It seems vista is going to be replaced by Windows 7
- Thread starter James Raynor
- Start date
Recommended Videos
just go into the options and turn "user account control" off and those pop ups stop.Shivari said:
I freaking love vista, We have XP at school and it drives me crazy.
I'll be sticking with my XP for a while. I don't mind Vista, seems nice enough for the most part for the 'casual' user (that'd be me), but as always, wary of new OS's until they've been tested and bug-fixed. Knowing MS's track record, it'll be buggy for a while, people will hate it but eventually people will grudgingly accept it.
QFT.Meangunns said:
Windows 2000 and Windows Millennium were the two halves of what was suppose to be the OS that was later released as XP. Windows 2000 was supposed to be the grand unified operating system that combined the NT and 9x code bases into a single code base. Microsoft had invested a huge amount of money and wagered a huge amount of reputation on the Windows 2000 release and the release could NOT under any circumstances be delayed. When the drop-dead date was approaching and they knew for sure they were not going to be able to get it out the door in time to meet their commitments to the computer manufacturers, Brian Valentine, head of the Windows product division, made the executive decision to whip out the saw and issue the NT portion of the code as Windows 2000 (aka NT 5.0). The 9x code was released about 6 months later as Windows ME, and there was not a single person in the Windows test group that wasn't utterly disgusted by that piece of shit OS, which we knew to be buggy, shallow, and just plain dumb. So Microsoft finally accomplished what they originally set out to do with the release of XP.
I have not a single doubt in my mind that this is what happened with Vista. I'm sure that Vista is an OS that had the most unfinished of its feature sets amputated and cauterized so they could shove it out the door. I think the real Vista (aka Longhorn) will be released in the form of Windows 7. And I'm glad they are ditching the name. Everyone in the dogfood internal beta rollout thought that was irretrievably dumb, and Windows Vista Cruiser jokes did abound.
That said, I do like Vista aside from its protect-you-from-yourself pop-up paranoia, which I find a bit excessive. I know you can turn that off, but a feature that everyone turns off for sheer usability is a bad feature.
Thank you for bending me over the counter, Microsoft. I didn't want Vista on this laptop, and neither do you anymore.
Pricks.
Pricks.
NEVER! FAT16 FOR LIFE! But a new system would be nice to see, for no reason though.Khell_Sennet said:
ext3 with journalling is even better, tho the force rechecks can kinda suck but when you reboot once every few months doing it every 10 isn't so badKhell_Sennet said:
actually that's probly pretty accurate, i could check it out if you wantmshcherbatskaya said:
the REALLY crappy thing about vista is they took the 2k/xp tcp/ip stack, which was a ported bsd tcp/ip stack and ditched it because they were caught using it, tho legally they could, so they put the 9x tcp/ip stack back in
actually that feature does nothing, all it's taught ppl to do is click continue, they SHOULD have spent the time making the os more secure and putting in proper security instead of the fake security blanket they did include
it doesn't make the os more secure as there are ways to bypass it from even popping up when installing stuff
WOO!!
No more damned Vista. I hated it when I first got it seeing how there were very few differences from XP.
And I talked to my brother about this(he's a giant computer nerd). But he said it really isn't Windows 7
It's really called Windows RGS.....which stands for Windows Really good system.
No more damned Vista. I hated it when I first got it seeing how there were very few differences from XP.
And I talked to my brother about this(he's a giant computer nerd). But he said it really isn't Windows 7
It's really called Windows RGS.....which stands for Windows Really good system.
I saw a news blurb with an uncredited source saying that exact same thing. I knew that about 2/3rd of the XP bugs that passed through my hands were postponed to Longhorn, so Longhorn/Vista was loaded with shit to fix before it was even built. They were behind schedule from the start. But if you have more info, I would certainly find that interesting.cleverlymadeup said:
Exactly. It's made them less security-aware, because it makes clicking away security checks reflexive, so if a legit warning were to pop up, the user would probably click it away out of habit.
I've been of the opinion for a very long time that Windows' baseline issue is that, at it's core, there is this tentacle-monster of undocumented or poorly documented code from back in the day when nobody figured this stuff was ever going to become a linchpin of both business and social interaction. So every iteration of Windows has to fix the fix for the fix that was put in place to fix that fix that someone wrote to fix the regression that broke the previous fix that was supposed to fix a problem with the original code. And the first two tiers of that at least are probably nearly as badly documented as the original code was.
It's a nightmare. Not to mention the huge amount of time that's wasted by the development team trying to protect the stability of the OS from the craptastic device drivers and programs created by every manufacturer and fly-by-night software company in existence. Between Nvidia, Symantec, and ISP browser extensions, I'm surprised that Windows runs at all.
They fixed a lot of the complaints from Vista users, added some stuff, removed some, probably better driver support and then launch Windows 7.
Why so soon? Vista just has that bad rep, even though it no longer deserves it. Instead of trying to fix that rep, just relaunch pretty much the same product under a different name.
Seems logical enough to me.
Why so soon? Vista just has that bad rep, even though it no longer deserves it. Instead of trying to fix that rep, just relaunch pretty much the same product under a different name.
Seems logical enough to me.
It also only pops up when you're downloading or installing something, so you know what you're doing. If it randomly popped up people would know something was up. And considering I've never had a single virus with Vista, I think I'm ok anyway.mshcherbatskaya said:
Actually Vista 64-bit is somewhat better. Because it allows for 6gbs of data to be used by the system.(This is coming from eggo and I will explain it.)-Seraph- said:
Lets say you have a 512MB of video memorey and 4GB's of RAM. But your system will only use about 3 or so GB's at one time. Now, With 64-bit thats raised to 6GB's so for example you could run two 512MB 8800's in SLI and be able to use 4GB's of ram fully. Unlike XP which you would only be able to use 2GB's of ram because of the video cards.
So vista DOES have a use, Its just such a small space for now since most games don't need more then 4GB's of RAM.
(I was comparing 32-bit to 64-bit and this very well could be wrong but I am pretty sure I heard it from eggo and well he is resident PC gaming elitist and he should know.
Oh I know full well about 32-bit and 64-bit. The problem with ultimate though is that 64-bit is not too practical at the moment. It will eventually pick up but for now 64-bit is not too important, not even for gaming. Surprisingly enough my XP home 32-bit OS can pick up on 3 out of the 4 gigs of RAM in my comp.
Vista was obsolete the moment it went into production.Omnidum said:
I hope they don't screw this up too.
