Your View on Vista
- Thread starter Zersy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Readers with ADD may skip to the bottom of my post.
Vista is an OK OS, it certainly has gotten better since its initial release. I still prefer to run XP64 on my gaming machine though. Even stripped down, Vista consumes more resources and takes longer to load things than XP does. The bottom line is I never found a compelling reason to switch from XP to Vista. They are both equally stable. Vista still gets viruses despite its design, and the difference between DX10 and DX9 is virtually nonexistent. XP64 can handle more than 3GB of memory just as well as Vista64 can... well actually, it does better, seeing as it has a few hundred MB more at its disposal. Vista does have a sleeker interface and some improvements over XP for sure -- connecting to networks is much easier with Vista -- but it's more bloated. I prefer function over aesthetics, so I'm sticking with XP until Win 7.
As a tech, I found trying to fix OS issues on Vista more annoying. There's just more crap to sort through if, say, a service isn't working properly. Maybe it's just me, but when something breaks in Vista, the machine takes foooorrreeeevveerrrr to respond. That startup repair tool is a joke. I also am not a fan of the Vista DRM stuff, but, alas, that's the wave of the future.
Abridged post: Vista OK, XP faster.
Vista is an OK OS, it certainly has gotten better since its initial release. I still prefer to run XP64 on my gaming machine though. Even stripped down, Vista consumes more resources and takes longer to load things than XP does. The bottom line is I never found a compelling reason to switch from XP to Vista. They are both equally stable. Vista still gets viruses despite its design, and the difference between DX10 and DX9 is virtually nonexistent. XP64 can handle more than 3GB of memory just as well as Vista64 can... well actually, it does better, seeing as it has a few hundred MB more at its disposal. Vista does have a sleeker interface and some improvements over XP for sure -- connecting to networks is much easier with Vista -- but it's more bloated. I prefer function over aesthetics, so I'm sticking with XP until Win 7.
As a tech, I found trying to fix OS issues on Vista more annoying. There's just more crap to sort through if, say, a service isn't working properly. Maybe it's just me, but when something breaks in Vista, the machine takes foooorrreeeevveerrrr to respond. That startup repair tool is a joke. I also am not a fan of the Vista DRM stuff, but, alas, that's the wave of the future.
Abridged post: Vista OK, XP faster.
I use it and have never had any real problems with it. I've had Windows computers for years, and have never had any of the problems others seem to have with it.
I don't use it, but my few experiences with it have all been pretty bad.
I think I'll stick with XP until Windows 7.
I think I'll stick with XP until Windows 7.
I'm sorry, what games have you been playing? DX10 is vastly superior to whatever 9 can dish out.Gruthar said:
other than that, I agree.
Have been using Vista x64 since it came out, sure it was tough for the first few months, but the same thing happened with the 2000 - XP jump, other than that, after a few tweaks here and there, I've had no real problems with it. Just dont try to use cheap TV cards ^^
CONSPIRACY TIME! I read from somewhere that developers intentionally make games prettier when it's played on Vista (DX10) and make the DX9 version look like dirt in comparison. This is apparently done to make DX10 (and Vista) worthwhile because the leap in visual fidelity is quite substantial (when in fact it is not).Hexdaemon said:
Then again, I know jack squat about programming graphics, so I don't know how true this "conspiracy" is.
At least you actually have tried vista out and dislike it in a respectable manner, in contrast to the "Oh no it's different than XP so it's probably worse! I'll never touch it!" bullshit.Gruthar said:
Personally I really like vista. It looks good, runs well and most importantly it works.
Vista is buggy? I've been using Vista from about six months and I can count on one hand the number of times I encountered any kind of crash or BSOD that wasn't caused by bad nVidia drivers. It's about as stable as they come.
Vista is slow? My PC was never top of the range at any time, but I've never encountered slowdown running anything that wasn't either released in the last year or Supreme Commander on 81x81 maps. Speedfetch is made of win.
Vista is insecure? Quite possibly, but it uses Windows Firewall and Defender just like XP does. The only difference is that it has UAC which Microsoft have openly stated is designed to annoy users. The purpose is to force third party applications to stop demanding administrator access just because they can. I know what I'm doing so I just turn it off, and then I turn off the notification telling me I've turned it off. The whole process was painless and took me all of five minutes.
The Windows Update process is much nicer and allows you to postpone restarts, understanding that sometimes I want to finish my work before restarting so that the latest security update for a feature I don't use can install itself.
Vista is ugly? Maybe if you used it on a computer that was built when the world was panicking about the Millennium Bug, that might be the case but modern computers render the Aero interface beautifully and it's a great step up from XP's colourful but bland scheme.
I never understood the charge that it was stolen from Mac. The two systems are so fundamentally different that it seems strange that either could steal from the other. To me, Aero just looks like the logical progression of attractive user interfaces which MS have been introducing since Windows 95.
Vista comes with loads of new features which hardly change the world but certainly make using a computer more civilised. A good example is the "Open file location" function available by right-clicking a shortcut, trimming down the previous "Find Target" button in XP which took two or three clicks to get to. I also like the Vista Performance Index and I think it's a great shame that no one has bothered to use it. The idea that Vista is somehow a downgrade is laughably (and probably wilfully) ignorant.
Most of the criticism is a knee-jerk reaction brought about by a vocal minority who are terrified of anything new. They blast it for being buggy and broken when not only is it neither, but the OS has every right to be, given that MS built it from the ground up, taking not code but simply design principles. If you consider just what they've done, Vista is perhaps the most amazing operating system ever designed since Windows itself. They've built a platform that will tie together any selection of hardware (within reason), much of which won't be released yet, and then permits you to run any number of programs which again weren't necessarily available at release. It's certainly a far cry from telling a command prompt to print "Hello World", isn't it?
Next time you judge an operating system, judge it fairly on its merits on a system designed to run it. If I started railing against XP because it kept crashing when I tried to install it on an old Pentium II, I'd be accused of bias. Why does Vista not get the same benefit of the doubt?
Vista is slow? My PC was never top of the range at any time, but I've never encountered slowdown running anything that wasn't either released in the last year or Supreme Commander on 81x81 maps. Speedfetch is made of win.
Vista is insecure? Quite possibly, but it uses Windows Firewall and Defender just like XP does. The only difference is that it has UAC which Microsoft have openly stated is designed to annoy users. The purpose is to force third party applications to stop demanding administrator access just because they can. I know what I'm doing so I just turn it off, and then I turn off the notification telling me I've turned it off. The whole process was painless and took me all of five minutes.
The Windows Update process is much nicer and allows you to postpone restarts, understanding that sometimes I want to finish my work before restarting so that the latest security update for a feature I don't use can install itself.
Vista is ugly? Maybe if you used it on a computer that was built when the world was panicking about the Millennium Bug, that might be the case but modern computers render the Aero interface beautifully and it's a great step up from XP's colourful but bland scheme.
I never understood the charge that it was stolen from Mac. The two systems are so fundamentally different that it seems strange that either could steal from the other. To me, Aero just looks like the logical progression of attractive user interfaces which MS have been introducing since Windows 95.
Vista comes with loads of new features which hardly change the world but certainly make using a computer more civilised. A good example is the "Open file location" function available by right-clicking a shortcut, trimming down the previous "Find Target" button in XP which took two or three clicks to get to. I also like the Vista Performance Index and I think it's a great shame that no one has bothered to use it. The idea that Vista is somehow a downgrade is laughably (and probably wilfully) ignorant.
Most of the criticism is a knee-jerk reaction brought about by a vocal minority who are terrified of anything new. They blast it for being buggy and broken when not only is it neither, but the OS has every right to be, given that MS built it from the ground up, taking not code but simply design principles. If you consider just what they've done, Vista is perhaps the most amazing operating system ever designed since Windows itself. They've built a platform that will tie together any selection of hardware (within reason), much of which won't be released yet, and then permits you to run any number of programs which again weren't necessarily available at release. It's certainly a far cry from telling a command prompt to print "Hello World", isn't it?
Next time you judge an operating system, judge it fairly on its merits on a system designed to run it. If I started railing against XP because it kept crashing when I tried to install it on an old Pentium II, I'd be accused of bias. Why does Vista not get the same benefit of the doubt?
ILPPendant said:
You know what they say, you can't judge a operating system by its user interface
Within 8 weeks of acquiring my gaming rig, Vista misplaced explorer.exe. It also randomly decided that havings graphics was overrated and stopped running the all-important drivers. Thus, in my experience, it's about as efficient an operating system as, say, a gumtree. In fact, the gumtree probably works better.