Vista == Mojave == Wow?

Sxotty said:
So do you disagree with the premise of the mac ads? Do you disagree with the premise of the majority of advertising? IF that is the case you are consistent, but I fail to see why you are expressing umbrage with MS as opposed to the entire advertising industry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really do dislike the Mac ads. They're full of half-truths at best. LOL, my roommate could tell you stories about me yelling at the tv when they come on :p

I could express my outrage at the entire advertising industry (i.e go on a rant) or I could address this one specific issue and be entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.
 
Skrying said:
You're pretty amazing. You're either missing the point on purpose or you're brain dead and I think it's missing the point on purpose. Waving points away as being "already known here" doesn't mean anything at all. Starting a marketing campaign and fixing an OS are not canceling each other out. You know this, I know you know this, but you can keep acting ignorant of it if you so wish.
Click to expand...

You're right, I disagree with the mighty Skyring, therefore I am wrong by definition.
 
Albuquerque said:
"Oh, this is Vista? I thought it was slow and buggy and stuff... But it seems to be just fine..."

Yeah. On a 1.6Ghz Core Duo (not the Core 2), 2Gb of DDR2-533 ram, an x1300 128mb video card and a 5200RPM drive.

If my mid-50's parents are hearing about how Vista sucks (and it doesn't), then it really is a perception problem. Neither of them thought it sucked after using it, but how are they to know if people who are supposedly in the know keep telling them something false?
Click to expand...

My dirt cheap Acer laptop (well over a year old) has 1GB of ram, a single core 2 gHz A64 processor, and an x300 integrated graphics chip (NO dedicated memory, 2 pixel pipelines at 100 mHz - this thing is dog slow). I've compared both XP sp2 and sp3 and Vista sp1 on it. The summary of my findings is:

- Vista boots up much faster
- Vista loads IE, Firefox, Word, Visual Studio much faster
- Aero works just fine even on battery
- battery life is slightly longer in Vista (even using Aero)
- no screen tearing as you scroll around in a window in vista, unlike XP

The downside is that Palm desktop from 2003 for my long defunct Tapwave Zodiac won't work.

The idea that Vista needs a fast PC and graphics card to run is a myth. In every way I've been able to measure Vista is better. I've now deleted XP from the laptop.
 
Wow function thats not what I have experienced but granted that was SP1. I may have to look into this Vista situation once SP2 gets released.
 
For every anecdote an individual Vista user can quote in which Vista is shown in a good light, I've got hundreds that say otherwise. Corner cases aren't worth much.
 
ShaidarHaran said:
For every anecdote an individual Vista user can quote in which Vista is shown in a good light, I've got hundreds that say otherwise. Corner cases aren't worth much.
Click to expand...

The only problem I've had with Vista is no compatible Peerguardian and my NetLimiter 1.3 wont work with it. Other than that, the only thing I haven't had work is my brother's 10 year old star wars game he loves, but I managed to get it working correctly with some tweaks.

Also, I have a printer my mother gave me that wouldn't work on her Windows XP PC when she upgraded from ME. Heh...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaidarHaran said:
For every anecdote an individual Vista user can quote in which Vista is shown in a good light, I've got hundreds that say otherwise. Corner cases aren't worth much.
Click to expand...

Clearly I'm a sheeple corner case because I've found that Vista works well on my mainstream laptop - it's probably a magic laptop that actually performs like a much, much faster PC despite it's low specs.

If I actually knew enough to be anything other than a useless anecdote I'd have tried - and failed - to get Vista working on hundreds of machines and had to give up and go back to XP. Also, for experienced computer expert professionals, SuperFetch should actually make Firefox load more slowly.

Vista has been far more troublesome on my desktop PC (where it still dual boots with XP). I've had it since it came out, and my initial experience was awful thanks to crappy drivers and being reluctant to learn how to make it do what I wanted it to. I'm still not happy with everything, but then I wasn't with XP either.
 
The reason why I am quite interested with Vista is VPN...especially x64 Vista. I dont intend to go back to x32 and it looks like there is no VPN for XP x64 or none that can be attained easily. I saw some threads however where people compiled vpn-c to windows and then they somehow got it to work. But the instructions are sketchy at best. And I feel I owe the proponents of Vista an unbiased trial of Vista but only after SP2 comes out and a few more version of vLite come out :p
 
function said:
Clearly I'm a sheeple corner case because I've found that Vista works well on my mainstream laptop - it's probably a magic laptop that actually performs like a much, much faster PC despite it's low specs.

If I actually knew enough to be anything other than a useless anecdote I'd have tried - and failed - to get Vista working on hundreds of machines and had to give up and go back to XP. Also, for experienced computer expert professionals, SuperFetch should actually make Firefox load more slowly.

Vista has been far more troublesome on my desktop PC (where it still dual boots with XP). I've had it since it came out, and my initial experience was awful thanks to crappy drivers and being reluctant to learn how to make it do what I wanted it to. I'm still not happy with everything, but then I wasn't with XP either.
Click to expand...

You are a corner case, like it or not. As for your flamebait, I'll pass.
 
Well ive just moved from xp to vista (buggered up xp trying to remove malware)
and i like it granted it does things that anoy me
as for it being faster than xp cant agree not for normal use anyway as for people who say it is I bet they are running it on pc's that are easilly powerfull enough to run everything at full tilt.
Seriously the difference between vista running on a poswerfull pc and it running on a budget pc is immense on a budget pc its just horrible and much much slower than vista
my problem with vista is from an end users point of view what does it offer me a fancy gui thats about it
oh uac which i like but its poorly impemented imho
 
ShaidarHaran said:
You are a corner case, like it or not. As for your flamebait, I'll pass.
Click to expand...

You, on the other hand, are most certainly not a "corner case".

You criticise Vista rabidly (for example its "ridiculously over-complicated" time and date adjustment) while seemingly having very little knowledge of it (for example its ridiculously simple time and date adjustment).

This kind of thing is disappointingly common, like it or not.

P.S. I think you're misusing "corner case" terribly.
 
I'd like to try Vista. I had a bad experience with XP yesterday. If Vista is better protected against Malware/adware, that would be reason enough to use it. I've heard lots of bad things about Vista, but every once in a while I'm reminded that XP isn't the hottest thing around either.
 
function said:
You, on the other hand, are most certainly not a "corner case".

You criticise Vista rabidly (for example its "ridiculously over-complicated" time and date adjustment) while seemingly having very little knowledge of it (for example its ridiculously simple time and date adjustment).

This kind of thing is disappointingly common, like it or not.

P.S. I think you're misusing "corner case" terribly.
Click to expand...

Would you like to debate the issue, or do you just want to keep baiting me?
 
suryad said:
Wow thats pretty harsh Skyring. I am not a fan of Vista because of its bloat mainly and sluggishness and I used it on the specs indicated below! I dont see why it needs that much disk space to just install and I really fail to see what features it brings to the table over good old XP.
Click to expand...

Christ, you're concerned about disk space in this day and age?
 
weaksauce said:
Christ, you're concerned about disk space in this day and age?
Click to expand...

Why not? Everyone has different priorities, particularly when it comes to budgeting. I only had a single 250GB drive in my system up until last week when my roomie let me borrow the 2x250's out of his defunct system (until I can build him a new PC). Half of the drive was already taken up by XP + apps, my media filled up the rest. If I were on Vista it would've been necessary for me to have significantly fewer apps installed, or significantly less media stored on my PC (media server setup for streaming to PS3).
 
function: let me clarify.

I'm absolutely fine with you having a great experience with Vista, I won't claim you're a liar or get all bent out of shape over the matter. What I have a problem with is your representation of your experience as though it were common. Anecdotes do not a majority make.
 
So, they don't have $50 - $60 to buy a new HD, yet they have the spare cash to buy the OS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)
613 614 615
Replies
12K
Views
2M
BRiT
BRiT
R
Windows 7 to ship without IE in the EU (+ HR, CH)
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
12K
Silent_Buddha
S
M
Vista rant ---- MS must dump it...
13 14 15
Replies
285
Views
33K
MulciberXP
M
O
Another Fils-Aime 'blue ocean' statement...
Replies
2
Views
1K
ninzel
N
M
Real next-gen war Ken Kutaragi vs. Peter Moore
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
11K
Ty
T
Back
Top