By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Ok I just Got Vista And....

rasone77 on 14 October 2008
SHMUPGurus said:
Phrancheyez said:
I don't like it. They've changed how everything works, for instance, the networking windows. They've changed it to where you have to say 'It's OK for me to go here!' for half of the system windows you try to get into..I've had 3 vista laptops crack out on me already to where I just decided to stay with my XP Vaio.

I think it's terrible...and honestly, I still think Windows 2000 Professional was the best OS they've made, and none of the others have even come close.

It's called ''adaptation.''

 

Actually it's called User Account Control.

If you turn it off you never have to tell the computer it's okay to do anything unrelated to your firewall.

 



Around the Network
heruamon on 14 October 2008

a non-political topic...wtf gives bigjon, are you thowing in the towel?...lol...jk.



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

a12331 on 14 October 2008
MrMarc said:

It annoys me when people say 'those who complain about Vista have never used it' or 'those who complain have crap computers'.

I've had Vista installed on this system of mine for a few weeks now on a 2 year old  system and I can openly and whole-heartedly say it's a horrible operating system. It just does so many things backwards, and to completely new PC users I don't see how it can be any more intuitive than XP, less so I think.

FYI, my rig is a Core2Duo (E6400 oc'd to 2.8GHz) with 2GB of RAM, a 7600GT (old card by today's standards but still a great budget card nonetheless). Why should I have to upgrade my computer to play games that run badly on Vista which ran perfectly on XP? I'm talking about most Source games here. 700-800MB of memory used on an idle desktop within just a week of running Vista, that's poor. It's an unnecessary resource hog.

As much as I'll slag Vista off, it's hardware detection and support is brilliant, but that's about all it has going for it.

it does this at first then it drops down because of superfetch. Also when xp first came out it was also considered a resource hog. And also technology is rapidly evolving, such as 2 gigs is needed to run vista smoothly, the next operating system will require at least 4. 

You shouldn't slag on it because it requires more memory, All operating systems will require more than the past. And also all new computers will be able to run it fine. 



a12331 on 14 October 2008
bigjon said:

I don't see why people complain about it... I love it, I was sticking with XP because I kept hearing stories about Vista... The only problem I have had is I had to dowload something to play Civ 4...

Am I missing something here?

 

I am using the Home Premium 64 bit edition.

When it first came out it didnt have driver support., but it is the best operating system i have had ever. believe it or not it runs faster than xp on my rig. 

 



a12331 on 14 October 2008
Phrancheyez said:
I don't like it. They've changed how everything works, for instance, the networking windows. They've changed it to where you have to say 'It's OK for me to go here!' for half of the system windows you try to get into..I've had 3 vista laptops crack out on me already to where I just decided to stay with my XP Vaio.

I think it's terrible...and honestly, I still think Windows 2000 Professional was the best OS they've made, and none of the others have even come close.

so that is bad, it actually tells you what is going on, and you get full control of your pc, it also stops background apps from running if you dont want it to. Anyways you can always turn it off. 

 



Around the Network
Words Of Wisdom on 14 October 2008
a12331 said:

it does this at first then it drops down because of superfetch. Also when xp first came out it was also considered a resource hog. And also technology is rapidly evolving, such as 2 gigs is needed to run vista smoothly, the next operating system will require at least 4. 

You shouldn't slag on it because it requires more memory, All operating systems will require more than the past. And also all new computers will be able to run it fine. 

Actually, if the latest version of Windows Server (2008) and its Server Core is indicative of what Windows 7 might look like then this could quite likely be false.  Microsoft seems to be trending toward providing a leaner, more stripped down version of its OS and letting the user pick and choose what to install.  This could mean many good things in the future including possibly lower resource footprints.  In general though (and for today), more in terms of memory and the like is usually better.



a12331 on 14 October 2008
Words Of Wisdom said:
a12331 said:

it does this at first then it drops down because of superfetch. Also when xp first came out it was also considered a resource hog. And also technology is rapidly evolving, such as 2 gigs is needed to run vista smoothly, the next operating system will require at least 4. 

You shouldn't slag on it because it requires more memory, All operating systems will require more than the past. And also all new computers will be able to run it fine. 

Actually, if the latest version of Windows Server (2008) and its Server Core is indicative of what Windows 7 might look like then this could quite likely be false.  Microsoft seems to be trending toward providing a leaner, more stripped down version of its OS and letting the user pick and choose what to install.  This could mean many good things in the future including possibly lower resource footprints.  In general though (and for today), more in terms of memory and the like is usually better.

 

yeah but Microsoft also released many versions of windows server 2003. And since windows 7 will most likely be similar to windows vista, then they would require more ram to make it run smoothly. 



Bitmap Frogs on 14 October 2008

I've used Vista at work and personally do not like it - it's like a burger pretending to be haute cuisine. I preferred their old no frills approach. Anyways in the office we've had some issues with our two vista boxes: but it might be related to the network being a convoluted mess (there's mac boxes, linux boxes, at least two older windows versions + the two vista boxes).





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

SaviorX on 14 October 2008

Vista hasn't messed up on me yet, but I don't want to jinx it.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

Words Of Wisdom on 14 October 2008
a12331 said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
a12331 said:

it does this at first then it drops down because of superfetch. Also when xp first came out it was also considered a resource hog. And also technology is rapidly evolving, such as 2 gigs is needed to run vista smoothly, the next operating system will require at least 4. 

You shouldn't slag on it because it requires more memory, All operating systems will require more than the past. And also all new computers will be able to run it fine. 

Actually, if the latest version of Windows Server (2008) and its Server Core is indicative of what Windows 7 might look like then this could quite likely be false.  Microsoft seems to be trending toward providing a leaner, more stripped down version of its OS and letting the user pick and choose what to install.  This could mean many good things in the future including possibly lower resource footprints.  In general though (and for today), more in terms of memory and the like is usually better.

 

yeah but Microsoft also released many versions of windows server 2003. And since windows 7 will most likely be similar to windows vista, then they would require more ram to make it run smoothly. 

It won't just be similar to Vista, it will likely be built off the same kernel or a "more evolved" version.  Either way it will be interesting to see how it shapes up as they've been putting a staggering amount of time into R&D and usability.  I'm not expecting anything much more than we're seeing in Vista's requirements at worst and would be pleasantly surprised by something with minimum system requirements akin to XP or even less.