eltherza
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,332
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
XP is the best OS Microsoft inventedVista is the worst
Ever use windows ME?
-
Question of the day ~ How do you keep yourself warm in winter?
Microsoft ends XP sales
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Ever use windows ME?
alloytoo
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 12,477
Interfacewise Vista is worse.
Vista is what Windows ME was.... just as painful
XP was the best ever from Microsoft. 424 users of machines I deployed can't be wrong. People who complain about XP are usually the culprits themselves because they cannot lay off the frikken porn sites and cannot stop installing spyware laden software on their machines.
Vista is ghastly- all I had with it was many hours of troubles.
XP was the best ever from Microsoft. 424 users of machines I deployed can't be wrong. People who complain about XP are usually the culprits themselves because they cannot lay off the frikken porn sites and cannot stop installing spyware laden software on their machines.
Vista is ghastly- all I had with it was many hours of troubles.
Asha'man X
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,401
I've used Vista, and while I agree that the changing of places of commonly used options is a pain, it's all part of the learning curve.
I have this theory about XP. Basically, it came out 7 years ago when the major hardware shift started, computers got faster (P4 and Athlon), and XP scaled amazingly well with each change. Multicore came in, and while XP isn't the best, it still scaled to that as well. At the same time, the system stayed light and rather fast, it feels responsive.
This in a way set up the huge sucess it's been. However, for all it's positives, XP feels old now, it's a mission to get the system truly secure. Running as a limited user rarely works, since software developers never really got their act together to write the software that way. Hence all the gaping security holes and problems.
With Vista, they started almost from scratch, and unfortunately some things were going to suffer. Yet if I think back to when XP came out, it didn't run to great on hardware back then until the revolution I mentioned started. I was a really early adopter of XP, and I had major issues with drivers causing blue screens, random restarts and so on. I had people swear that they would not touch it because of NTFS (Can't fix the system with a DOS boot disk anymore), it slowed their pc down with everything, it had activation, etc... etc... Some people I know tried to convert me back to Windows 98. One guy held out on XP till about 2 years ago, when he finally got into the program. Now he can't stop praising XP. Took him longer to convert to NTFS.
People keep saying that Linux and especially Ubuntu will fill the gap and so on. Actually, I don't see that happening on a big scale. People will just keep using XP, and eventually start migrating onwards to Vista or Windows 7.
Unfortunately, I think Vista arrived at a bad time hardware wise. Unless you really running a cutting edge rig, it will feel slow and sluggish compared to XP. Many people have decent machines, but Vista just doesn't accept "decent" anymore. It's the same thins as XP again, but magnified this time.
Just my 2c
I have this theory about XP. Basically, it came out 7 years ago when the major hardware shift started, computers got faster (P4 and Athlon), and XP scaled amazingly well with each change. Multicore came in, and while XP isn't the best, it still scaled to that as well. At the same time, the system stayed light and rather fast, it feels responsive.
This in a way set up the huge sucess it's been. However, for all it's positives, XP feels old now, it's a mission to get the system truly secure. Running as a limited user rarely works, since software developers never really got their act together to write the software that way. Hence all the gaping security holes and problems.
With Vista, they started almost from scratch, and unfortunately some things were going to suffer. Yet if I think back to when XP came out, it didn't run to great on hardware back then until the revolution I mentioned started. I was a really early adopter of XP, and I had major issues with drivers causing blue screens, random restarts and so on. I had people swear that they would not touch it because of NTFS (Can't fix the system with a DOS boot disk anymore), it slowed their pc down with everything, it had activation, etc... etc... Some people I know tried to convert me back to Windows 98. One guy held out on XP till about 2 years ago, when he finally got into the program. Now he can't stop praising XP. Took him longer to convert to NTFS.
People keep saying that Linux and especially Ubuntu will fill the gap and so on. Actually, I don't see that happening on a big scale. People will just keep using XP, and eventually start migrating onwards to Vista or Windows 7.
Unfortunately, I think Vista arrived at a bad time hardware wise. Unless you really running a cutting edge rig, it will feel slow and sluggish compared to XP. Many people have decent machines, but Vista just doesn't accept "decent" anymore. It's the same thins as XP again, but magnified this time.
Just my 2c
Moederloos
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 12,476
If you want M$ you are beyond help anyways.
I think vista has made me realize the importance of open source alternatives. Im dual booting xp with ubuntu now - I'd like to move completely over to ubuntu in the future, but Im trying to make the transition more managable. Also, im not a fan of having copyright protection built into my OS like vista has.
francoislr
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,190
To Ubuntu! And other animals
Let's just hope some suppliers refuse to ship Vista and down the price with a Linux alternative. What we need is competition. Just dare threaten M$'s market share, and they will have to obey, or crawl deeper into their cave
Let's just hope some suppliers refuse to ship Vista and down the price with a Linux alternative. What we need is competition. Just dare threaten M$'s market share, and they will have to obey, or crawl deeper into their cave
Just reboots by itself now.
In your dreams it does
seriously it doesnt give any problems just a lot of updates that eats up my cap but no other problem than that
Yes, and Vista is far, far worse.
wwenhold@gmail.com
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2
Why is everyone so anti Vista? I am not a MS fan (use Firefox, Thunderbird, Ubuntu on one of my PC's). I love Vista - it is user friendly, I have no problems with hardware, looks great. It is resource intensive, but it uses RAM better than XP ever did. Also, if one thing has become cheap nowadays, it is RAM.
Vista fan!!!
Vista fan!!!
semiautomatix
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Messages
- 11,914
Yeah. Wotchu on about, I only need 1 1/2 Gigs to run Windows idle! Thats like... like... more memory than some poor buggers own
Ah well, if you got it, flaunt it
Ah well, if you got it, flaunt it
dabbler
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 3,383
I feel sorry for the poor guys who can't afford a new PC with all the bells and whistles...assembling a PC from bits and pieces and buying XP in the past was bad enough...Vista is just plain and simply too expensive.
Its definitely time for Linux!!!
Its definitely time for Linux!!!
Asha'man X
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,401
One point I didn't mention earlier was price, so thanks to Weasley for pointing that out. I admit that here XP winds hands down there. Even XP pro is cheaper than many of the Vista Home editions. If you need to join a domain, you start with Vista Business, and that does cost quite a bit more.
I've used Linux and I like it, don't get me wrong. For people who are just starting out, and for the really technical crowd, it's great. However, for those who are in that odd middle ground between new and technical, it can be a very daunting place. Not every machine is internet connected, so the repo's for packages won't always be available. Then the fun starts in trying to keep up to date.
I'll also bet that those who keep punting Linux as a solution will still end up using Windows anyway, if for nothing than to play games, unless you have a console that will cater for all your needs. Provided your system is able to run the game, you install, set up controls and options, and play. Under Linux, firt need to run the graphics binary, configure X.org (which doesn't always play nice afterwards), and if the game has a Linux installer, use that. If not, you can try hacking WINE a bit, but no guarantees there either.
In the end, each operating system has it's own pros and cons. Use whatever makes you happy and best suits your needs
I've used Linux and I like it, don't get me wrong. For people who are just starting out, and for the really technical crowd, it's great. However, for those who are in that odd middle ground between new and technical, it can be a very daunting place. Not every machine is internet connected, so the repo's for packages won't always be available. Then the fun starts in trying to keep up to date.
I'll also bet that those who keep punting Linux as a solution will still end up using Windows anyway, if for nothing than to play games, unless you have a console that will cater for all your needs. Provided your system is able to run the game, you install, set up controls and options, and play. Under Linux, firt need to run the graphics binary, configure X.org (which doesn't always play nice afterwards), and if the game has a Linux installer, use that. If not, you can try hacking WINE a bit, but no guarantees there either.
In the end, each operating system has it's own pros and cons. Use whatever makes you happy and best suits your needs
Tell me Meneer, what is Ubuntu like?