Winblows Vista is a steaming crap-pile of shit

So far, it has been working on installing the IE8 update for 30 minutes...

Seriously now, how long does it take to install a freakin browser...

Heh!

I am running OSX 10.5 Leopard here, but this is absolutely the LAST time I offer to help a friend with their winblows problems... From this point forward, my only help will be to suggest buying a Mac.

:mad:

Of course we do nothing more than email and a few simple games. I runs CAD pretty well.

:shrug:

My son's "Gaming PC" with Vista has problems connecting to the Internet every time out.

"I told him so"

:P

My oldest functional DOS box is 3.3

I've got several on 98 SE and one 95 that still works. The odd-ball is the 2000 Pro server. All of the laptops are Vista except for the two old Think Pads that are on 3.11 and my youngest has a netbook on XP.

That's just the Micro$oft shit.

it all fits!

:rofl:

on a DEC PDP 11/70. Talk about a waste of paper!!

5.1 was SO much better. :P

Actually I think I still have the disks somewhere...

:wtf:

3.1 came on one 5.25 disk!

And I had an upgrade disk to upgrade it to 6.something but I seem to have misplaced it.

;-)

...Windows 7 doesn't appear to be any better.

About to run XP in a VM, as soon as the iso is downloaded.

called Windows.

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net

and am completely sold.

A "virus" generally DOES SOMETHING!

and no problems.

:P

I have Vista. No problems whatsoever.

:P

:7

he is actually a smart guy...

:P

Honestly I remember hearing bitching about Vista within 10 minutes of its release

:shrug:

I've been wrestling with this steaming heap of poo for awhile now.

I am a Mac person who said yes when asked to help with a friends vista machine...

max out the ram at 4 gigs (That is the max for 32 bit processors) and make sure you have a seperate video memory. If you have that, Vista will run as well as XP.

Microsoft never enabled PAE (Physical Axddress Extension). This means, on a 4GB system, almost 25% of it (800MB) is reserved and mapped for peripheral hardware (video, sound, et al) -- net 32-bit Vista quantity is 3.2GB.

Net total = 3.2GB, 1.8GB is used by the OS, so 1.4GB remains for apps. You can do a few things, but it gets eaten up quickly. Running one virtual machine would be an interesting endeavor as well.

File transfers (for large files) are slower under Vista than XP.

Many performance benchmarks show Vista, on average, to be a bit slower.

The user interface definitely is slower - even on high end video cards, such as a nvidia GTX280 (or a GTX260 overclocked to 280 specs).

64-bit Vista is exponentially more stable than 64-bit XP (and the former has multimedia niceties the latter lacks)...

If I were to recommend Vista, just move to 64-bit and be done. 32-bit, with Microsoft Pigsty technologies, can't cut it anymore due to how sloppy they've become.

for the reasons you list.

and while slower, it works with 2GB of RAM.

IMHO.

how much user interaction is needed to press, check for and install updates?

The computer does the rest...

:eyes:

usually it is between the back of the chair and the start of the keyboard.

After that no problems!

but not mine.

nice try though... :eyes:

those I administer at work!

People just figured out how to do things on XP and now everything is different.

:sarcasm:

anyone who installs IE8 needs a brain reboot. No one on the planet has anything good to say about IE8, and there's nothing it can do that can't be done better by Opera, Chrome, Safari, or Firefox.

(I have used IE7 exactly twice in the two years I've had this machine, and one of those was Microsoft insisting on it for a security update.)

I'm running the 7100 build of the Windows 7 beta right now, and I have to say, I'm flabbergasted. It's Vi$ta without the bad stuff. Vi$ta as it should have been and wasn't.

I won't go into a huge, long description of it, but 7 looks to be one of those rare gems Micro$oft puts out every five to seven years. Even as a beta, Win7 is faster, cleaner, better looking, and better behaved than any previous version of Window$. I like it so much, I've abandoned my XP Pro 64-bit install in favor of the Win7 "test".

Here's an example. I'm a gamer. I have several top-shelf PC games (Crysis, Oblivion, Command & Conquer 3, The Last Remnant, and others) that push my system to its absolute max. Both installations of Windows have access to the exact same hardware, as they exist as a dual-boot on the same physical hard disk.

In The Last Remnant, I get perhaps 20-30 frames per second when running in WinXP. The framerate fluctuates wildly depending on what's happening onscreen. There are stutters in the video, sometimes the audio is totally out of sync, there's an extreme loss of frames during battles, etc.

In Window$ 7, however, I get a consistent sixty frames per second or better with the exact same game. I was completely shocked. I get the same sort of performance difference in other games, Crysis in particular.

Now, games generally push the CPU, RAM, and video hardware. If it performs this well under that much stress, well... Window$ 7, FTW.

Micro$oft Window$ Vi$ta sucked, but Window$ 7 is looking like it'll be golden.

"XP is how Windows 2000 should have been". One of many catchphrases I kept hearing as the decades went by, for each new release.

Yet each new version cost more and more and more. Vista started out as $500 for a full license (Ultimate edition, where 'ultimate' suggested a lot of unique goodies - which Microsoft barely delivered on, the $kank$...)

Does Win7 include WinFS and the other pieces Microsoft threw out the door during longhorn/vista development due to development problems? PAE for the 32-bit editions?

Why make a larger-than-usual pile of shit just to "rapidly" follow up with a thinner* one? Deliberate shite marketing just to draw in more people for the next release? Remember, this is is Microsoft: They sold Windows 2000 via making adverts that had Win2k mocking Windows 95 openly. (non-monopolies pulling these stunts would have had their doors shuttered.)

Sorry, but this fool isn't buying Microsoft's shit anymore. Not just because of the OS; the "support" I got with a couple of their apps has been appalling; bugs they said would not be fixed until a new PRODUCT RELEASE (meaning pony up the dough for the upgrade if or when it materializes).


* they probably went back to XP's source code and threw in Aero and DX10 and called it a day...

I Googled a bit, and I'm still lost as to why WinFS would be important to me. Devs, perhaps, but I'm not a software developer. As for PAE in 32-bit versions, the answer seems to be no.

Windows 7 is built on the Vista kernel, not the XP kernel. Oh, and it uses DX11.

Windows 7:Vi$ta = XP:ME.

I loved IE7, and 6. Prefered them to Firefox. Since I installed 8, I've started using Firefox, and now Opera.

Don't know why, but 8 just irritates me. Too many little tweaks that make things more annoying. Like, they allow you to delete a URL from your drop-down address box, by clicking on an 'x' on the right side. Problem is, the 'x' is right where I usually click to open a link, so instead of opening a link, I wind up deleting it and having to type it back in. Just a ton of those little things that drive me crazy.

It's still updating as we speak :(

Oh, and Windows Update doesn't give me an opportunity to go to IE 7 from IE 6 - nope, I *have* to go to IE 8. Good job when all the "updates" have installed I will be installing Firefox.

But yep even Windows XP blows compared to Ubuntu. When Ubuntu upgraded last month to 9.something, the computer booted faster. I reinstalled Windows XP and on first boot it booted just as fast, but Windows *needs* anti-virus, firewall, anti-spam. Installed it and the machine got slower instantly.

Mark.