Could this be the worst ever GPU article ever written?

My biggest gripe towards Charlie is his attitude towards Vista. Its frankly dispicable. Most of what he says it blatent lying and it unfortunatly seems to have permiated into the general [FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']consciousness [/FONT]of the net.

 

I find it slightly ironic Charlie is derided as an AMD shill on most forums I visit, except one, where his obvious pro Intel stance is an affront to decency.

 

Vista sucks. You are the only person not on Microsoft's payroll that does not acknowledge this. Charlie Demerjian does not dictate the collective opinion of the PC enthusiast community.

 

...

 

Vista rocks actually. Sure its performance sucks sometimes (not always) but as a OS and what it offers to me is tremendous over XP. From its lack of bugs (I used XP for a week about two weeks ago, couldn't believe how buggy it was in hindsight), to its UI changes beyond the "fancy" effects. It really is a overall much better package over XP. I think anyone who has used Vista for a couple months and tries to go back will be shocked to realize just how improved it really is.

 

I agree. Everyone's heard the horror stories about Vista, but I've found it to be a very good OS, a worthy sucessor to XP.

 

As has been said ad nauseum...

It's the same cycle repeated over and over. Certain people will hate MS regardless of whether they do anything good. Certain people will ALWAYS hate a new OS no matter if there are any improvements.

Just replace Vista with XP or Win95 or Win 3.0 or Win 2.0 or Windows 1.0 and you hear the same thing over and over. It sucks, what we already had is better and is all we'll ever need.

Personally I can no longer stand using XP. For what I do, it's just slower, less efficient, and if a misbehaving program crashes it takes the OS with it. If the same program crashes in Vista...no big deal. Just close the pop-up that says the program crashed and continue on. Worst case, you have to ctrl-alt-del to get to task manager from a full screen application and end task. I have yet to have any program take down the OS.

Regards,
SB

 

I only had that happen maybe five times in the entire time I used XP, with only two blue screens as well. I used it for nearly four years before my PC died on me.

Not bashing Vista(I plan on buying a copy myself...), just noting my own experience with XP.

 

Vista with the SP1 RC is a lot better than Vista without it, but that's no different than XP before and after SP1.

 

I like Vista too Stills, the gaming performance is rather bad

 

I used Vista for a month and was shocked to realize how much better I like XP. It was like a breath of fresh air going back, the performance differences at the desktop and gaming were just that incredibly stark (and I'm hardly running old hardware). Vista has a few features I'd like to see in XP, but those aren't near enough to balance out sluggish it felt in comparison. I'm still amazed that it shipped with its web browsing as painful as it is out of the box. I'm sure I'll give it a second look post-SP1, but not a chance in hell before that.

 

John, What hardware were you using and how long ago was your Vista install experience?

How is IE 7 that much difference than IE 6 to make web browsing as painful as you say it was? I always used FireFox, so the brief times I use IE I don't see any negatives in IE7, just positives.

 

A few months ago. Yes, I had the critical hotfixes installed.

I run IE7 on XP, but the browser version isn't the problem. It's auto-tuning. Until disabled via a command line web browsing is noticeably slow. I would hit one of my favorites and wait for several seconds before the browser even started loading the new page. It's funny how people don't notice it. One of the guys a work, a sys admin, had installed Vista prior to me doing it and when I mentioned the slow browsing he said he didn't have that problem. Came in the next day and said since I'd mentioned it he now noticed it, ran the command that night and came back the next day talking about the huge difference it made. Just surprised Vista shipped with its default config having auto-tuning enabled.

 

Interesting. I've never had a slower desktop experience with Vista. In fact it's noticeably quicker over XP for me. Even with a "bogged" down system compared to a completely new install of XP, Vista is faster. As for gaming, well I've never done direct comparisons but for a few games since I tend to beat a game then go on except those with tremendous multiplayer. So to put it bluntly both CoD4 and WoW are extremely smooth in both XP and Vista.

Just general desktop use XP feels so poor. From having to use its horrible start menu, to it's lack of ease changing views in folders, hell something as simple as opening my Music folder in Vista is so tremendously smooth yet in XP I literally get hitches even minutes after having it open.

 

That does sound pretty starnge. I can say with absolute 100% certaintly that Vista is quicker, smoother and more responsive than XP ever was for me. Perhaps you were havning some kind of weird hardware/software issue? Its not that XP was ever slow for me, its just that Vista seems that much more "effortless" in its reactons to my input. This is with a C2D and 2GB RAM.

BTW I tried the autotuning disable that you mentioned but couldn't find any difference, I was here at the time so didn't restart IE after inoutting the command - perhaps that was the problem? Still, I can't say i've noticed any issues with IE7 in Vista, certainly a big improvement over IE6 IMO.

 

I've had a network driver that caused me to have an horrible first experience in Vista performance-wise and I'm sure I'm not the only one who had such a problem. That's probably not even Microsoft's fault, heh - although a way to be able to figure out where the problem comes from without manually disabling everything one after the other etc. sure couldn't hurt.

 

yeah that's why I always revert to the win95 start menu (and customize it to remove search, help settings and add useful stuff : apps, games), and I use the detail view for everything (useless left pane disabled).
the defaults suck in XP but with some configuration it gets more simple and efficient.

 

Me too. I'm doing the same to Vista once I get it...

 

...

 

With Vista I could easily get away with just the Start menu's search function. It works extremely well on my system, it's extremely quick to find what I want. It is literally quicker to simply use my keyboard instead of clicking through any menu or clicking on a icon. Simply tap the windows key then type what I want and hit enter, so nice.