source programming and Linux in general, but I enjoy PC gaming, streaming videos to my 360, ect that Linux simply isn't capable of. Linux on the other hand is a superior OS for file servers, or general web browsing/chatting/ect. Why do people such as yourself compare Windows and Linux as if they're a competition? They can (and do) coexist just fine.

Regardless, perhaps you should re-evaluate your stance on Vista as your views seem based more on the bandwagon mentality and less on actual experience or tinkering.

[Viena]

leave the real computers to people who know how to get the most out of them

Since when does "a real computer" mean a Windows PC to play games (in other words, a toy)?

Guess what, Microsoft can't do much about that.

Sure they can. They could start by changing some things in here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlog...n/drvsign.mspx.

[Cephius]

leave the real computers to people who know how to get the most out of them

Since when does "a real computer" mean a Windows PC to play games (in other words, a toy)?

I was referring to people who buy Macs because Windows is "too complicated" or "has too many problems" for them. A computer is only as smart as the person using it, and a Mac is nothing more than a dumbed-down version of Windows for dummies, in my opinion.

Guess what, Microsoft can't do much about that.

Sure they can. They could start by changing some things in here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlog...n/drvsign.mspx.

Yes, let's remove all the restrictions that provide added security and make it completely Microsoft's responsibility to make every driver for every product. Brilliant!

[Viena]

leave the real computers to people who know how to get the most out of them

Since when does "a real computer" mean a Windows PC to play games (in other words, a toy)?

I was referring to people who buy Macs because Windows is "too complicated" or "has too many problems" for them. A computer is only as smart as the person using it, and a Mac is nothing more than a dumbed-down version of Windows for dummies, in my opinion.

The UNIX-like versions of Mac are quite more of an OS than Windows is, from a technical standpoint.

Guess what, Microsoft can't do much about that.

Sure they can. They could start by changing some things in here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlog...n/drvsign.mspx.

Yes, let's remove all the restrictions that provide added security and make it completely Microsoft's responsibility to make every driver for every product. Brilliant!

Security is not an excuse for an administrator (some people don't quite get what admin/user implies) to not be allowed to use unsigned drivers. Do you believe that every single application you use should be signed in name of security for you to be allowed to use it? Byebye to the entire open source community.

[Cephius]

Security is not an excuse for an administrator (some people don't quite get what admin/user implies) to not be allowed to use unsigned drivers. Do you believe that every single application you use should be signed in name of security for you to be allowed to use it? Byebye to the entire open source community.

Where do you get the idea that Admins can't install unsigned drivers? It says in the first bullet of that link that "Admin privileges are required to install unsigned drivers, services, ect". The most I've seen is Vista asking for extra permission to continue installing unsigned drivers, for example the beta nvidia card drivers. I've never had a problem installing open source applications on Vista either, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

And no, I don't believe every single application should HAVE to be signed, but in some cases especially for ActiveX controls and self-extracting exes I think there should be tighter restrictions.

[Viena]

Keep reading... you seem to just have read the first point:

• Administrator privilege is required to install unsigned kernel-mode components. This includes device drivers, filter drivers, services, and so on.

This applies for all development phases, including pre-release product code and non-product code such as tests.
• x64 versions of Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 require Kernel Mode Code Signing (KMCS) in order to load kernel-mode software.
• Components in the Windows Vista Protected Media Path (PMP) must be signed for PMP, and all other kernel-mode components must be signed by Microsoft for the Windows Logo Program (formerly "WHQL signature") or Kernel Mode Code Signing, in order to ensure access to premium content.
• Driver binaries that load at boot time ("boot start drivers") must contain an embedded signature, for both x86 and x64 versions of Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, as described in "Kernel-Mode Code Signing Walkthrough" on this site.
• Installation packages and self-extracting executables downloaded through Internet Explorer must be digitally signed in order to run or install.
• Digital signatures are required for hardware-related drivers and other kernel components submitted for the Windows Logo Program.

[Avanarius]

ibl

op was retarded and so is this thread

xp was fine for general use and so is vista

Vista gains performance for program loading and other stuff at the cost of memory leeching and has compatibility issues due to being new and/or poor support for older devices/programs.
Partially manufacturers/developers fault partially Microsofts fault.

xp is still generally preferred for the majority hardcore gamers but will eventually be forced to change over to vista.

[Bunnykillah]

Vista is performing more like ME than XP though currently.

LOL most bullshit statement i've ever read on this forum.

Vista isn't anywhere near as piss-poor as ME was when it was released.

Yeah, you're right. It's WORSE!
at least ME took 1/8th the memory to run, 1/4th the size to install as well as introducing something revolutionary at the time: System Restore. Perhaps the servicepacks will address the god-awful snarls Vista has (after all, it took SP1 for XP to truly start shining) and make it an OS that isn't Wipe Off Only.

And I ran windows 3.1 with 32mb of ram and 100mb hard drive space. And it was introducing something revolutionary at the time: multiple fonts! Whats your point?

[Apelila]

Another contribution for vista bashing: DHCP is fucked up beyond belief by default. You have to force old information out like prying something from a cold dead hand.

Also, lets not get started on all the unintuitive changes they made to network troubleshooting.
9X -> XP upgrade in a sense that most of the information that shouldn't be given to user's wasn't; new interface for troublshooting that is unchanged between versions / setups.
XP -> Vista upgrade in a sense that no useful information is given to users when something is wrong; interface varies wildly depending on version / user configuration.

I hear vista when @ work from a customer and just sigh and resign myself to whatever is broken taking an extra 20 minutes to fix while I have them read to me what everything says, because I can never assume something is there from one screen to the next like I could in XP. Don't get me started on the way vista manages wireless networks either. Before you start to take the Mac approach of 'its easy if you know what your doing' stop, stfu, and realize that most people don't and never will they just want a computer that gets online / checks email / plays porn w/o most of the crap that Vista makes you jump through. That is the reason XP is still alive, MS forgot the basic rule of designing software: assume the customer is an idiot and make advance features 'opt in' not 'opt out'.

[Cephius]

Another contribution for vista bashing: DHCP is fucked up beyond belief by default. You have to force old information out like prying something from a cold dead hand.

Also, lets not get started on all the unintuitive changes they made to network troubleshooting.
9X -> XP upgrade in a sense that most of the information that shouldn't be given to user's wasn't; new interface for troublshooting that is unchanged between versions / setups.
XP -> Vista upgrade in a sense that no useful information is given to users when something is wrong; interface varies wildly depending on version / user configuration.

I hear vista when @ work from a customer and just sigh and resign myself to whatever is broken taking an extra 20 minutes to fix while I have them read to me what everything says, because I can never assume something is there from one screen to the next like I could in XP. Don't get me started on the way vista manages wireless networks either. Before you start to take the Mac approach of 'its easy if you know what your doing' stop, stfu, and realize that most people don't and never will they just want a computer that gets online / checks email / plays porn w/o most of the crap that Vista makes you jump through. That is the reason XP is still alive, MS forgot the basic rule of designing software: assume the customer is an idiot and make advance features 'opt in' not 'opt out'.

Jesus christ have you even used Vista? Do they not teach how to type "Ipconfig /release ipconfig /renew" at best buy? OH MAH GAWD THE GUI CHANGED I CANT CONNECT TO MY NEIGHBORS WIRELESS ANYMORE

edit: seriously if you're going to cry about gui changes spare me, its a really lame exuse.

[Apelila]

Jesus christ have you even used Vista? Do they not teach how to type "Ipconfig /release ipconfig /renew" at best buy? OH MAH GAWD THE GUI CHANGED I CANT CONNECT TO MY NEIGHBORS WIRELESS ANYMORE

edit: seriously if you're going to cry about gui changes spare me, its a really lame exuse.

Congratulations. I was referring to telling people how to to those commands over the phone. People who, like you apparently have trouble reading. Its not a lame excuse when it is less intuitive than it's predecessor and has less functionality. Yes, Vista's 'connect to' screen is gimper than XP's wireless zero. Also, I have a firm belief that you shouldn't have to force a DHCP refresh ; it should be automatic when doing things like changing to a different network or restarting.