| Author |
Is Vista a virus? |
thomas93
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Posts: 444
PM |
Each to their own :-/ |
|
|
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-05-04 13:30:19, thomas93 wrote:
Each to their own :-/
Not good enough. I need solid reasons and proof as to why Vista is shit
|
thomas93
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Posts: 444
PM |
I have Vista so I can comment 
1) 1gb of RAM just isn't good enough.
My Dad has a similiar machine downstairs but with a slower AMD processor and XP he boots up in 20 seconds I boot up in 3minutes.
2) Software imcompatability. I had to pay for some software cause some freeware isn't compatible.
It's alright but could be better tbh. |
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-05-04 13:35:14, thomas93 wrote:
I have Vista so I can comment
1) 1gb of RAM just isn't good enough.
My Dad has a similiar machine downstairs but with a slower AMD processor and XP he boots up in 20 seconds I boot up in 3minutes.
2) Software imcompatability. I had to pay for some software cause some freeware isn't compatible.
It's alright but could be better tbh.
1) you have insufficient system resources, i fail to see how that is Vista's fault. Its like saying Doom 1 ran perfectly fine on Pentium 1 so why cant Call of Duty 4 run on it?
2) I can say the same for XP. An enormous amount of software and games for windows 98 became obsolete when XP came out due to their incompatibility.
|
thomas93
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Posts: 444
PM |
Insufficent resources?!?
I fail to see where visa needs to send all this power.
And 98 loseing all the software cmpatibility was worth it for the added fuctionality XP offers, again I fail to see where Vsta offers more and takes away more :/ |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-05-04 13:46:27, thomas93 wrote:
Insufficent resources?!?
I fail to see where visa needs to send all this power.
And 98 loseing all the software cmpatibility was worth it for the added fuctionality XP offers, again I fail to see where Vsta offers more and takes away more :/
You are quite wrong about Vista performance. Vista will run fine on 512 MB of RAM, and a low speed celeron dual core processor (not even core2). It will even run zippier if you turn off the Vista theme and visual affects, which dumbs the interface down to Windows 2000 apearance, but retains all the cool vista Explorer shell features that are mostly an improvement over Windows XP.
The main problem with Vista is 1. the lack of Business software compatibility (home users are less likely to have problems finding patches and drivers), and 2. the problems of compatibility with older hardware that vendors aren't releasing drivers for, and 3. High end multimedia hardware and software incompatibilities caused by Vista DRM systems. If you buy hardware and software carefully, you can avoid the problems above easily.
For anyone with an average computer of 2-3 years old or less, not being used in a business environment, Vista should be an ideal OS with many improvemnents over Windows XP (itself an excellent OS).
I like it.
_________________
 Tricks and Tricks for K800 File System Tweaks for K750
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2008-05-04 15:32 ] |
paul101
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: first to last
PM, WWW
|
problem is, i just cant be bothered waiting for it to ponder the meaning of life before i can actually do anything with vista... with ubuntu the GUI loads, and i can click on firefox and it loads instantly 
i much prefer windows xp
I don't wanna sleep
I don't wanna dream
'cause my dreams don't comfort me |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Linux is a mixed bag. Some distros take a terminal amount of time to load, some are zippy.
I've also seen Vista and XP systems boot very quickly, I also don't believe in having numerous different background utilities loading at startup, which is what usually slows boot times. I mean who needs to know at any instant what speed your fans are running at or have some CD packet writing program running in the back ground just so you don't have to dig into the Program menu when you actually need it.
On lean systems, I probably find Vista a little quicker at booting than XP. By booting I mean after login and after all start up programs have finished loading. For boot to login screen only, both OS's can boot in as little as 20 seconds depending on the Motherboard BIOS sequence.
I still much prefer Windows XP in a business environment, but the time is coming where Vista will be just as good.
|
Cycovision
Joined: Nov 30, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM, WWW
|
^^^
Well said. The commit charge for a clean install of Vista is around about 700Mb if you're running Aero and have dedicated graphics. If you turn all of the fancy features off, it drops to around 400Mb which is about the same as a 'used' XP installation if I remember correctly
Many people have been a little unfair towards Vista since they expect it to run like greased lightning with all of the bells and whistles on a PC that, whilst not archaic, is still out of date compared to what you could get for the same price right now.
As with all windows OS's, the biggest cause of slowdown is third party software that runs in the background. Some of them, such as printer manager apps and a couple of infamous antivirus packages, are absolutely huge when they really don't need to be.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
yeah, I'm pretty happy with Vista. I think the only real let down is the over-complex DRM arrangements, but if the main hardware and software vendors don't feel they can rely on Vista DRM to work reliably with their products they will work outside the DRM regimen forcing MS to drop it in Windows 7 (my hope anyway).
I love the fact that Vista Home runs perfectly on my mums el-cheapo Compaq laptop with 512MB RAM looking like Windows 2000. It also goes to show how not a huge amount of processing power is needed to do internet/word/photos kind of home user stuff, as long as the UI has atleast a mediocum of efficiency.
|
Cycovision
Joined: Nov 30, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM, WWW
|
Yup. I do sometimes wonder just how many people have actually used Vista to a reasonable extent before forming an opinion on it.
UAC, for example, gets a hell of a bad time but personally I've had no trouble with it at all. I've never found it annoying or intrusive, I don't see it happen very often at all and on one occasion it actually prevented a trojan from running before Avast anti-virus had chance to pop up an alert (which it did immediately after I denied access to the trojan in UAC!).
I wonder if the people who don't like UAC are the ones that always seem to have problems with spam, adware and viruses?
|
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
The most criticized feature of Vista is the UAC, and its quite shocking to see that people dont realise that its a feature that can be turned off.
|
thomas93
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Posts: 444
PM |
Woo Avast  |
Dogmann
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: London England
PM |
Hi all,
I also don't understand all this constant Vista bashing as i have now been using it since March 2007 on a new Toshiba Satellite P100-160 laptop.
I don't use Areo or the desktop Widgets as both of those did make the system slow IMO and all i added to the 1GB Ram was a 2GB USB memory key and used the Memory Boost function. It has a Core2 Duo T5200 @1.6ghz and everything runs and works perfectly.
I am still using Outlook 2003 and my new printer installed with out any problems as have all my mobile devices PC suites.
But my days of loading up every bit of new software and especially in Beta are long gone and in over 14 months now i have had no problems.
Now if i would of spent money on upgrading my old machine to Vista i doubt it but as it came on the new machine it has served me perfectly no complaints here.
Marc
_________________
Nokia E90,8GB SDHC, Fring, Seven, Tom Tom 6
Dogmanns Nokia E90 Blog @ http://dogmann.vox.com/
Honoured to have won BEST DEBATER
[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2008-05-04 18:56 ] |
arien617
Joined: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM |
It uses resources like a fat guy in McDonalds...
Normal usage on OS X..:
(With 2.4Ghz Dual Core and 2GB RAM)
I'd love to see that on Vista.
It's nicked a fair bit from OS X as well.. Widgets.. Gadgets.
Spotlight on OS X.. Search bar on the Windows Menu.
The iMac is all in one.. Don't bring this up(I've beaten you to it.) :
Though it has helped me come to terms with my sexuality. Not.
OS X beats Vista at shininess as well.. which is like Vista's main selling point..
Then again, this is the Mac fan in me speaking. However as I do own and live with both OS', I prefer Mac way more than Windoze..
_________________
[/Arien's post]
Arr, that was no pirate man, that was thy own seester! (I'm a Mexican pirate)
[ This Message was edited by: arien617 on 2008-05-04 18:58 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2008-05-04 13:30
