Do NOT buy/install Windows Vista!

heh heh, turn off the microphone and there's no problem :)
 
Duck Tracy
If you think XP is bloated, then you need to upgrade your 128MB of RAM.
Click to expand...

This is what we told allot of people when we upgraded their machines to xp when they'd complain that their machines would run slower than when they had 2K on it. To be honest they didn't need xp, but we were told that 'EVERYONE MUST HAVE XP' hoo boy that was fun telling managers that they'd need to buy 20 new pc's because xp runs like crap on their PII machine's that they barely use.

Yeah sure lol I can't afford ram lolz im poor.

Am I that bad of a person that wants just a basic os that doesn't have lots and lots of crap?

I mean I must admit I haven't kept up with Vista, i've only heard mumblings of 'trusted computing this' and 'fancy 3d interface that' also the 'windows search dealie'
 
First of all, I didn't read all the posts. But I do not understand why people don't switch to mac. I did that a couple of years ago and it's so much better!! Now that you can run win applications on them if you have to, I see NO reason to have a PC. They just suck. Totally. I never have any problems with OSX or the actual computer itself. It is so stable and you can really trust it. Also, NO viruse s or spyware. HELLOOO?!?!
 
There are plenty of reasons why many people haven't switched to Macs.

When you choose Windows as your operating system, you can get almost any computer you want. Small form factor PCs, all-in-one PCs, high-end gaming machines, large-screen notebooks, budget notebooks, small notebooks, "Ultra Mobile PCs", build-your-own, tablet PCs, Dell's monster-sized "portable," HP's touch-screen all-in-one... thing.... well you get the point.

If you want Mac OS X (let's assume you follow Apple's terms of acquiring it), there's a small form factor Mac, an all-in-one Mac, a high-end Mac, and a consumer line and a professional line of notebooks. As you can see, it's not a wide variety.

To answer your question: Apple doesn't cater to everyone's needs - and they don't need to. I'm sure Apple would love to dominate the OS market, but that is not their ultimate goal. If it was, then Mac OS X would be available with any PC manufacturer.

That's only one reason, and I can think of many others.
 
Its like that every OS id worse than the other:lol:. I never experienced Windows 98 and Windows 2000 a little bit. I have Windows Xp SP2 and it works fine for me:tup:
 
Ok, I just had to use Vista while setting up a computer just bought by a friend of mine. What a pain in the ass. I really think windows tried too hard going for the "mac-look", but all they created was a bunch of bull**** in a pretty box. It's so clunky and isn't user-friendly at all. I much prefer windows XP, but my next computer will DEFINITELY be a mac.

Vista, in my eyes as of now, is a complete failure.
 
Omnis
Ok, I just had to use Vista while setting up a computer just bought by a friend of mine. What a pain in the ass. I really think windows tried too hard going for the "mac-look", but all they created was a bunch of bull**** in a pretty box. It's so clunky and isn't user-friendly at all. I much prefer windows XP, but my next computer will DEFINITELY be a mac.

Vista, in my eyes as of now, is a complete failure.
Click to expand...

...And I thought XP wasn't user friendly. :scared:
 
Mac OS X is programmed to run on mac hardware, that is way they are stable, reliable etc. Vista is like throwing two good things together, its like putting pre-cooked meat in the washing machine; two good things, bad outcome.
 
Linux Live CD's are a grace to the world, for sure. When my friend's HDD died, he ran off a Live CD until he replaced his HDD.


But more ontopic, I'm going to dual boot Vista, or just go straight to it. LFS supports LFS. Internet, AIM, LFS. I'm good. :-d
 
Tulok
Mac OS X is programmed to run on mac hardware, that is way they are stable, reliable etc.
Click to expand...

So, are you just throwing out a bone or saying that computers sold with Vista are not meant to run on it? :odd:

Vista is just as "programmed" to run on a computer as OSX is. The fact of the matter is that OSX is just the superior product. I'm totally convinced that the future of Macintosh OS is brighter than Windows.

Tulok
Vista is like throwing two good things together, its like putting pre-cooked meat in the washing machine; two good things, bad outcome.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Toshiba and the core 2 and 2 gigs of ram inside. For 1.5 thousand dollars, I'd want to make the most of my hardware.
 
OH, by the way...

My dad and I were uninstalling the office trial and stuff as soon as we started it up. Guess what happened?

"WINDOWS EXPLORER NOT RESPONDING!"

LOL, we gawked at the screen and were totally silent, and then I was like, "uh-oh..." :lol: That would've been a perfect Mac commercial.
 
Does vista make the most of 64bit because I bought a AMD64 3200 about 2 years ago specially for it? Does it do things double fast now? Because your doubling 2.1 GHz
 
Robin ///////
Does vista make the most of 64bit because I bought a AMD64 3200 about 2 years ago specially for it? Does it do things double fast now? Because your doubling 2.1 GHz
Click to expand...

You aren't doubling your Processor's speed by going from 32 to 64 bit. The speed clocks, FSB, and all that remain the same. The only way to "double" your processor's speed is to have a dual core processor. 32 and 64 bit refers to integers, memory addresses, etc. Basically, it's like your processor's bandwidth.

Please note I am not 100% positive all of the above is correct.
 
Any AutoCAD before 2007 won't work with Vista. If you have Vista and need AutoCAD, you'll have to wait until 2008 comes out. Looks like I'm not getting a new PC at work for a while.
 
MachỎne;2570503
You aren't doubling your Processor's speed by going from 32 to 64 bit. The speed clocks, FSB, and all that remain the same. The only way to "double" your processor's speed is to have a dual core processor. 32 and 64 bit refers to integers, memory addresses, etc. Basically, it's like your processor's bandwidth.

Please note I am not 100% positive all of the above is correct.
Click to expand...

In that case will I see any noticable improvement over 32bit XP to 64bit Vista?
 
TB
Any AutoCAD before 2007 won't work with Vista. If you have Vista and need AutoCAD, you'll have to wait until 2008 comes out. Looks like I'm not getting a new PC at work for a while.
Click to expand...

Pro Engineer is the same, it doesnt work on Vista for now but eventually programs like these will be able to run.....
 
Yes you can see a difference between 32bit and 64bit. I definitely did in Linux, but not many programs support 64 bit. If the apps you use support it, definitely go for it.
 
ChromeBallz
I think i'm finally getting convinced by the fact that Vista sucks. I'm an avid gamer, and after reading up on the ridiculous amount of processes that run on a Vista PC that you don't even need (and can't turn off), i won't be buying/installing Vista. But there are other reasons.

1. Vista will eventually require you to get new hardware, since the 'old' hardware (anything below a GeForce 7xxx/Radeon x1xxx for example) won't be able to pass Vista's 'protection' standards. In other words, you've being forced to buy hardware that some might not even use.

2. Vista will run a lot of processes that, by the looks of it, can't be turned off. Which results on drastically decreased performance in all areas. Vista actually requires a lot of resources to insure that nothing happens - Yes, you read that right!

3. Microsoft has gone nuts and has turned a reasonably stable and adjustable OS into a monstrosity that can only be used to play media that don't even exist yet, and even then it runs catastrophically bad.


By buying Vista you will support these things. I don't know about you, but everything can run fine on Windows XP, and there has yet to be a single piece of (useful) programming that *needs* Vista to run. Even CCP still provides a Windows XP version of the new graphics engine, so to speak, so there is no real incentive to upgrade anyway, if you can even call it upgrading.

So, what i'm asking of anyone who reads this is to pass on the word. To everyone, your family, your company, your friends, to simply ignore Vista. Have them ask for XP to be installed on new PC's instead of Vista, if they have to buy ready made PC's. And if you can't do that, help them buy a decent home-built PC that suits their needs.

Just get MS to change Vista to how it should be and have them remove all this nonsense from what could be a good OS. Only way to get them to do that is to simply make Vista a fiasco. They won't try to push a product on people if it won't make money, after all.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't read all 50 posts but as a avid gamer, shouldn't you need something better than a Radeon 8500? The games will dictate what hardware you need depending on frame rates and resolution that you want to run it at. I for one like 1600x1200 at 60FPS minimum, but hey...I'm just a casual gamer with Dual X1900XTX. Doesn't Vista suspend some of these extra resources during game play to free up additional resources?

Anyways...I can see your point but the drive for better hardware is from the demands of the software and when the hardware catches up and passes it up, then the hardware motivates better software that can better utilize the additional hardware support and the cycle starts all over again....
 
Toronado
Nah, surprised how poorly some "Vista Compatible" computers actually run with Vista. The reports are actually quite humorous.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm talking about.
 
I'm using 2000 Professional, and while it is outdated, I'm fairly happy with it. It is rock solid stable... and I don't play computer games so I don't need to run fancy games.

The only thing I don't like is that I can't run newer photo-editing programs.
 
Pako
Sorry, didn't read all 50 posts but as a avid gamer, shouldn't you need something better than a Radeon 8500? The games will dictate what hardware you need depending on frame rates and resolution that you want to run it at. I for one like 1600x1200 at 60FPS minimum, but hey...I'm just a casual gamer with Dual X1900XTX. Doesn't Vista suspend some of these extra resources during game play to free up additional resources?

Anyways...I can see your point but the drive for better hardware is from the demands of the software and when the hardware catches up and passes it up, then the hardware motivates better software that can better utilize the additional hardware support and the cycle starts all over again....
Click to expand...
You know, this is right on the money.

The way I see it is, if you have the hardware to use a nice operating system without problem, why wouldn't you?

I'm not a hardcore gamer by anybody's standards, but I have a decent system with a decent video card. The games I have tried on Vista have not run any slower (that I can notice - Yes I know the drivers for the video cards are not quite as tweaked as their XP counterparts yet) - and yes, Vista does temporarly suspend Aero while 3D games are being run.

It's funny to hear people complain about how bad Vista's performance is. Honestly, it does utilize your computer far more than XP did. End result? Better performance (as an example, Aero is hard on your VIDEO CARD, yes, but it doesn't use much system memory, it doesn't use your processor.. It uses VRAM and your GPU).

That said, don't bother putting Vista on an older machine - It will run like crap. But we all knew that already, didn't we. Yet for some reason, everybody insists on pointing out that the brand new operating system has higher system requirements than the old operating system.

Newer games need newer hardware, don't they? So do newer applications?
 
Like I said in my earlier post, this goes all the way back to Windows 2.0. What good is it if it doesn't fit on my 640K machine? I have to get a whole megabyte just to run Excel?? You've GOT to be kidding!!! And then some goofy memory manager for extended vs expanded RAM? Then 95, needed 4 megs minimum, didn't really run till you had 32. OMG, it's a chip-maker conspiracy! But, you could do something while your floppy was formatting. Then 2000: nice look, but where's my DOS? I need my DOS. Last, XP "bloatware," and now Vista, the OS for your dream PC, which doesn't exist yet.

If your machine doesn't meet specs for Win2000, don't criticize Vista. If you think Vista is not much more than a prettier face for XP, than snap away. (I'm kind of in that boat. I know it's new code, but I don't see much besides a new skin, and that damned security dialog interrupting me every time I do something useful.)

I'll be running Vista ASAP, because as a supporter of Microsoft networks, it's my job. If you don't need it, can't run it, don't want it, fine. Be quiet and run your W2K/XP/ME/98/OSX/Linux/Geo/Next/whatever.

If it costs more than you think it should, then don't buy it. They'll get the message.

If you think digital rights management is a pain in the ass, don't blame Microsoft. They're pretty much doing what they've been told to do on that front. And that's not just a Vista problem.

If you don't have the hardware, you don't like the pretty new face, and your apps don't run on it, then welcome to the future. It's the new version of Windows, and it WILL be out there, whether you like it or not. When you get your next computer, you'll be in better shape for it. Your Pentium III/650 won't last forever.

My whole point is, Geez, I'm sick of hearing everybody complain about every new release. It's the same every time, yet nobody learns. In 6 months, you'll wonder how you got anything done without it.

BTW, just out of curiousity, is there anybody else here who has actually seen Windows 1.0 as a retail product, or am I just a dinosaur? For bonus points, what was the IBM task-switching product it "competed" with?

(For frame of reference, I started in PCs when DOS 2.1 was current, and the AT [80286] had not come out yet.)
 

Latest Posts

Back