Save Windows XP

[-Cpt. J.-]

Originally Posted by Lilleput

Okay, i'll explain it.


By Tech wizards i meant people that use Windows for obscure tasks most people never heard of, so when they went out on their silly blogs and complained that vista was 16.432% slower than XP for Coding Binumural excel client betas people took it as if Vista was rubbish.

It has been explained again and again: if your having trouble with Vista not working right, it's your hardware drivers that is causing the problems.

And no matter how well you explain what causes these problems, it still does not change the fact that Microsoft is replacing a good OS with a seriously flawed one. They had no reason to rush Vista, they made it too heavy, yea, EVENTUALLY it will be good but for current PCs it is usually a bit too heavy. And there are serious compatibility issues with NEW software. XP didn't support 15 years old poopoo because... it was old ie useless.

They made a pretty OS. Pretty and a resource hog, and if there is a Tech wiz here saying to me that Vista uses RAM in a different way than XP. I don't give a shit. It's flawed, they attempted to fix a problem that was never even there so they would be able to justify releasing a shitty OS.

But the thing that bothers me the most:
1. They force you to change NOW.
2. They focused on graphics too much.

After you spend around 2 hours switching off the completely useless effects and other BS, it's OK... exept it still hogs more memory than it should. However I know Vista will win. MS will make sure of it and that's fine by me really. But they should first get rid of all the bugs and other flaws.

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by -Cpt. J.-

And no matter how well you explain what causes these problems, it still does not change the fact that Microsoft is replacing a good OS with a seriously flawed one. They had no reason to rush Vista, they made it too heavy, yea, EVENTUALLY it will be good but for current PCs it is usually a bit too heavy. And there are serious compatibility issues with NEW software. XP didn't support 15 years old poopoo because... it was old ie useless.

They made a pretty OS. Pretty and a resource hog, and if there is a Tech wiz here saying to me that Vista uses RAM in a different way than XP. I don't give a shit. It's flawed, they attempted to fix a problem that was never even there so they would be able to justify releasing a shitty OS.

People have said the exact same thing since Windows 95 was released. If we all went "well the old one worked fine" then we would never have gone beyond Windows 3.1, if we ever made that. Surely the "next-gen" OS should be stretching low end computers, if it cutting edge after all. It isn't like any new computers struggle with it, mines a cheapo superstore PC and it doesn't have the slightest issue running Vista.
People are and always will be resistant to change and the sooner people realise that newly released software will often have teething troubles, the better.

[petarkb]

Originally Posted by Lilleput

Okay, i'll explain it.


By Tech wizards i meant people that use Windows for obscure tasks most people never heard of, so when they went out on their silly blogs and complained that vista was 16.432% slower than XP for Coding Binumural excel client betas people took it as if Vista was rubbish.

It has been explained again and again: if your having trouble with Vista not working right, it's your hardware drivers that is causing the problems.

Are you serious? 16,5 percent is a SIGNIFICANT performance decrease. That's the difference between a F430 and an M3's 0-60 times.

As for the people who say people have been complaining about changing operating systems, they're right. And the people who were complaining never switched to XP until there were things they wanted to do, but could only be done on XP. I honestly do not see that coming with Vista. Vista's biggest advances are in DRM, which PROHIBITS you from doing things.

Maybe people will change to Win7, after it gets SP1, but AFAIK, Vista is the new Windows Me. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it's plainly not worth the hassle.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by .cmd

The thing that really annoys me this whole thing is that people install vista on their old XP machines, expecting it to work just as well as XP, find that it doesn't and then run off crying to post on the internet about how Microsoft has released a flawed product and swearing themselves off vista for life.

Well, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect a newer product to "work just as well" as an older product (or dare I say even better than).

[chaos386]

Originally Posted by Lilleput

It has been explained again and again: if your having trouble with Vista not working right, it's your hardware drivers that is causing the problems.

That's nearly the exact same argument I hear with Linux-based OSs:

"Hey, try Linux!"
"OK. Hey! The wireless doesn't work! Linux sucks!"
"Hey, don't blame Linux! Blame the manufacturer for not making a Linux driver!"

The bottom line is that if it doesn't work for people, they aren't going to like it. Judging by this thread, Vista obviously works well for some people and not so well for others. Yeah, maybe some people are bashing it because it's "cool" to do so, but on the other hand, you don't have to upgrade to Vista just because it's there.

[Lilleput]

Originally Posted by petarkb

Are you serious? 16,5 percent is a SIGNIFICANT performance decrease. That's the difference between a F430 and an M3's 0-60 times.

That was a made up number, you're a silly guy.

[Lilleput]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

Well, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect a newer product to "work just as well" as an older product (or dare I say even better than).

Windows OS has always been put on the market before they where ready, XP sucked at launch too, the upcoming (15. Feb) Service Pack for Vista will fix a lot of problems people hare having.

[epp_b]

Windows OS has always been put on the market before they where ready, XP sucked at launch too, the upcoming (15. Feb) Service Pack for Vista will fix a lot of problems people hare having.

I didn't even consider XP until well after SP2.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by chaos386

but on the other hand, you don't have to upgrade to Vista just because it's there.

My brother is one usually to jump on any beta or new windows just to play with it. He has been having a hard time bringing himself to even bother with Vista, every time he does he doesn't last long with it.

Originally Posted by epp_b

I didn't even consider XP until well after SP2.

I jumped right on the XP bandwagon, I loved the change in the start menu, and it was nice not having to re-load windows every month like with 98. I only used win2000 for a few months.

Originally Posted by Lilleput

Okay, i'll explain it.


By Tech wizards i meant people that use Windows for obscure tasks most people never heard of, so when they went out on their silly blogs and complained that vista was 16.432% slower than XP for Coding Binumural excel client betas people took it as if Vista was rubbish.

It has been explained again and again: if your having trouble with Vista not working right, it's your hardware drivers that is causing the problems.

How about something as simple as wanting to have proper full quality audio from that rather expensive audio card the user bought? Vista encodes all audio in software due to DRM. Or how about the fact that games that run excellent on XP on my system run irritatingly worse (though not unplayable) on Vista?

Microsoft did the same shit the Linux guys are doing, concentrating way to much on the "ooh look at this wobbly special effect" than actually making a better working OS.

OT: What is it with UI guys thinking it's cool to put fade in/out menus and windows? I just dumped a bunch of money into a system to make those menus appear faster, so why would one go back and make them artificially slow?

[Lupin_IV]

Microsoft is trying to get Apple users to switch in the only way they know how, which is to copy the aesthetics of MacIntosh systems.

Of course, contrary to the 'ease of use' argument that Apple loyalists always spout off ad nauseum, the aesthetics are the only real reason to have a Mac. Well, besides the fact that so few businesses use them that hackers don't even bother writing viruses for Mac systems, that is.

[epp_b]

I jumped right on the XP bandwagon, I loved the change in the start menu

Blech, the very first thing I do with any clean install of XP is to make it look as close to Windows 98 as possible (switch to classic theme, turn all the bloat "features" off, make the start menu "normal", etc.)

Microsoft did the same shit the Linux guys are doing, concentrating way to much on the "ooh look at this wobbly special effect" than actually making a better working OS.

I still don't blame Linux entirely. Vendors don't generally write Linux drivers because the cost in doing so is more than the money they'll make out of it. But, Linux is having a hard time becoming popular with relatively lousy driver support. It's kind of an endless cycle

[FATMOUSE]

Originally Posted by thedguy

Microsoft did the same shit the Linux guys are doing, concentrating way to much on the "ooh look at this wobbly special effect" than actually making a better working OS.

It's not the linux guys who are doing the wobbly shit, it's the compiz fusion guys. The linux guys are still working hard on making the kernel as good as possible. (They just released 2.6.24 the other day).

[petarkb]

Originally Posted by Lilleput

That was a made up number, you're a silly guy.

I knew it was made up, you're silly for thinking I was silly.

[.cmd]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

Well, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect a newer product to "work just as well" as an older product (or dare I say even better than).

Its unreasonable if they're expecting a newer product (which has been designed for use with newer technology) to run just as well on a older system as the OS it was designed to use.

If you think about what was available for about $1500 when XP was at the stage Vista is now, and then compare the performance of that (running XP) to what you can get for $1500 now (running Vista) wouldn't you agree that the newer product runs better?

[FATMOUSE]

Originally Posted by .cmd

If you think about what was available for about $1500 when XP was at the stage Vista is now, and then compare the performance of that (running XP) to what you can get for $1500 now (running Vista) wouldn't you agree that the newer product runs better?

Here's an interesting experiment. Get a computer (new, high end) running Vista now and compare with a computer (old, high end for the era) running Win95. Tell me which one seems snappier. It's an interesting experience.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by FATMOUSE

It's not the linux guys who are doing the wobbly shit, it's the compiz fusion guys. The linux guys are still working hard on making the kernel as good as possible. (They just released 2.6.24 the other day).

Still linux guys to me, unless after they are done working on some code and testing it they reboot into windows to run IE7

[johns13193]

finally, a use for this smiley:

Originally Posted by Lilleput

Vista is fine, stop repeating stuff you have read because hating on Vista is cool right now.

Agreed. It's the same with mac users, they just think that it is the best because they are told so. They have no real reasons why spending more money is worth it.

Originally Posted by Lupin_IV

Microsoft is trying to get Apple users to switch in the only way they know how, which is to copy the aesthetics of MacIntosh systems.

Of course, contrary to the 'ease of use' argument that Apple loyalists always spout off ad nauseum, the aesthetics are the only real reason to have a Mac. Well, besides the fact that so few businesses use them that hackers don't even bother writing viruses for Mac systems, that is.

I don't really see why macs are so aesthetically pleasing. IMO, Vista > Mac. In fact, Windows 95 > Mac

[Lupin_IV]

The Mac aesthetics aren't pleasing to me either, it's just that aesthetics make for the second of the Apple loyalists' arguments.