4 The Vista Critics

[kronoSX]

This is for all those who "hate" Vista...

I have installed Vista SP1 (X86) on a Toshiba 1.6 Celeron, with only 768mb ram. And it boots up faster now than it did with XP home. Is more responsive and is Idling at approximately 395mb ram used! Thats with Zone Alarm Internet Security Suite running, which takes at least 70-90mb ram all the time! (Will be chucking more ram in it today - maybe go to 1.5gig)
So what u say now ?!?

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php/photo/10119/size/big/cat/500

one of the lucky few i guess.I have no problem with vista except my 1000 running processes

 

[jirm]

vista is a beast and the beast must be fed with mighty hardware, spend all your cash on ram and cpu food. Stop eating, drinking and smoking buy food ofr the beast.

 

[stroebs]

vista is a beast and the beast must be fed with mighty hardware, spend all your cash on ram and cpu food. Stop eating, drinking and smoking buy food ofr the beast.

Yes and then you starve and die... And Vista will laugh at your corpse

I'm not one to hate Vista. I started working with it in its early days and I'm a very fast learner and have patience for it so it doesn't bother me. I'm dual booting Vista x64 and XP SP3

 

[genetic]

I've been running Vista (32bit) on my machine for a year now with no problems. It's a very stable OS. I've never been able too keep XP on for a couple of months without having to format and re-install.
I do find XP slightly faster under certain situations (like file searching), but Vista boots up much quicker than XP, and overall is WAY more stable.

No matter what the Vista bashers say, Vista works better for me.

 

[Gamer]

Yeah, I don't get Vista haters. Been using Vista since September 2007 after being an XP user for as long as that was around. Vista rocks. Just finished loading Win 7 about an hour ago...loving that now too!

 

[PeterCH]

agreed, point of this thread is to just prove (just a little bit) to the the guys who got sick if vista in the early days, that it is waaaaaaaaay betta these days!

Vista is still dawg slow and incompatible with many things. Finally even when used stand alone - Vista will not boost my productivity over XP (ie Vista won't type my documents, it won't telepathically understand my thoughts, etc).

Note that all the serious PC makers - the likes of Dell, HP, Panasonic - all offer XP as an upgrade.

 

[d0b33]

If this was a thread about running vista on a Pentium 2 with 512MB of ram then I'll see the need to boast but the specs you mention are better than the minimum requirements for Vista so what's there to be excited about?

All you prove is that Vista does suck because you need to make a thread boasting that it runs on slightly better than minimum requirements.

 

[Xyber]

I've been running Vista (32bit) on my machine for a year now with no problems. It's a very stable OS. I've never been able too keep XP on for a couple of months without having to format and re-install.
I do find XP slightly faster under certain situations (like file searching), but Vista boots up much quicker than XP, and overall is WAY more stable.

No matter what the Vista bashers say, Vista works better for me.

That is actually so true. I used to format a lot under XP. Been running Vista for over a year now and maybe formatted twice and that was cause I moved it to a new PC.

 

[The_Techie]

I'm probably lucky when it comes to my Windows XP installation, then. Haven't had a real format in over four years. If something goes terribly wrong (botched drivers come to mind) then I just restore from the previous day's Acronis image and carry on as usual.

 

[d0b33]

Go check out windows 7 vs ubuntu and the like . Yikes windows 7 creams linux in the speed department

Funny you mention that, Ubuntu seems to be raping 7 and Vista in that department...

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7

LOL Vista seemed to have beaten 7 in that test as well.

 

[killadoob]

What speed you talking about? i see some test where 7 smacks ubuntu and visa versa, what speed test though? boots faster or the same.

The fact that windows 7 is doing much better in a few tests is testament to its speed . You seem to think vista is slow though and seem shocked it can perform, you fail to set up vista well and then deem is slow because you cannot get it working nicely .

If you make windows 7 look ugly like ubuntu does and take out aero and what not i am sure it would wallop linux , still holds it own while looking like a million bucks .

Everyone's thing about vista is its slow, now windows 7 is blazing fast, i would be worried if i was linux because windows 7 is getting great reviews and linux has only converted so many because of the ill feelings about vista. I suspect alot more people will go back to windows when windows 7 is released . That being said it does again come to preference but it is very possible alot of people will now prefer windows 7 over linux.

Aqua how long have been running windows 7 and what build are you using? I am assuming your talking from experience with both windows 7 and ubuntu like i am right?

 

[Stickfigure]

Also remember that Windows 7 is still in beta stage.

 

[d0b33]

Aqua how long have been running windows 7 and what build are you using? I am assuming your talking from experience with both windows 7 and ubuntu like i am right?

I'm back on Vista, only ran 7 for 2 weeks (the official beta).

In my experience Vista and 7 run well on my PC but I only use it to game, Linux is my main OS and I can't tell the difference between speed to be honest they all run fast on my quad core, but with linux if I switch to XFCE or fluxbox rather than Gnome then my linux ubuntu install is lightning fast without a doubt.

Also remember that Windows 7 is still in beta stage.

yes that article made this clear and pointed it out, just shows how unbiased linux testers are...

 

[PeterCH]

What speed you talking about? i see some test where 7 smacks ubuntu and visa versa, what speed test though? boots faster or the same.

The fact that windows 7 is doing much better in a few tests is testament to its speed . You seem to think vista is slow though and seem shocked it can perform, you fail to set up vista well and then deem is slow because you cannot get it working nicely .

If you make windows 7 look ugly like ubuntu does and take out aero and what not i am sure it would wallop linux , still holds it own while looking like a million bucks .

Everyone's thing about vista is its slow, now windows 7 is blazing fast, i would be worried if i was linux because windows 7 is getting great reviews and linux has only converted so many because of the ill feelings about vista. I suspect alot more people will go back to windows when windows 7 is released . That being said it does again come to preference but it is very possible alot of people will now prefer windows 7 over linux.

Aqua how long have been running windows 7 and what build are you using? I am assuming your talking from experience with both windows 7 and ubuntu like i am right?

Which OS'es have you run and what have you done on them?

Linux - which distro?
OSX - Leopard or Tiger?
Windoze - NT, 2K, 9x, XP, Vista, 7?

Also what apps have you run under these operating systems?
Adobe Premiere Pro?
Adobe Audition?
Apple Final Cut Studio?
Shake?
OpenOffice?
Adobe Photoshop CS4?
Nero Recode?
x264?
Quicktime Pro?
Handbrake?
FFMpeg?
SUPER?
Compressor?
Sony Vegas?
Soundstrack Pro?
Microsoft Office for Win and Mac?
VMWare Fusion with virtual machines?
Paint Shop Pro?
etc....

Benchmarks are clear. Vista and 7 get owned by the Ubuntu distribution of Linux. The numbers are there. Same high end machine used on all systems, 7 gets owned by Ubuntu Linux.

 

[PeterCH]

Also remember that Windows 7 is still in beta stage.

That works both ways. The full versions are usually loaded with more bloat,
didn't Vista Beta run faster than Vista Retail???

 

[killadoob]

Peter have you used vista or even the beta or are you pulling kuk out your butt again?

I have used mac os but on an intel and seemed very sluggish with no nvidia drivers , guess that is not mac's fault . kalyway.

Ubuntu 8.04 which was decent but looked nasty, like something out of the ark, ran decent but slow boot up if you ask me almost as slow as my vista install. Adobe photoshop on linux? Could you tell me how that works peter, cs3 struggles to run on wine, did adobe make c4 for linux?

Corel never worked on either system so it was pointless having to boot into windows for corel, photoshop and gaming. Figured pretty pointless if i cannot run majority of my stuff on one platform.

 

[d0b33]

Ubuntu 8.04 which was decent but looked nasty

That's why you have the choice of Kubuntu which has the good looking KDE4 installed by default...

for those who judge an OS based on looks.

 

[PeterCH]

Peter have you used vista or even the beta or are you pulling kuk out your butt again?

I've used more OSes then you and YES I have USED Vista. The 'kuk' you claim is your refutal of the valid benchmarks Aqua posted.

I have used mac os but on an intel and seemed very sluggish with no nvidia drivers , guess that is not mac's fault . kalyway.

Fail. A Hackintosh will not give you true performance benefits.

Ubuntu 8.04 which was decent but looked nasty, like something out of the ark, ran decent but slow boot up if you ask me almost as slow as my vista install. Adobe photoshop on linux? Could you tell me how that works peter, cs3 struggles to run on wine, did adobe make c4 for linux?

No. You lambasted Aqua accusing him of not running enough OSes and possibly test software. Well what have YOU run? You discredit a very well run objective test with anecdotal rubbish - and you hardly ran any software too. Come on....

Corel never worked on either system so it was pointless having to boot into windows for corel, photoshop and gaming. Figured pretty pointless if i cannot run majority of my stuff on one platform.

We're not arguing that. I'm pointing out that you are just spouting anecdotal observations motivated by a fanatical need to see Windoze succeed, no matter what- hence you attack the poster over something totally O/T and incorrect. Benchmarks show that Vista and 7 (which cost R3000 each) get owned by a FREE operating system. Arguably there is less software for Linux based operating systems but we're not talking about that - we're discrediting something you said earlier - that 7 and Vista are faster than Linux based OSes. They are not. When disproved you resort to anecdotal, hunch driven evidence - and you attack the poster because you think he hasn't run your Windoze 7.

And btw don't recommend SSDs, as you know (or should know) JMicron/Samsung based SSDs have terrible write performance.

 

[PeterCH]

That's why you have the choice of Kubuntu which has the good looking KDE4 installed by default...

for those who judge an OS based on looks.

An OS is a tool, who cares about looks.

Doesn't Compiz Fusion look cuter than Aero anyway?

 

[killadoob]

Peter all i asked was if he had used windows 7, i did not question how many os's he has run, you seem to be taking things personally today hey?

I have been asked if i have run ubunutu should i flip out and start going crazy because someone asked? Fanatical need to see windows succeed? dude windows is succeeding, we are debating here, the only fanatical oke i see here is you because damn your getting a bit hot under the collar eh

When have i ever said vista was faster than linux? I have not been disproved of anything, did you look at the benchmarks? windows 7 and ubuntu trade punches.

When did i attack anyone? Peter you the most flippin frustrating ok. You should not try and be clever about SSD's when you have never infact used one.

I will make a thread dedicated to your ssd story seeing as they you have witnessed the problems with SSD's first hand and actually own one. There are alot of people who had ssd's here that do not experience problems, you need to stop commenting on shyte you read but never have actually used in all honesty.