I have actually seen some computer stores advertise: We Uninstall Windows Vista That has to count for something!
Tried, tested and proven to give the energizer bunny a run for its money. Like an old sweater, its comfy, you know its flaws, driver support is great and all that lovely software just works.
No disagreement here. At least you know what works well, what doesn't, and there's tons of support on the Internet for it in case you do run in to any snafus. Other than that, it's just standard CTRL->ALT->DEL for any other issues you run in to.
Windows XP. Everyone knows how to use it already and is used to it. It runs all the latest games, has tons of programs for it, and is good for all kinds of office use because everyone knows how to get it to work. Dell keeps selling XP because people want it. At the moment, it's got the comfort of something you know and trust, and if it doesn't work for some reason, most people know how to fix it.
XP is a huge improvement in functionality over Vista.
Vista is a big blob of uselessness. I can have all the extra functionality and security on XP with free 3rd party applications for a fraction of the ressources. Vista may not be too terribly bad, but if someone offers you a 40" LCD TV or a 40" CRT TV for the same price, why would you pick the CRT?
I pick the CRT. Nevermind, I forgot, I'm not an Ass Hat.
I just spent hours trying to fix someone's computer that had Vista. The network is messed up and everytime you open a program it show s a dll error. My resolution to them was: Uninstall Windows Vista, and install XP, and all your problems will go away.
Get Vista now and after a year Microsoft is gonna come out with a Vista SuperUltraUltimate Edition that will completely dump today's Windows Vista... and your money down the drain. Har! Har!
Eventually Vista will grow into something good, but as of right now the truth is that I would rather use XP any day. It really isn't a big deal to me how my GUI looks, so that takes away basically the biggest advantage that Vista has over XP. DirectX 10 should be a big asset, but its lackluster performance so far says otherwise. The fact is, Vista doesn't bring a whole lot of new features to the table and still manages to bog down my system, especially in games that ran fine in XP. Not to mention driver issues left and right. Once a service pack comes out, then I'll switch fully. Only one of the four computers in the house uses Vista, and needless to say it sees the least action out of the four. If I could play Crysis on Very High without changing cvars in XP then I'd do it, but it's just not worth the hassle to me for a few more frames. I guess that's what it really comes down to: Vista offers too few features for too much hassle.
I use my computer for gaming. I worked all summer last year so I could build a tank of a gaming rig, and the one thing that stops my computer cold is Vista. Worst mistake of last year, period. I was swept up in the marketing campaign of it and thinking 'Oh Vista is the new kid on the block, it has all these pretty features and it's DX10 compatible, I am going to rock Crysis on this so hard!' It disappoints me on medium! And for some unknown and unresolved issue, I can not play anything with the source engine without the screen turning into a blender effect. Which by the way is TF2, CS:S, HL2, and Portal. Oh and the next best thing since Dead Rising, Left 4 Dead! Vista takes my quad-core, 8800 GTX, Twin Raptor hard drive, X-Fi rig and makes it it's bitch. Utter failure, I'm switching back to XP before they stop selling it.
Ok, all of you Microsoft execs, you 24 know who you are, should not be allowed to vote in this debate.
Idealy, I'd run a linux machine and stip all that copyright protection out of my machine, but alas, I am not teh 1337, and hence prefer XP simply because it isnt as bloated as vista with all the copyright checking and new media formats and such.
Because Vista looks like it has been developed by my grand mother.
Actually, if I had my way I'd still be using 2000. But of the two options mentioned here, XP is relatively more stable. You can stop laughing now, I said "relatively"!
Windows Vista is to Windows XP as Windows ME was to Windows 98. Why try to fix something that isn't broken?
My programs run so much faster on XP. I'm a designer/programmer and a publisher for a magazine, so I have all CS3 programs running at all times. Vista seems to always snag up.
|
She's the new girl on the block. Designed to stand up to OS X and not have to blush. Shes carrying a few extra pounds of weight but under the hood theres a lot more going on. Can she go the distance with less than sterling driver support, surely good looks, more features and future proofing are enough?
Operating systems are not like people... you don't hate on Vista because it's new, rather because it's bloated, too flashy, and doesn't have any useful features. There is no reason to upgrade.
Wow, I always though of Windows Vista as bloated but now I'm starting to think about it as voluptuous!
Beauty is in the eye of the "beerholder" as they say. Or at least you'd have to have a bit of a buzz to think that Vista is beautiful. I think I'd more closely describe Vista as a "block or more". You know, something that looks good from a block or more away. Once you get under the hood and start seeing all the issues that Vista has you'll realize you're better going on with XP at least until Microsoft releases a Service Pack.
XP had so many problems it's hard to say that anything Microsoft pumped out would ever be such a problem. People have always been reluctant to change, there's still plenty running NT or even 98. Or would be if there was any support for them. The point is that while Vista still has plenty of problems it is a vast improvement over XP. I'd much rather have had the improvements without the bloated feeling that comes with running an OS that requires 1GB of RAM to even think about running well.
I'm pretty much on-board with what you're saying pvtNobody but (and there is always a but right? heh) with the money and time Microsoft have had to not only ship Vista but roll out a service pack too. Should there really be any bloat at all? I probably err more on the side of not minding it uses more resources when under the hood there is clearly more going on but then you see something like ubuntu with all its whizz bang graphical effects using compiz and a solid set of features running within a much smaller resource footprint, you have to wonder.
Definitely Vista uses an enormous amount of memory and if I had to choose between Vista and Ubuntu I'd probably choose Ubuntu for most applications. Vista has, as far as I can tell, fewer overall flaws than XP, At least as far as my experience goes, and that was the topic of the debate.
Superfetch rocks my socks off.
I have windows vista home premium and never have problems... I guess depends and how much you run in the background and some junk that comes with the new PC. Other than that Vista is very responsive and stable here. Now I have to say something I don't like is the Explorer toolbar, I hate that cd burning Icon there and the inability to modify it. So I miss that from XP.
Posted 3hrs 50mins ago | Tagged As: windows vista
People should fall over themselves to install Vista on older machines. They'll have near death experiences with rage then see the light and install Ubuntu!
Really Ubuntu isn't that great. There are distros that are just as good and there should be something wrong when Linux is synonymous with a single distro for most people. One of Linux's selling points, for me at least, has always been its variety.
Of the many distros I've tried it's the best all things considered. Additionally, I like the cut of their sponsor's (Canonical) gib. Also, even if there were only one distribution of the Linux operating system, it's the open source aspect that prevents it from ever becoming a |
