Vista owns!
Printable View
Vista owns!
to bad you can't get xp 'LEAGALY' any more :rolleyes:
Ahh, my dear Watson! That is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobking21
Alienware sells computers with Windows XP Media Center Edition (Which can be a pain in the ass, but eh. It works fine on my friends computer.) As soon as I can I'm getting a decent one (it will do what I need it to do - and my laundry). But either way, you can still buy it 'LEAGALY' (legally, for those who can spell~:rolleyes:). But thanks for your input =D
XP PWNZ ANYDAY i got vista on my comp and im REALLY regretting it cuz its still pretty glitchy plus u cant do as much stuff as u can on XP. I'm also broke so i cant but XP again (sadface)
I prefer XP, mostly because im used to it, and the interface on vista is annoying, but the widgets are kool, another thing with vista is that allot of things were already made for XP so ittl be a while till vista gets allot of stuff.
I could name 20 places..... The Dell Website for e,g Vista is default on all comps pay you can pay $50 to Upgrade to Xp.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobking21
The word is DowngradeQuote:
Originally Posted by NiCbaZ
Greetings
Gadgets on Mac, and Widgets on Linux I think (or is it Widgets on Mac, Gadgets on Vista, and Widgets on Linux =\)Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanext
On the contrary, XP is a step up from Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by migue
*Checking to make sure I haven't ranted on this before...*
Ok, never ONCE in my lifetime have I ever HEARD OF an "Operating System" that's capable of not being compatible with a monitor. Monitor's are ridiculously standardized (*VGA and DVI or whatever), not to mention it's the graphics card that has to deal with them, not the operating system. (The whole thing is a big scam by Microsoft to get monitor companies to pay them for "Vista Approved"ness, meaning theirs won't be blacklisted.)
I can't name a single thing Vista can do that either XP or Linux can't. (XP can play every game Vista can (Except DirectX 10 stuff, but hardly any graphics cards even support that still. I sure won't have enough money to buy one that can anytime soon) by using a tiny program that just tells the game that you're running Vista, it has nothing to do with the software itself.) The only thing I've seen Vista do that XP can't is that those diagonal lines that move behind the window borders (take a guess on who they stole that from. I'll give you a hint: LINUX) and the Vista Widgets (scrollbars, buttons, checkboxes, etc.) look overly close to the Mac OS X ones
Edit: Lol, I already said about ¼ of this before, but whatever.
Also, those of you who say people who prefer XP over Vista because we "can't handle change" should really try out XP first and figure out for yourself why it pwns :) [Avatar << Linux Zealot :D]
Howcome Xp is better?Quote:
Originally Posted by migue
well i suppose to someone who likes vista better it would be a downgrade, and widget so your saying the whole OS thing is a whole conspiracy? I dunno about it and i dont really care but you did back up your argument well, heh. But i still think vista has only got looks to it
Vista easily owns Windows XP ;) People are upset due to the change, however, give it a couple of weeks, it'll grow on you. However, Windows XP Professional will win if you have Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Business.
But, if you were to buy it now, i'd say wait about 1 or 2 more years for the Windows Seven release ;)
I'm hoping Windows 7 is more XP-ish with more graphic awesomness. Though, I love simplicity.
You've all heard that Windows Mojave BS right? Aggh! Curse you Microsoft!
I would smell Vista the moment I walked into that room. =P
@Widget: Which program tells other proggies that you're running Vista? Perhaps linkage? (My friend would love this for Halo 2 ^.^)
I did try, for a whole year. Way to many bugs, SP1 wouldn't even install! On XP now :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan's The Man
XP FTW! Over the summer I was in Ohio, and my bro sent me a screenshot of our computer and it had vista on it.... He's lucky that I noticed the vista transformation icon on the desktop LOL. I would have literally killed him. Down with vista! Up with freedom from horible OS's like vista!
I have Vista and i voted for Vista too! Just like the interface from vista etc. And it came wih my computer too so.
I vote vista just because it has alot more to offer than xp because of the fact there is no more upgrades for xp and the microsoft team is consentrating on vista- I believe vista's got real potential.
Well, IMO, XP is safer. From what I've heard, Vista is VERY prone to viruses, and crashed often (with some people, not all).
Well, what you've heard is wrong. Technically, Vista is much safer and recommended by IT Professionals over XP.Quote:
Originally Posted by ProphesyOfWolf
ive always prefered xp over vista. works out better for me
I sometimes wish i had xp, cant play all games on vista
XP all the way. vista is too complicated and its has too much blocks on it, and barely anything is compatible with it (lot of games)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sn0man
Complicated? Don't think so. It's GFX is WAY better then XP too. Eye candy FTW...
Compatible? Don't think so. We're getting into the point of where most software is now compatible with Vista.
Complete? I think so. Vista's already on its first service pack and developing it's next already.
Ashur owns? I know so.
-Ashur
Yes, in the evil 781st dimension where everything is reverse. And as Widget said, microsoft just wants money by making vista not compatible with anything unless the companies pay them and you can get eye candy in linux and XP too, as that seems to be the main point for using vista to every vista user. And the crashing is quite fun if I'm at my friends house and his playing some game and right before the next save spot/checkpoint/end of stage or mission etc. *Crash* => RAAAAAAAAGE :pQuote:
Originally Posted by n3ss3s
I love vista, it works perfectly and what you can accomplish is amazing!!
However, right now I have one PC for xp and another for vista. I use xp for gaming right now and vista for any office processing.
Complaints against Vista:
-Insecure (This is true for most new OS'es, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon)
-Over expensive (Self explanatory)
-Requires at least 3 times the specs of XP (Vista: 800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 20GB hard drive with 15GB vs XP: 233MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB of drive space)
-Over protective (User Account Control asks you about everything)
-Uses massive system resources (Even without Aero on, Vista will use half a gig of RAM. With it on, it uses 1GB)
-Many old programs do not and will not run on Vista
-New Start bar / GUI is confusing, cluttered, and some features are hidden
-Refusal to allow access to a users own folders
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n...ic/meowned.jpg
Compliments to Vista:
-Pretty (Especially with Aero enabled)
-Better file search times (With SP1, it supposedly gets 86% better search times than XP)
-Gives local data transfer rates (If you're copying a file from C:\ to C:\Example, it will tell you the rate and the time left)
I'd say the cons outweigh the pros, and I'll stick to XP.
(By the way, on Vista I get 20% CPU usage; 42% RAM usage; and 1.2GB page file usage running nothing but Vista and AIM 5.9. XP gets 2% CPU usage; 3% RAM usage; 100MB page file usage running only XP and AIM 5.9, Linux gets 0.2% CPU usage; 4% RAM usage; and 20MB SWAP space used running Linux and Pidgin)
Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0Ghz
Intel X38 Motherboard
4GB DDR3 @ 1333Mhz RAM
Nvidia 9800GX2 (1GB VRAM, PCI-E 2.0)
750GB SATA-II 7200RPM Western Digital x2
400GB SATA-II 7200RPM Western Digital x1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrycu
Complaints against Vista:
-Insecure (This is true for most new OS'es, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon)
Have you got Vista SP2, that is by far more secure than xp SP3
-Over expensive (Self explanatory)
Depends on where you buy it, all new computers come with vista and you can easily buy it for around £100
-Requires at least 3 times the specs of XP (Vista: 800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 20GB hard drive with 15GB vs XP: 233MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB of drive space)
Well give it a thought, it is much more powerful than any other os (Linux can be debatable)
-Over protective (User Account Control asks you about everything)
You can turn down the security settings :p
-Uses massive system resources (Even without Aero on, Vista will use half a gig of RAM. With it on, it uses 1GB)
Depends on which Vista version you have. If it is all too much then downgrade to the basic version
-Many old programs do not and will not run on Vista
Actually quite a few now. Go to the manufacturers website and download the latest patch, most people dont realise this because they do not inform you
-New Start bar / GUI is confusing, cluttered, and some features are hidden
Matter of opinion there :p
-Refusal to allow access to a users own folders
Once again, just turn down the security settings
:)
-Insecure (This is true for most new OS'es, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon)
Have you got Vista SP2, that is by far more secure than xp SP3
Vista SP2 is not yet out (and hasn't been pirated, sofar as I can tell)
-Over expensive (Self explanatory)
Depends on where you buy it, all new computers come with vista and you can easily buy it for around £100
Prices are listed as $200 to $320 by Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...s/default.aspx)
-Requires at least 3 times the specs of XP (Vista: 800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 20GB hard drive with 15GB vs XP: 233MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB of drive space)
Well give it a thought, it is much more powerful than any other os (Linux can be debatable)
Most people don't need the increase in power, making it a very costly useless increase
-Over protective (User Account Control asks you about everything)
You can turn down the security settings :p
True, but that defeats the purpose of it. If you turn it down, it no longer protects you.
-Uses massive system resources (Even without Aero on, Vista will use half a gig of RAM. With it on, it uses 1GB)
Depends on which Vista version you have. If it is all too much then downgrade to the basic version
You shouldn't have to go to the basic version because they added too much useless junk into it.
-Many old programs do not and will not run on Vista
Actually quite a few now. Go to the manufacturers website and download the latest patch, most people dont realise this because they do not inform you
Okay, so this is not actually a problem with Vista (Too lazy to actually check if it's true, so i'll give you this point), but it's still a problem with Microsoft, still requires the user to do research on their own, and therefore is still a point against Vista.
-New Start bar / GUI is confusing, cluttered, and some features are hidden
Matter of opinion there :p
The fact that things are hidden and it's cluttered is not an opinion, it's a fact. It's being confusing is an opinion. Microsoft has stated that they were a bunch of idiots for doing it, and that they plan to fix it in the upcoming Windows 7 (""We did encounter some challenges with the power options in Vista's Start Menu," Sareen wrote. "The goal was to bubble-up and advertise the sleep option so that customers enjoy a faster resume. However, we now know despite our good intentions, customers are opening that fly-out menu and selecting other options. We're looking into improving this experience." Hopefully, the experience improvements will include making sleep actually work reliably, especially on notebook PCs, as well as ensuring the other options are more visible (and keyboard-accessible). >http://apcmag.com/windows_7_promises...r_screwups.htm")
-Refusal to allow access to a users own folders
Once again, just turn down the security settings
True, but also once again, removes the security and forces the user to do their own research.
I prefer vista
works fine for me once I edited the settings
Don't go telling people incorrect information ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrycu
Insecure:
Vista is much more secure than XP. Even before the release of Service Pack 1.
Over expensive:
What is so over-expensive about it? It took 4 years to make. And prices WILL decrease ;)
Requires more system resources:
NOT TRUE! Vista requires very little resources to run. It chooses what's best for your system when installing. ALL the features on Vista, total, requires 456mb of RAM. If you had a low-end system, Vista won't use most of its' features, otherwise if you have a higher end system, Vista will implement most of its' features ;)
Over Protective:
People complained about XP being insecure, but when Microsoft make a more secure system, people blame Microsoft about it being too secure! And the UAC is very useful if you have gotten used to it and very protective ;) It won't ask for your permission if the software is certified by Microsoft, or is a system resource.
Uses Massive system resources (1GB):
Where the hell are you coming from? Seems to me you just like pissing Microsoft off. I have a 1GB RAM system, and Vista takes no more than 460mb of RAM.
Many old programs don't work on Vista:
Many old programs certainly do.. Vista uses a different EXE engine (which is more secure), but still supports the older ones (Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 9 series), so you can set the compatibility mode. People have complained about Age of Empires II not working, i betcha they haven't set which EXE Engine to use, since it works for me (after setting which EXE engine to use).
New theme is confusing, cluttered and some features hidden:
What complete bullshit! Nothing IS cluttered, Nothing IS confusing, and not many features are hidden (except for ones which can be dangerous if configured incorrectly).
Refusal access to own user folders:
You're mistaken very highly. There is no folder called Documents and Settings in the root directory, installers try to write to that location, that's why it's a short-cut ;) For your own user folder, have you ever checked the Users folder? That is the same as Documents and Settings on XP.
Next time don't give out false information. By the way, if you were to run the amount of programs and services on Linux as that of Vista, you'll see clearly Vista is much faster (this IS A FACT).
Personally I like XP more.
Vista has too many bugs that are really annoying.
Unless Vista can get it's bugs fixed, I will not like it :sasmokin:
It didn't have many bugs upon releasing and most of them are fixed now from SP1. I really doubt you have even tried Vista.. So, don't just vote XP by other comments and shit like that, even when you haven't even tried Windows Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by n00b? n00b?
Wanna bet? I am using 2 computers right now, one is on XP my laptop is on Vista Ultimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan's The Man
I can't install iTunes and other programs I want to install on vista because of something that prevents me from installing even though I am the only administrator on my laptop. (Yes I did look on google for a solution which I was unsuccessful in finding a method that worked or one that I actually understood.)
Well maybe I like XP more cause it's simpler for me and I'm more familiar with it.
Maybe your good at adapting with the rush of technology, as for me I am still trying to familiarize myself with Vista as it no doubt looks much better.
So please there is no need to use "that" kind of language, and don't go randomly assuming I don't know "Shit".
P.S - You are probably much older than me.
Insecure:
Vista is much more secure than XP. Even before the release of Service Pack 1.
No new OS is secure. If it appears to be so, it's only because not enough people switched over to it to make it worth finding exploits for.
Over expensive:
It's $200 - $300, and that's in the US. In Australia, a copy of Vista Ultimate is $751.
Requires more system resources:
NOT TRUE! Vista requires very little resources to run. It chooses what's best for your system when installing. ALL the features on Vista, total, requires 456mb of RAM. If you had a low-end system, Vista won't use most of its' features, otherwise if you have a higher end system, Vista will implement most of its' features ;)
If you have 1GB and Vista is using 456MB, it's using just under half your memory. HALF. On XP, a 1GB system is fine for gaming. You have about 768MB of your RAM still open for games. On Vista, you have slightly over half of your RAM for EVERYTHING. This is insane. I have a computer with 4GB of RAM, and Vista uses 42% of that. On the Home Basic Edition. XP requires 64MB of RAM. Vista requires 10 times the hard drive space.
Over Protective:
People complained about XP being insecure, but when Microsoft make a more secure system, people blame Microsoft about it being too secure! And the UAC is very useful if you have gotten used to it and very protective ;) It won't ask for your permission if the software is certified by Microsoft, or is a system resource.
UAC is not useful at all. The only people I know who left it on did so only because they were unable to find a way to turn it off. Linux does the same thing and manages not to pop a warning box up over and over. Increasing security to the point that the user just ignores the messages and hits 'continue' completely defeats any of the additional security - it's the same as not having it at all.
Uses Massive system resources (1GB):
Where the hell are you coming from? Seems to me you just like pissing Microsoft off. I have a 1GB RAM system, and Vista takes no more than 460mb of RAM.
That's almost half. If you have an older system, say 256MB of RAM, you can't even run Vista. If you have a newer one with 512MB, you get a whole 52MB of your RAM for every application. Aero is 512MB of RAM as well, so I'm assuming you're talking about leaving one of the major pluses for Vista off.
Many old programs don't work on Vista:
Many old programs certainly do.. Vista uses a different EXE engine (which is more secure), but still supports the older ones (Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 9 series), so you can set the compatibility mode. People have complained about Age of Empires II not working, i betcha they haven't set which EXE Engine to use, since it works for me (after setting which EXE engine to use).
Compatibility mode is not new to Vista. I use it often in XP for 90's games. I have been unable to get many of the games running on Vista at all, be it Home Edition, Business x64, or Ultimate.
New theme is confusing, cluttered and some features hidden:
What complete bullshit! Nothing IS cluttered, Nothing IS confusing, and not many features are hidden (except for ones which can be dangerous if configured incorrectly).
Actually, you're wrong here. People who actually worked on the creation of the Vista UI have admitted that they were attempting to hide certain things to push the user into using new options (such as the hidden shut down attempting to get people to use 'sleep' mode instead), and how terribly their plans failed. Users don't want the new things, they want the same old and go digging around for it.
Refusal access to own user folders:
You're mistaken very highly. There is no folder called Documents and Settings in the root directory, installers try to write to that location, that's why it's a short-cut ;) For your own user folder, have you ever checked the Users folder? That is the same as Documents and Settings on XP.
You have me here, however this points back to the older programs not working - they try to write there and there is no such folder.
Next time don't give out false information. By the way, if you were to run the amount of programs and services on Linux as that of Vista, you'll see clearly Vista is much faster (this IS A FACT).
I did run the same applictions, I even listed them.
XP: AIM 5.9
Vista: AIM 5.9
Linux: Pidgin 2.3.1
Vista's system usage was WAY above every other OS.
(and for the record, my Vista was a clean install - only Windows services. My copy of Linux was not a clean install, and had extra services running)
Insecure:
Vista is much more secure than XP. Even before the release of Service Pack 1.
No new OS is secure. If it appears to be so, it's only because not enough people switched over to it to make it worth finding exploits for.
I know no knew OS is secure, but Vista IS much more secure than XP when it was released.
Over expensive:
It's $200 - $300, and that's in the US. In Australia, a copy of Vista Ultimate is $751.
I am in Australia, and that is bullshit! The maximum price i have ever seen in Australia is $209.95.
Requires more system resources:
NOT TRUE! Vista requires very little resources to run. It chooses what's best for your system when installing. ALL the features on Vista, total, requires 456mb of RAM. If you had a low-end system, Vista won't use most of its' features, otherwise if you have a higher end system, Vista will implement most of its' features ;)
If you have 1GB and Vista is using 456MB, it's using just under half your memory. HALF. On XP, a 1GB system is fine for gaming. You have about 768MB of your RAM still open for games. On Vista, you have slightly over half of your RAM for EVERYTHING. This is insane. I have a computer with 4GB of RAM, and Vista uses 42% of that. On the Home Basic Edition. XP requires 64MB of RAM. Vista requires 10 times the hard drive space.
Have you even read what i had said before? It depends how much RAM you have! Vista chooses what's best for you when it installs! Also, it only requires 7gb of Hard Disk space ;)
Over Protective:
People complained about XP being insecure, but when Microsoft make a more secure system, people blame Microsoft about it being too secure! And the UAC is very useful if you have gotten used to it and very protective ;) It won't ask for your permission if the software is certified by Microsoft, or is a system resource.
UAC is not useful at all. The only people I know who left it on did so only because they were unable to find a way to turn it off. Linux does the same thing and manages not to pop a warning box up over and over. Increasing security to the point that the user just ignores the messages and hits 'continue' completely defeats any of the additional security - it's the same as not having it at all.
Technically, it is useful! You can either choose to turn it off, to remember settings or to leave it on and forget the settings!
Uses Massive system resources (1GB):
Where the hell are you coming from? Seems to me you just like pissing Microsoft off. I have a 1GB RAM system, and Vista takes no more than 460mb of RAM.
That's almost half. If you have an older system, say 256MB of RAM, you can't even run Vista. If you have a newer one with 512MB, you get a whole 52MB of your RAM for every application. Aero is 512MB of RAM as well, so I'm assuming you're talking about leaving one of the major pluses for Vista off.
I have Aero on! And as i had said before, it only chooses what to load upon installing, what's best for the system!
Many old programs don't work on Vista:
Many old programs certainly do.. Vista uses a different EXE engine (which is more secure), but still supports the older ones (Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 9 series), so you can set the compatibility mode. People have complained about Age of Empires II not working, i betcha they haven't set which EXE Engine to use, since it works for me (after setting which EXE engine to use).
Compatibility mode is not new to Vista. I use it often in XP for 90's games. I have been unable to get many of the games running on Vista at all, be it Home Edition, Business x64, or Ultimate.
I know it isn't a new thing, but all games that have worked on XP, on Windows 2000 and Windows 98 work for me on Vista ;)
New theme is confusing, cluttered and some features hidden:
What complete bullshit! Nothing IS cluttered, Nothing IS confusing, and not many features are hidden (except for ones which can be dangerous if configured incorrectly).
Actually, you're wrong here. People who actually worked on the creation of the Vista UI have admitted that they were attempting to hide certain things to push the user into using new options (such as the hidden shut down attempting to get people to use 'sleep' mode instead), and how terribly their plans failed. Users don't want the new things, they want the same old and go digging around for it.
Ok, nothing IS cluttered though, nothing IS confusing and i said only SOME features are hidden. Also, just because the button in the start menu says sleep, it sleeps. It is good like that ;) Also, remember you can change it ;)
Refusal access to own user folders:
You're mistaken very highly. There is no folder called Documents and Settings in the root directory, installers try to write to that location, that's why it's a short-cut ;) For your own user folder, have you ever checked the Users folder? That is the same as Documents and Settings on XP.
You have me here, however this points back to the older programs not working - they try to write there and there is no such folder.
It IS a shortcut for installers, which points to C:\Users! It is only meant to be accessible by programs!
Next time don't give out false information. By the way, if you were to run the amount of programs and services on Linux as that of Vista, you'll see clearly Vista is much faster (this IS A FACT).
I did run the same applictions, I even listed them.
XP: AIM 5.9
Vista: AIM 5.9
Linux: Pidgin 2.3.1
Vista's system usage was WAY above every other OS.
(and for the record, my Vista was a clean install - only Windows services. My copy of Linux was not a clean install, and had extra services running)
Have you ever tried running the exact amount of services (same memory size, etc) and applications on Linux and XP as that of Vista? I, and many others have, and XP is only a tiny bit faster (2%) than Vista. So, XP, is a little bit faster... I admit that!
As far as im aware (without personal experience) Vista is still a bug fest, which is why im sticking with XP for now :p
Vista, very good when you know how to use it :D
I heard that vista has a lot of bugs, so i say xp. But imo if you are getting a new comp (with vista) theres no reason to buy xp
I have Vista and It's nice and fast but whatever. The thing is I can't have any fun with it, No full screen games can't play RS-HD at all, the computer just goes into lockdown and shuts off after like 10 mins:( Any help?:confused:
Not really, it still has a few bugs, but not as many as XP has ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcadium
Very true ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gl3nni
There USED to be a lot of bugs, however, most of them have been squashed ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wromg
Huh!? Don't know what is happening there.. Everything works fine for me..Quote:
Originally Posted by Phipps22
Dan's The Man, you seem to refuse that there is ANYTHING wrong with vista.. when you there are... your funny... Hahaha... :)