Poll: Vista or XP?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 95

Thread: Vista or XP?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    4,603
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    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
    You may contact me with any concerns you have.
    Are you a victim of harassment? Please notify me or any other staff member.

    | SRL Community Rules | SRL Live Help & Chat | Setting up Simba | F.A.Q's |

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Middle of Here and There
    Posts
    417
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    25 Post(s)

    Default

    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 ^.^)

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    irc://irc.rizon.net:6667/srl
    Posts
    1,566
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan's The Man View Post
    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 did try, for a whole year. Way to many bugs, SP1 wouldn't even install! On XP now

    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    — Theodore Roosevelt

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    1,149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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!

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I have Vista and i voted for Vista too! Just like the interface from vista etc. And it came wih my computer too so.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default Vista

    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.
    1337=ME

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Middle of Here and There
    Posts
    417
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    25 Post(s)

    Default

    Well, IMO, XP is safer. From what I've heard, Vista is VERY prone to viruses, and crashed often (with some people, not all).

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    4,603
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ProphesyOfWolf View Post
    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.
    You may contact me with any concerns you have.
    Are you a victim of harassment? Please notify me or any other staff member.

    | SRL Community Rules | SRL Live Help & Chat | Setting up Simba | F.A.Q's |

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    ive always prefered xp over vista. works out better for me

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I sometimes wish i had xp, cant play all games on vista

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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)

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sn0man View Post
    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)



    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
    Exam period.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    .̿̂̔͋͗̎̆ͥ̍̒ͤ͂̾̌̀̅
    Posts
    3,012
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n3ss3s View Post
    Vista owns!
    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

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.
    -----
    If I see you autoing with level 3/default clothes/crap name I WILL report you. Auto Correctly. - put this in your sig

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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



    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
    If I see you autoing with level 3/default clothes/crap name I WILL report you. Auto Correctly. - put this in your sig
    http://www.stats.srl-forums.com/sigs/5612.png
    http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/...or_iswhite.jpg

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrycu View Post
    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


    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

    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

    -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

    -Refusal to allow access to a users own folders
    Once again, just turn down the security settings

    -----
    If I see you autoing with level 3/default clothes/crap name I WILL report you. Auto Correctly. - put this in your sig

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    -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
    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
    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.
    If I see you autoing with level 3/default clothes/crap name I WILL report you. Auto Correctly. - put this in your sig
    http://www.stats.srl-forums.com/sigs/5612.png
    http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/...or_iswhite.jpg

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I prefer vista
    works fine for me once I edited the settings

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    4,603
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrycu View Post
    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



    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
    Don't go telling people incorrect information

    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).
    You may contact me with any concerns you have.
    Are you a victim of harassment? Please notify me or any other staff member.

    | SRL Community Rules | SRL Live Help & Chat | Setting up Simba | F.A.Q's |

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    53
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    4,603
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n00b? n00b? View Post
    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
    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.
    You may contact me with any concerns you have.
    Are you a victim of harassment? Please notify me or any other staff member.

    | SRL Community Rules | SRL Live Help & Chat | Setting up Simba | F.A.Q's |

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    53
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan's The Man View Post
    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.
    Wanna bet? I am using 2 computers right now, one is on XP my laptop is on Vista Ultimate.

    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.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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)
    If I see you autoing with level 3/default clothes/crap name I WILL report you. Auto Correctly. - put this in your sig
    http://www.stats.srl-forums.com/sigs/5612.png
    http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/...or_iswhite.jpg

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    4,603
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    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!
    You may contact me with any concerns you have.
    Are you a victim of harassment? Please notify me or any other staff member.

    | SRL Community Rules | SRL Live Help & Chat | Setting up Simba | F.A.Q's |

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    As far as im aware (without personal experience) Vista is still a bug fest, which is why im sticking with XP for now

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. XP or VISTA
    By Twisted in forum Discussions & Debates
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-04-2008, 01:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •