PDA

View Full Version : Windows Vista: JUNK!


Deadly Sushi
02-14-2007, 11:22 AM
Here is just ANOTHER reason why NOT to 'downgrade' to the new OS from Windows. Vista.
It will not play THOUSANDS of games: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=f7165327-11f8-4c76-b3f5-7b8e307c7b63&p=&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032118/&fg=

This is for broadband users. http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/tools/10.gif

PBinWA
02-14-2007, 12:02 PM
If your computer isn't broken then don't fix it.

Vista is new and resource hungry. Wait a year and buy a new computer. It will be ready then.

Just like the Mac OS 9 when it first came out on PowerPC, and when the Mac OS X first came out, and again when it came out on Intel.

If you don't have the guts to be on the bleeding edge stay where you are.:respect:

Dargo
02-16-2007, 08:48 AM
Actually I moved to Vista "Ultimate" and it's much faster and seems (so far) to be much more stable than XP. It seemed as if I was constantly chasing issues with XP so I upgraded. Although the upgrade process seemed to take an hour or more, the OS is definitely faster on my system. It's like I've upgraded to a faster computer as compared to XP. My system runs on an Intel Dual Core 6400, so it's nothing special but is relatively new.

So after a few days, I have to respectfully disagree and say Vista Rocks!! :thumb:

Deadly Sushi
02-22-2007, 02:40 AM
As ANOTHER smack for Vista, it has once again failed to protect its users. And just not by a little bit.... but buy a HUGE chasim. Here is the benchmark test: http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/02/21/windows_defender_pctools_failstest/

Gatorboy
02-22-2007, 06:12 AM
It will not play THOUSANDS of games:

Seeing that I don't play games (gee, that would mean I have too much idle time on my hands) this reason is meaningless to me.

Doc
02-22-2007, 08:00 AM
As ANOTHER smack for Vista, it has once again failed to protect its users. And just not by a little bit.... but buy a HUGE chasim. Here is the benchmark test: http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/02/21/windows_defender_pctools_failstest/


I would not call it a HUGE chasim just because it only found 52% of spyware in a test scenerio. I would consider the functionality of the OS more than the little add ons. I see Microsoft as being in a tough spot simply because they have been dinged for security so much that now they attempt to provide everything for the user. Spyware detection is important, but I will never just rely on one spyware program. Nor will I use the firewall tools built into any microsoft OS. I prefer to set up my own with zone alarm or a router. MS is trying to be the end all of OS's and that is a very tough role to fill. I guess they are trying to make it easy for the 1st time non computer savy buyer. And they want to offer everything in one package. When buying an 'all in one' package you never get the best of anything, but you get a subset of the best.

Deadly Sushi
02-22-2007, 02:29 PM
My point is WHY "upgrade"? WIndows XP is far more efficient with current hardware, current software and has drivers that actually are tweeked for it.
Vista is a resource hog and is less efficient. People will see VISTA run faster than XP but NOT with applications. Whats the point?

jwstewar
02-23-2007, 08:56 AM
You know what is so funny about all of these anti-Vista comments? I heard the same thing when Windows 3.1 came out. DOS was so much better and you couldn't play some games. Then when Windows 95 came out Windows 3.1 was so much better and people weren't going to upgrade - but yet they did. Then Windows 98 came out. 95 was so much better. Anyone see a trend here? And so it continues to this day. I see it even here at work. The system we replaced about 5 years ago was a DOS based Novell app. Everyone hated it. We replaced it with a VB6 Windows app. WOW, all of sudden that old system was perfect. Now we are starting to looking at replacing the new system. Well guess what? The new - new system can't hold a candle to the old - new system according to some. Again does this sound familiar? As soon as the free upgrade comes for my laptop, I'll probably install it there. I probably won't do the desktop for awhile. It just needs a rebuild on it, but I probably won't be buying XP for it for awhile - I need to let the computer budget rebuild for awhile as I bought my laptop and a few other toys for the computers recently.

Bottom line, is to all of these nay sayers. We've heard your song and dance before. Most of it is just BS because people don't like change or are afraid that someone else might learn something they don't know. Working in the IT field (where real work gets done besides playing games), I haven't really heard anything bad about it. I know we have a few folks running - granted we aren't running out and putting on it on everytone's desktop either. But those that do have it (most of them since November) are pretty happy with it.

Doc
02-23-2007, 12:54 PM
My point is WHY "upgrade"? WIndows XP is far more efficient with current hardware, current software and has drivers that actually are tweeked for it.
Vista is a resource hog and is less efficient. People will see VISTA run faster than XP but NOT with applications. Whats the point?

If the OS runs faster then the applications will also run faster, unless the application is at fault. What application have you seen run slower (or read about running slower)? The underlying OS is in charge of running the apps. It would be impossible for an OS to be "faster" yet all apps run slower since the apps are managed and ran by the OS.

I have to agree with jwstewar. Every time a new OS is released by Microsoft you will hear a lot of complaints at first but most upgrade eventually. It all depends on how much you enjoy being on the cutting edge.

I'm still waiting on my upgrade copy of Vista ....so I have not even seen it yet. :(
I will test it before I even consider moving it to a primary workstation.

Deadly Sushi
02-23-2007, 03:08 PM
If the OS runs faster then the applications will also run faster, unless the application is at fault. What application have you seen run slower (or read about running slower)? The underlying OS is in charge of running the apps. It would be impossible for an OS to be "faster" yet all apps run slower since the apps are managed and ran by the OS.

100% not true. The OS operation is completely disconected to the relation between a application and the OS. Just because the OS seems to run quicker, it has no barring on how a application runs on the OS.

PLEASE read this one example of Vista benchmarking:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/