Jump to content

Windows Vista


 Share

Recommended Posts

Now that it has been released and out for a while, figure we could discuss it in a new topic.

Here is what I posted at miranda-im.org forums a while back.

My friend bought a laptop that came with vista home (basic?) edition installed

1gb ram, amd, ati video card.

It ran kinda slow, and uninstalling the dell crap that came with it was difficult (as usual its difficult/impossible to remove some stuff that comes with computers).

The popup that asked if I was sure I wanted to do something was very annoying. I got it every time I wanted to do something.

Why should it ask when I press windowskey+r, type in msconfig, then ask if I want to run that. Why else would I have typed it in?!?!?!

I installed klite mega codec pack, and vista complained that it wasn't compatible with a color depth or something?

For the 3 hours I was setting up the laptop, I got the impression that windows vista sucked :P. All I saw was eye candy, and it was difficult to navigate control panel or find windows options. It takes a very long time to start the computer (partially due to the crap that comes preinstalled, but even with some of it removed it was still slow)

I just had a friend phone me up who is looking to buy a laptop (they bought one in September, but someone spilt a drink all over it and made it useless lol). Now she even told me that she heard that windows vista sucked and that she was gonna put windows XP on it. Interesting to see the consensus on Vista not being any good at the moment. Although I dunno if removing vista is easy and installing XP is easy (I presume format and install disk is all that is needed, but who knows with microsoft).

This is the laptop she is thinking of getting. They only need a cheap laptop to do basic stuff, and with these stats I don't know how it would be possible to run vista efficiently (ok it only comes with vista basic home, but still). And if it is anything like the other Vista laptop I setup, it will run way too slow to be usable.

The UAC thing seems kinda useless, because eventually users will turn it off, or click "allow" as soon as something pops up without reading it. Way to increase security in windows by blaming users! I mean eventually couldn't a virus circumvent the UAC to disable it or auto allow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UAC thing seems kinda useless, because eventually users will turn it off, or click "allow" as soon as something pops up without reading it. Way to increase security in windows by blaming users! I mean eventually couldn't a virus circumvent the UAC to disable it or auto allow?

"Normal" pc users are always idiots like this. They never read message boxes; just click them away with yes or the X. What is it with you people?! Read it, damnit, it's there for a reason. Because people are stupid, they get infested with all kinds of viruses and malware. They have slow computers and go around speaking of things like UAC as a bad thing.

UAC can feel new and scary at first, but you know which screens to say yes or no to. If you just clicked something you would expect to generate such a screen, click accept. If not, and you can't remember clicking anything requiring administrator privileges, don't.

Microsoft has finally created an operating system with security measures that are getting close to Linux quality. The thing is that it has to support XP software too, so basically that's what's this UAC thing is all about (well, very basically speaking).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like MS mentioned a few months back. Customers blame Microsoft for the crap software OEM's put on the computers which makes Windows slow or even crash by default.

Dell consumer computers are a good example of that. Not to mention Acer's.

I like Vista. Don't know why although for some reason I do.

Intell blamed MS for not upgrading the OS enough so that customers need to buy new hardware (like Apple does). So MS was partially forced to make Vista as eye-candy as possible. Force users to upgrade their hardware. As we all know XP run on anything. No need to buy new hardware.

For now I stick with XP. Although if I upgrade I doubt Vista will be an option for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you mean besides offer a better deal to Apple inc. ?

Maybe MS has the email on a backup tape next to the one where key MS employe's tell mr. Gates they want to switch to Mac's.

And what was Intel's reason to suddenly office Linux support back in 2004 Q4. And just speculation, if you do find that email. MS and Intel have another day in court. .. . although I doubt it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work with Geek Squad through Best Buy as a part time job.

I deal with Vista every day. In fact, I'm the one who typically deals solely with new PC configuration/set-up.

I hate Vista. You need 2GB of RAM at least, and around 2.5-3 to run at what 1GB did for XP.

It's still buggy. No support. Memory hog. Lack of new features (integrating in Media Center is a continuation from XP, the smart feature is about it), and it doesn't have - nearly - the level of added protection Microsoft claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better then the one they offer MS ? I didnt realise they offered deals to microsoft at all.

Must be magic then that MS had all the working drivers for Intel chips and Wintel was just a coincidence ;)

My point, Intel and Microsoft have always worked together very closely. Until Intel got fed up with it and ectended support for Linux and cut the deal with Apple. Making it easyer for users to switch from Windows to an other OS.

But then you also have the rumours that Apple will ship Windows Vista on it's computers becasue the DRM protection Vista supports. :P

I hate Vista. You need 2GB of RAM at least, and around 2.5-3 to run at what 1GB did for XP.

Which was my first "hate" towards Vista. But you have to keep in mind that for review purposes hardware and software are totally different. I hate the new Command & Conquer game. Or Ghost Recon 2 for that matter cause it forces me to buy a new graphics card. Does that mean the game sucks ?

You could argue that Windows Vista is an OS. And as an OS it shouldn't be so resource hungry. I fully agree, then remember that the line between an OS to just enable you to use your system, and one that offers you applications has long sinds be broken.

When Ghost Recon 2 was released I had 4 choices. Buy a new graphics card, buy an XboX to run it. Play it laggy and just shut up. Or don't buy it at al.

Same with Vista. Don't upgrade. Or use your Vista license to "downgrade" to Windows XP.

What do you mean with "no support". Last time I called MS for a Vista support problem the call was returned with a solution. They had to dig up a verry sweet girl somewhere who knew the answer but still . ..

If you are refering to hardware support, I have a few letters you can send to the Linux community for support regarding a few of my WLAN adapters, a crashed Linux router. Not to mention a Adaptec SCSI controller which worked perfectly on my HP server. ..

Same for software. True that Vista has just been released and not all applications work on it. The first versions of Open Office crashed on OSx to. Vista is no exception to that rule.

( although it's something that should be fixed I agree with you on that)

lack of features. Fully agree ;). The thing is just Windows XP with another styling for the home user.

My take on it. People here who know what I tend to write on this board know that I don't want to upgrade to Vista any day. ;)

I have been using Vista beta 1 and 2 and along the way you learn to use it. You find the new places they have hidden the buttons and you tend to think, hey it works and is not that bad.

At work we already got the first laptops with Vista. And although a bit slow they work the same as the XP ones. A new shipment of HP desktops that we got have been orderded with XP though. becasue we're not gon'na switch to Vista untill a few months after Longhorn will have hit the market.

personally. I see a lot of people complaining without refering to specific things. You have to find the new locations for almost any button. And ones you disabled Vista eye candy and enabled power savings on your laptop getting the candy back is almost impossible.

I still stick with my first idea. No Vista for my personal use. It took me over a year to find a new replacement OS for myself but I found it. :)

For the rest of this topic. Please do continue. ;) Just know that you have to set the criteria upon which you judge Vista by before you use it. Then see if it meets those. Claiming it's not secure means you have security criteria you want it to meet. First mention them, then if it meets then or not. Makes it a lot more realistic and less like personall jibrish. If we want that we whould simple need to go over to a Mac forum. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dualbooting is fun, and the best thing to do since you probably already paid/got windows. I dualbooted on my old computer, great way to learn linux.

If only my new computer could boot from CDs, I would try out a live cd. I downloaded the 64 bit ubuntu. But booting from cd always leaves the system hanging. It can get to the ubuntu cd menu, but anything after then goes blank. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you are a systems programmer, or a network administrator, there is no reason whatsoever to learn or use Linux.

Besides curiousity, I do intend to administrate or install network systems so I can't see harm in it. Besides, knowing an alternative to the mainstream is always a plus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you are a systems programmer, or a network administrator, there is no reason whatsoever to learn or use Linux.

Actually, it is the other way around. Unless you are a gamer, graphics/audio editor, too busy to learn something new, or too stubborn or dumb to understand the simplicity and clarity of a (good) console based operating system, you shouldn't be using Windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Was on my friends laptop I mentioned earlier. 891(?) gb ram, AMD 1.8ghz mobile, ati radeon xpress1150 128mb ram (couldn't find drivers for it, closest was 1050, or the 1100 series which didn't have any??)

Vista was very slow and everything crashed when nothing was even running or open. Control panel froze, internet explorer froze several times, windows live messenegr wouldn't open after I uninstalled klite codec pack (it worked fine after installing a newer version which is why I uninstalled it in the first place, to update the software).

It shouldn't take 2 minutes to start a computer or many seconds to open up simple programs.

What the hell is with disk defragmenter? There is no progress bar, just a statement saying it could take a couple minutes or several hours. Luckily it only took 20 minutes.

That computer is sooo slow. :(. I bet my 512 ram 1.7ghz P4 XP I bought 5 years ago runs faster than that. Yes I know a format/install EOM OS is better, but I can't for this person (don't think they'd like it :P).

I gotta format 2 of my friends computers soon :D windows xp will be going on them (they already use it), but I'll make sure to get rid of every piece of software possible that is not required. One of the computers is so slow when minimizing it does the minimize animation and he can see it moving down very slowly, taking many seconds to do so :P

I hate slow computers >:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is the other way around. Unless you are a gamer, graphics/audio editor, too busy to learn something new, or too stubborn or dumb to understand the simplicity and clarity of a (good) console based operating system, you shouldn't be using Windows.

totally right. It's a pity I have to use windows but besides for gaming I need it for some programs which are only available for windows. so as I need windows anyway I can use it completely for everything. but I'd be much happier if I could replace the whole os. it would be great if there was an os which can handle just all the programs like windows does. the same way to handle .exe and everything is running fine. mozilla people of this world, why don't you guys do something like this  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would be great if there was an os which can handle just all the programs like windows does. the same way to handle .exe and everything is running fine.

So you basically have Windows, only with another name. You really think that helps ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open Source is no magical word for quality or good software. It's the magic word that get's people all exited to use something because they think it's good.

Being Open Source does not make software any better and doesn't guarantee quality in the product you buy.

That said. How many people look at the source of open source software you recon ?

I bet it's around 2% of it's user base.

Which still has the irony, if you have Open Source Windows that handles the same as Microsoft's version. You get the same amount of Blue Screens. . ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your computer specs?

What OS do you currently use? If you install vista, can you install XP back on in case you dislike vista?

If you don't mind formatting and are able to try out vista, sure why not. As long as you are capable of going back to your previous OS. Remember to backup any data you might want/need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you are in the market for a brand new computer or have really new hardware there is no real reason to upgrade to Vista yet. Actually it is really best to wait a year or 2 to let MS work all the bugs out of their latest OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with number6.

Vista wont live up to its potential for the very minimum a year from now (most likely 2). Lots of software are still fixing bugs and making it more compatible with vista.

The same thing happened with XP. It wasn't that great when it first came out (lots of bugs). But now XP is a really good OS. I had XP come on a computer I bought in 4th quarter 2002, and since then hardware has come a long way and now XP is fast and most bugs are fixed. Quite stable.

I specifically bought a computer a week or two before they rolled out vista because I did not want a slower operating system (they were cheaper then too :D).

XP install disk is 600mb, while vista is ~2.5 gb.

So from a point of view where hardware is the same, vista will run slower than xp. If your computer is more than a year old I definitely would not use vista. Waste of time and resources. I'd rather have my CPU/Ram being used for programs than an OS.

But please do tell us your computer specs. :)

Also what version of vista is it? There are like 6 different versions so it really makes it confusing. Such as if you want to try aero, it doesn't come with home basic or whatever that dell ships with cheaper computers.

EDIT:

Also on the MS website for vista basic home recommended requirements it states:

    * 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

    * 512 MB of system memory

    * 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

    * Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory

    * DVD-ROM drive

    * Audio Output

    * Internet access (fees may apply)

Those specs are the point where XP starts to runs good (pretty much my 5 year old computer). You'd be crazy to have vista instead of XP on that system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...