OS bashing

[Tears of Blood]

I see nothing wrong with my Vista. Never had a problem with it that I couldn't fix on my own.

 

[johnman]

it is a resource hog and had piss poor memory management

Interesting only people who do not know what the hell they are talking about say the above statement?

Interesting that only people who think they know what they are talking about say the above.

 

[mikecoulter]

Usually, people who bash Vista have never used it. I by far prefer it to XP, which always seemed very tacky to me :/ what's with bright green start button? And why is start spelt without a capital letter? >_<

 

[ILPPendant]

I can't believe people are actually complaining about UAC. For one, it's trivially easy to turn off. Just bring up the Windows Help System and search for User Account Control. Toggling it is the first thing on the list.

Also, we know now that it was supposed to be annoying. What MS intended was that users would be so infuriated by the constant pop-ups that software developers would have no choice but to design their programs in such a way that they didn't trigger the alerts. (link [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9590_22-197085.html]) I assume they intended to use their near-monopoly position to force developers to create more secure software. It seems that although their plan failed, their hearts were in the right place.

 

[Aedrial]

With Windows 7 coming out soon many people took up the old Vista bashing again saying how they are relieved to get a new OS while other just ignore it and stick to XP. I really fail to see how Vista is so terrible I've been using it for months now and there wasnt a single crash, performance is excellent and overall it runs like a dream. So what is your stance about Vista and people bashing it?

Agreed dude, I use vista and I've never had a problem with it. People who bash vista have clearly never used it.

I agree.
I was skeptical at first, but it's brilliant and user friendly. My only qualm is the UAC (User account control), but it CAN be disabled.

 

[KinichAhau]

Yeah linux is easy if you know how, or you stick to the simple things, but say you give it to your mother and she wants to watch a movie. Almost every time I install linux on my machine the sound is broken, codecs aren't installed and video drivers need updating. Whilst I can take care of that with a bit of effort, the average user shouldn't be expected to have to touch the console, ever. Fiddling with yum or apt-get is, while quite powerful, going a bit past what I'd call easy to use.

Apt-get sounds like Ubuntu. Personally I switched from Vista after getting far too many blue screens. If I did have to switch to a Windows OS, I'd go to XP again, or possibly 7 if I really wanted to try it out. It looks promising. I'll stick with Linux, though.

Ubuntu, by the way has an "add/remove programs" menu bar if you click "Applications" from the top toolbar or for the more technically minded user without going into Terminal, there's Synaptic in the System-->Administrations tab on the top toolbar as well.

So while apt-get is actually more powerful for an experienced user, there's also options for less experienced ones to get what they need, albeit it's more convoluted and such. There's also the issue with GPL and nonpropietary drivers, etc. that Linux has to go around since many companies (obviously) want their software and hardware licensed. The codecs required to play back popular formats (mp3, H.264, etc.) are part of that, since they're not open source or GPL-licensed. And Linux, since it is open source cannot legally present it as part of the package without paying fees...you see where this is going?

While I agree, and I'd love to say the "No user should ever have to touch the console, ever" it is necessary on most if not all Linux machines. Then again, Linux started out as being a geek project, so of course there's a big learning curve and people need to sit down and actively learn how to do things, taking the time to do so. Luckily there's plenty of documentation online if anyone wants to learn about it, or simply needs help.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

I'm worried that people with Vista will be robbed by an almost immediate introduction of a new OS, general support for it might wane... Robbing anyone who bought a computer lately really.

not really true since all new computers (if bought through certain stores though) also come with an upgrade code now, for when 7 is released. This has been going on for the past few weeks...

 

[One last embrace]

I've never used it, so I can't really say... but the few times I did use it, it just felt weird. Like things weren't where they were supposed to be.

I used it a bit, but I still ended up having the same impression. So I still use XP pro for this reason, and keep my copy at hand if I want a new laptop XD
I don't know much yet about 7, but some people seem to think it will be better than Vista. We'll see

 

[yeah_so_no]

I have a Mac and avoid everything Microsoft as much as possible. That said, most of my friends have Windows boxes, and I have yet to hear any of them say a single nice thing about Vista (especially my PC gamer friends). Everything I've read about it said it was a POS--not as bad, maybe, as Windows ME, but pretty up there. The one time I used Vista, on a friend's comp, I was ready to throw the danged computer because Vista was driving me nuts with small annoyances .

I've heard nothing but good so far about Windows 7, so I hope for the sake of my Windows-using friends that it fixes everything broken in Vista.

 

[RetiarySword]

With Windows 7 coming out soon many people took up the old Vista bashing again saying how they are relieved to get a new OS while other just ignore it and stick to XP. I really fail to see how Vista is so terrible I've been using it for months now and there wasnt a single crash, performance is excellent and overall it runs like a dream. So what is your stance about Vista and people bashing it?

Agreed dude, I use vista and I've never had a problem with it. People who bash vista have clearly never used it.

I agree.
I was skeptical at first, but it's brilliant and user friendly. My only qualm is the UAC (User account control), but it CAN be disabled.

Yea the first thing I done when I installed it was turn that crap off

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Yeah most of our customers at work request XP in a new machine, even if they know nothing about computers. I was impressed with the speed of the Windows 7 beta also.

...

Depends how you define better - some would say better = easy to use.

...

if i need to spend almost a grand to get a new os run the same speed as my current one then it's not an improvement and frankly they've wasted billions of dollars that someone has done for free


btw linux isn't very hard to use at all, the gui looks like any other one out there and has way cooler eye candy

Yeah linux is easy if you know how, or you stick to the simple things, but say you give it to your mother and she wants to watch a movie. Almost every time I install linux on my machine the sound is broken, codecs aren't installed and video drivers need updating. Whilst I can take care of that with a bit of effort, the average user shouldn't be expected to have to touch the console, ever. Fiddling with yum or apt-get is, while quite powerful, going a bit past what I'd call easy to use.

really and instaling a codec on windows is an easy task? or installing a sound card driver? sorry but they aren't very easy things on windows either. the default for windows to have is no codecs, try playing something with the xvid codec on windows, it won't find the codec nor will it play.

so how is windows exactly easier at this point?

stuff like ubuntu will have things that easily pick up and install packages. as for "needing" the console there's tons of graphical package managers so you never have to touch the console and many of the distros will auto pick up what hardware is in your pc

 

[WickedSkin]

With Windows 7 coming out soon many people took up the old Vista bashing again saying how they are relieved to get a new OS while other just ignore it and stick to XP. I really fail to see how Vista is so terrible I've been using it for months now and there wasnt a single crash, performance is excellent and overall it runs like a dream. So what is your stance about Vista and people bashing it?

Well for one thing Vista uses about 1gb more ram then XP on absolutaly nothing useful. Also Vista was a very unnessesary release. It was just another way to "steal" your money. Just made you a little more dependant on Windows. I smell frog-boiling.

Also fucking Vista came with A LOT of annoying features you do not need.

And yes I've used Vista. Fuck it, it's hard not to, since it comes with pretty much everything. Oh and they take every chance they get to shovel it down you throat. But it's pretty much the same story with all Windows releases.

I'm sticking to SUSE and XP thank you very much.

 

[WickedSkin]

it is a resource hog and had piss poor memory management

Interesting only people who do not know what the hell they are talking about say the above statement?

If you ever used Linux you would say the same thing. You can do a lot more with much less resources. True story.

Oh and think about your user freedom. MS is no big fan of freedom.

 

[Jaygee02]

Yeah linux is easy if you know how, or you stick to the simple things, but say you give it to your mother and she wants to watch a movie. Almost every time I install linux on my machine the sound is broken, codecs aren't installed and video drivers need updating. Whilst I can take care of that with a bit of effort, the average user shouldn't be expected to have to touch the console, ever. Fiddling with yum or apt-get is, while quite powerful, going a bit past what I'd call easy to use.

Apt-get sounds like Ubuntu. Personally I switched from Vista after getting far too many blue screens. If I did have to switch to a Windows OS, I'd go to XP again, or possibly 7 if I really wanted to try it out. It looks promising. I'll stick with Linux, though.

Ubuntu, by the way has an "add/remove programs" menu bar if you click "Applications" from the top toolbar or for the more technically minded user without going into Terminal, there's Synaptic in the System-->Administrations tab on the top toolbar as well.

So while apt-get is actually more powerful for an experienced user, there's also options for less experienced ones to get what they need, albeit it's more convoluted and such. There's also the issue with GPL and nonpropietary drivers, etc. that Linux has to go around since many companies (obviously) want their software and hardware licensed. The codecs required to play back popular formats (mp3, H.264, etc.) are part of that, since they're not open source or GPL-licensed. And Linux, since it is open source cannot legally present it as part of the package without paying fees...you see where this is going?

While I agree, and I'd love to say the "No user should ever have to touch the console, ever" it is necessary on most if not all Linux machines. Then again, Linux started out as being a geek project, so of course there's a big learning curve and people need to sit down and actively learn how to do things, taking the time to do so. Luckily there's plenty of documentation online if anyone wants to learn about it, or simply needs help.

Yeah I understand the GPL issues. Don't get me wrong, I have used and still do use Linux, and I am impressed at what can be done for free. I just feel that, while I could probably talk someone through installing a sound driver and playing music on Windows, my last experience with Fedora (sound just would not work until I updated the alsa-libs, and uninstalled pulseaudio, and fiddled with some of the switches in alsa-mixer) would have been beyond her. Of course I'm quite possibly just unlucky with my setup and most people would have no issues. A lot of the problems are of my own making (playing with beryl etc).

I never managed to figure out how to set a default sound card in any flavour of Linux though. It always chooses my onboard sound over my Audigy 2 and nothing I do can tell it otherwise short of disabling onboard sound.

 

[Danzaivar]

You sir are a fucking moron, World in Conflict uses DX10 (XP is not capable of this, use google to figure that out) of course it needs more RAM, lol fucking idiot. "Family IT guy" should keep his idiotic opinions to himself. Maybe learn to read a little better "Family IT guy" ROFL!!!!!

Here's some real world info for you "Family IT guy" hope it is written so you can comprehend it. lol

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-deathmatch-xp-vs-vista-vs-7-615167?artc_pg=1
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187
http://www.ithinkdiff.com/windows-7-...lder-7-builds/
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ce/default.asp
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-72...Xp-review.html
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/gaming-smackdown-windows-xp-vs-windows-vista-vs-windows-7-604178?artc_pg=1

Swear like a child all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are saying DirectX 10 uses 500MB more RAM than DirectX 9. World in conflict definitely does run on XP

The "Family IT guy" bit was me replying to the original post, it's not what I back up my opinion on computers with. I get you couldn't argue with my point to you but attacking me on the basis that I help my family out with their computers? Well, whatever.


My original point was simply that Vista does use more resources. If it has more resources avilable then it's the better choice since it can utilise it better. When you have fairly weak specs then Vista becomes a quivering pile of suck, and none of your links say otherwise.

Then again, I'm guessing by the angry tone to your post, you don't really care for "accuracy" or "logical arguments" since that's less fun than a belittling tone.

 

[Mjolnir07]

@#$@#@#$ @#$##@ #@#$# @#$#@ER #@#$#@ @#$@#$@# VISTA @#$@#$@#$@# #@#$## MOTHER @#$@#$@# @#$@#$@ @# I HATE YOU AND I WANT TO REMOVE YOU FROM MY COMPUTER AS WOULD I A MALIGN TUMOR IN MY BRAIN WITH THE SHARP END OF A TUNING FORK

A tuning fork has no sharp ends.

Vista has worked fine for me, in face, it has been significantly more stable that XP ever was. XP would almost crash daily, on this same rig Vista has never bluescreened in over a year of constant use. I love the new start menu, too, so useful.

A filed down tuning fork, while no longer a tuning fork, will suit me just fine for the job at hand. I certainly will agree that vista never crashes; however it gives me, personally, countless and unrelenting inane and resourcefully unidentifiable errors, almost hourly finding some reason or another to decide a program I want to run is unacceptable to be opened. Most of which, appropriate for this forum, are games. I can run almost no game from disk and absolutely no game from emulator. As well as a handful of other applications which clearly have lesser meaning to me.

This could be a vista incompatibility error, as I am running it on a P.O.S. HP Slimline, not by choice mind you; But I seem to always get the "'Program has stopped working, windows will now look for a solution.' immediately upon opening said games and applications, this is as good as the Blue Screen of Death to me. In addition, Windows has to this date encountered over 1200 of these errors and yet to 'find a solution.' This is my beef with Vista, this is why I file my tuning fork to fittingly encephaloma extracting sharpness.

 

[Mjolnir07]

-and I never used XP, I miss windows 95. Oh how I miss it.

 

[Danny Ocean]

"'Program has stopped working, windows will now look for a solution.' immediately upon opening said games and applications, this is as good as the Blue Screen of Death to me. In addition, Windows has to this date encountered over 1200 of these errors and yet to 'find a solution.' This is my beef with Vista, this is why I file my tuning fork to fittingly encephaloma extracting sharpness.

I think that the "Find A Solution" thing is just another way of saying "We'll figure out how to close it. Not fix it." It annoys me when it happens, although I don't often have that. Think it's a security thing with the emulators?

 

[Mjolnir07]

"'Program has stopped working, windows will now look for a solution.' immediately upon opening said games and applications, this is as good as the Blue Screen of Death to me. In addition, Windows has to this date encountered over 1200 of these errors and yet to 'find a solution.' This is my beef with Vista, this is why I file my tuning fork to fittingly encephaloma extracting sharpness.

I think that the "Find A Solution" thing is just another way of saying "We'll figure out how to close it. Not fix it." It annoys me when it happens, although I don't often have that. Think it's a security thing with the emulators?

Well I initially thought exactly that when I was trying to run my old PS1 discs on EPSX, but then it occurred with Oblivion, fallout 2, Phantasy Star Universe, Skype, Adobe, and others.