Vista or XP?

[Gorganzola]

Maybe some cheeze for their wine-fest?

I would agree whole-heartedly with your assessment.

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

You know this from experience, or because influential people like Dvorak overexaggerated every little quirk into a full-blown OMG VISTA SUXXX MIKKKRO$$$$$$HAFT!!!!! whine-fest?

[polonyc2]

there were and still are issues with Vista and to discount those would be foolish...the non technical internet surfers are not the only ones complaining about Vista...there are legitimate complaints which are Vista related---too bloated, system req. for an OS seem ridiculous (it's a freakin OS not a high end game---MS needs to market the OS to the masses and not the high end gamer/videophile crowd and that was their biggest mistake)

there's a reason software developers are slow to develop functioning Vista drivers...yes OS's take time to saturate the market but in Vista's case it may be a case of consumer dissatisfaction...Vista will not take off like XP did and MS knows this and that's why you keep hearing leaks about the next version of Windows...I have no issues with Vista 64 bit but MS apologists like S. Subzero who does nothing but reverse rant against Vista is delusional and not someone I would trust with highly technical hardware/software issues...all he keeps saying is "Vista's awesome...works great for me...no issues on my end...don't see any problems at all...guess that means that everyone else is a Vista hater...buy Vista, ignore all the negative complaints, just listen to the positive reviews"

quad core CPU's are readily available now yet the majority of users are still using single core systems...those that want 8 cores can have them...just because Vista is available does not mean that everyone has to use and love it

[johnrr6]

I like Vista....

Now....

I was pretty neutral at first----didn't seem to add much "value"....

but over time (and patching) it has gotten better and faster.....

Driver issues have (for the most part)...gone away

It has some pretty nice additional features and I have found it to be more stable and certainly more forgiving----overall---than my XP machines. I have gradually transitioned all 7 of my machines to Vista.

Get newer hardware---with lots of RAM and Vista SP1----and turn off UAC----and you'll be pleased...

[S.SubZero]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

MS needs to market the OS to the masses and not the high end gamer/videophile crowd and that was their biggest mistake)

The actual events were quite the opposite.. MS marketed Vista for everyone, when this was a bad choice. Vista is a high-end OS and it requires a good system to fully use it.. and if you can't fully use it, it's not worth using.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

there's a reason software developers are slow to develop functioning Vista drivers...yes OS's take time to saturate the market but in Vista's case it may be a case of consumer dissatisfaction...Vista will not take off like XP did and MS knows this

According to MS, Vista is doing better than XP did in the same time frame. Of course it's MS saying this, and the preloads on OEM machines are going to be the bulk of it. I don't know many people with capable machines that don't have it though.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

there's a reason software developers are slow to develop functioning Vista drivers

Vista driver support these days is only getting better. I don't know much new hardware coming out without Vista drivers. Older stuff, REALLY older stuff is less predictable, but nothing a few seconds on a manufacturer's website can't answer.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

MS apologists like S. Subzero who does nothing but reverse rant against Vista is delusional and not someone I would trust with highly technical hardware/software issues...all he keeps saying is "Vista's awesome...works great for me...no issues on my end...don't see any problems at all...guess that means that everyone else is a Vista hater...buy Vista, ignore all the negative complaints, just listen to the positive reviews"

Wow.. we're already at personal attacks? Don't be shy, tell us how you really feel.

I don't think I said anything in your quotes there. Looking through my post, no I don't see anything in your quotes listed there. Why are you doing this?

[polonyc2]

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

The actual events were quite the opposite.. MS marketed Vista for everyone, when this was a bad choice. Vista is a high-end OS and it requires a good system to fully use it.. and if you can't fully use it, it's not worth using.

if they marketed Vista for everyone then why do you need a Pixel Shader 2.0 or whatever it is in order to use the Aero feature...why is DX10 only available on Vista unlike all other iterations of DirectX which were backwards compatible?

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

According to MS, Vista is doing better than XP did in the same time frame. Of course it's MS saying this, and the preloads on OEM machines are going to be the bulk of it. I don't know many people with capable machines that don't have it though

you answered your own question...and your use of the words "capable machines" says even more...when Windows 98 or ME came out did anyone have to worry about whether or not they would be able to run the OS with all the features enabled?

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

Vista driver support these days is only getting better. I don't know much new hardware coming out without Vista drivers. Older stuff, REALLY older stuff is less predictable, but nothing a few seconds on a manufacturer's website can't answer

yes Vista drivers are prevalent nowadays

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

Wow.. we're already at personal attacks? Don't be shy, tell us how you really feel.

I don't think I said anything in your quotes there. Looking through my post, no I don't see anything in your quotes listed there. Why are you doing this?

I'm tired of seeing post after post from you belittling anyone who says anything negative about Vista...Vista has/had real problems for many people and to make blanket statements about Vista being this near perfect OS and any/all problems being imagined, software related or based on user error is ridiculous

I havn't read any of Dvorak's Vista rants but from what I know of him he seems pretty computer saavy along with a lot of other very knowledgeable computer people who tried Vista and switched back to XP...to claim that Dvorak or any other Vista "disliker" (not hater) "overexaggerated every little quirk" is ridiculous...what you're really saying is that they are purposely trying to bash Vista...for what reason?...to get people to stay with XP?...because they hate Microsoft?...because people love to engage in conspiracy theories?

people are giving their own personal experiences with the product...yes there are those that are purposely bashing it for no good reason but that's a small majority...the others are sharing their experiences and to discount it off hand with no first hand knowledge of what their particular experiences have been is irresponsible

[yamawho]

Always enjoy a good scrap lets keep it fun.

We may see more people making the move from XP to Linux instead of vista.
If M$ pulls another vista boner with windows 7, they may never recover.

I was testing a few distro's this week AntiX 7.2 and TinyME.
These distros can run on really old hardware and there speed is surprising.
I'm talking about P1 systems here with 64MB of ram ...

Anyways, I'm happily running Ubuntu 8.04 on my main rig and I recently installed M$ Ofiice 2003 using crossover on this system. I never tried to do this before since I believed you needed to be a linux hermit to pull it off. However, a few mouse clicks and it was all done.

I know many of you don't care to hear about the other side but here is something to consider.

Remember the feeling you got when you built your 1st rig ?

Well running linux gives you the same rush but with the OS.
Since you can add, remove and modify anything you want, it can really become your own OS. Plus you never need to factor in cost since you don't need to buy anything.

[S.SubZero]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

if they marketed Vista for everyone then why do you need a Pixel Shader 2.0 or whatever it is in order to use the Aero feature...why is DX10 only available on Vista unlike all other iterations of DirectX which were backwards compatible?

Aero is a GPU-laden activity, so it requires a better quality video card than a $30 card from 1996. DX10 is exclusive to Vista the same way DX9 was exclusive to XP and Me/98. There was no DX9 for Win95. Microsoft decided not to invest the resources up-porting it, and the only attempt by an outside group to try, failed before it got off the ground. Maybe it's not an easy thing.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

you answered your own question...and your use of the words "capable machines" says even more...when Windows 98 or ME came out did anyone have to worry about whether or not they would be able to run the OS with all the features enabled?

In 1998? Absolutely. Plug and Play was still shaky in those days, and USB was new and strange. Regardless, the Win9x OS's fell off the earth not long after XP came out. It was no big secret MS didn't want them lingering, and they didn't.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

I'm tired of seeing post after post from you belittling anyone who says anything negative about Vista...Vista has/had real problems for many people and to make blanket statements about Vista being this near perfect OS and any/all problems being imagined, software related or based on user error is ridiculous

Is Vista ready? er, um or capable?

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

My reasons for not using Vista now have been more of things Microsoft can't fix or won't fix. Things like..

The 15GB that an install of Ultimate takes
The 600-800MB RAM "being used for caching" even with superfetch disabled
The wasted space in the interface
Common things being thrown into new and obscure places
Elimination of hardware-assisted sound (only reason to use Creative stuff)
The shady stuff MS seems to be doing to get people to use it

I just put Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 on my old laptop, which I ran Vista x64 on originally when it came out for several months. My impression of it is not any different now than it was back then.

going back to Xp

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

I decided not to use Vista, and instead to put XP64 on it.

I miss Vista a little. It kinda grew on me. It was a little buggy, but otherwise ran very solid and I had no real issues with it. I really miss the clock, which was about the most convenient setup of a clock ever. The desktop itself, despite it's broken folder views and "big" feel, was definitely soothing to look at.

I went to XP64 more because I needed leaner resource usage. 1/3 the hard disk space, 1/3 the RAM used.. I've been dinking with virtualization software lately and it likes to have as much RAM and hard disk space as possible.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

I havn't read any of Dvorak's Vista rants but from what I know of him he seems pretty computer saavy along with a lot of other very knowledgeable computer people who tried Vista and switched back to XP...to claim that Dvorak or any other Vista "disliker" (not hater) "overexaggerated every little quirk" is ridiculous...what you're really saying is that they are purposely trying to bash Vista...for what reason?...to get people to stay with XP?...because they hate Microsoft?...because people love to engage in conspiracy theories?

Dvorak is a goof, and he has been for years. His articles are sometimes OK, but many times he just wants to be exciting and cool and hip. He usually likes whatever is popular, even if that is "ragging on something." He rages against the machine sometimes which is pretty silly since he's part of that very machine.

I'm not exactly blasting out shouts of joy for Vista. I use it, it's not bad, I do like Aero and it seems to run fine for me. As I've said before it's bloated and I don't like that aspect of it at all. I don't know where I come off as being any more than a typical user who is posting his opinion on a computer support forum. I do not like reading FUD about how someone's Vista is broken therefore everyone's must be broken and MS must suck and XP rulez and screw GATE$$$!!!! Vista has honestly given me no trouble or issues. It's a neutral yet positive experience. Get over it, some people don't mind Vista as much as you apparently.

[polonyc2]

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

Aero is a GPU-laden activity, so it requires a better quality video card than a $30 card from 1996

you're exaggerating your point which makes it seem like you don't have any real answers...of course I am not talking about a video card from 1996 and you know that...how bout a card from 2005?...is that so unreasonable?...why is there a so called feature on this new OS which requires a state of the art video card to run?

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

DX10 is exclusive to Vista the same way DX9 was exclusive to XP and Me/98. There was no DX9 for Win95

as far as DirectX your words betray you once again...and you have proved my point exactly..."DX9 was exclusive to XP and Me/98"...lol...do you understand the absurdity in that statement relevant to my previous point?...yes DX9 was 'exclusive' lol to the past 3 operating system releases...does that really make it an 'exclusive'???...the answer is HELL NO!...an 'exclusive' means focused on ONE...like Vista is a DX10 EXCLUSIVE...meaning NO other operating systems will be able to have that feature...NONE...nada...zilch

your exaggerations are showing signs of desperation...yes DX9 was not built for Windows95...sorry you are right lol...same way you can't put an ink jet cartridge inside a typewriter

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

Microsoft decided not to invest the resources up-porting it

are you serious?...do you really think that MS could not afford to backport DX10 onto XP if they wanted to?...they did that on PURPOSE!!...they wanted the Crysis players, the Age of Conan players, the WoW players etc etc to pony up to Vista so they can continue to play their latest and greatest games with the 'ahem' highest graphics quality not 'ahem' possible with XP

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

the only attempt by an outside group to try, failed before it got off the ground

LOL...yes there was an 'outside group' that tried to do this...an OUTSIDE group...not Microsoft!!...a third party type of hack...same way Creative released their Alchemy software for Vista which enabled hardware acceleration when using Vista and playing games...why do so many 3rd party manufacturers need to release work-arounds for Vista to enable features that worked fine for the past few operating systems?

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

In 1998? Absolutely. Plug and Play was still shaky in those days, and USB was new and strange. Regardless, the Win9x OS's fell off the earth not long after XP came out. It was no big secret MS didn't want them lingering, and they didn't.

you're right when you say "Absolutely"...ABSOLUTELY FALSE!...your memory is rusty in that regards...98/ME did not fall off the earth shortly after XP came out, not even close...people were very hesitant to upgrade to XP upon its initial release, it's only AFTER SP2 was released that XP started to really pick up steam and get the widely earned praise it now receives...SP1 might have actually started the upswing but it definitely was not as you described it

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

Dvorak is a goof, and he has been for years. His articles are sometimes OK, but many times he just wants to be exciting and cool and hip. He usually likes whatever is popular, even if that is "ragging on something." He rages against the machine sometimes which is pretty silly since he's part of that very machine

this sounds more like your personal opinion on the guy rather then a general fact...you're allowed to have your opinion but don't treat it as fact

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

Get over it, some people don't mind Vista as much as you apparently.

and stop misrepresenting my words...I've stated time and time again that I like Vista a lot and am loving it more and more each day and use it as my main OS yet you keep spewing some garbage that I don't like Vista...go back and re-read all of my posts about Vista and come back to me and show me...you're the one who keeps going on and on reverse ranting about Vista and giving no credence to anybody who happens to dislike Vista

if anybody happens to rant about Vista you try to discredit them like Dvorak and claim some vast conspiracy theory...I guess millions of people are all in on it then

[S.SubZero]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

you're exaggerating your point which makes it seem like you don't have any real answers...of course I am not talking about a video card from 1996 and you know that...how bout a card from 2005?...is that so unreasonable?...why is there a so called feature on this new OS which requires a state of the art video card to run?

I did not code Vista, so I don't know why they set the requirements for Aero higher than you seem to want them to be. The minimum card for Aero pointed on Aero's Wiki page is the 9500, which came out in 2002. On the nVidia side is the GeForce FX, which is from 2003, and not even nVidia supports that anymore.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

as far as DirectX your words betray you once again...and you have proved my point exactly..."DX9 was exclusive to XP and Me/98"...lol...do you understand the absurdity in that statement relevant to my previous point?...yes DX9 was 'exclusive' lol to the past 3 operating system releases...does that really make it an 'exclusive'???...the answer is HELL NO!...an 'exclusive' means focused on ONE...like Vista is a DX10 EXCLUSIVE...meaning NO other operating systems will be able to have that feature...NONE...nada...zilch

You make DX10 sound like more than it really is. It's an API. It's there for people with the functionality to use it. If one doesn't have a DX10 video card it's not the end of the world. Think of all the games out today that absolutely require DX10 in order to run. Keep thinking. Halo 2? Shadowrun? While these were "Vista Only" it was proven in short order that they were not DX10-only games.

Also, if you visit the DirectX Wiki You can see that in DX's history there have been "exclusive" releases on four occasions. So this isn't exactly anything new. Much like the last three, I bet the next version of Windows will remove the exclusiveness from DX10(.1).

FYI- Microsoft gets a lot of attention from governments checking for monopolistic practices. If all of the governments of countries Windows is sold in haven't told MS to backport DX10, maybe they don't consider a gaming API to be a big deal.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

are you serious?...do you really think that MS could not afford to backport DX10 onto XP if they wanted to?...they did that on PURPOSE!!...they wanted the Crysis players, the Age of Conan players, the WoW players etc etc to pony up to Vista so they can continue to play their latest and greatest games with the 'ahem' highest graphics quality not 'ahem' possible with XP

But none of those games require DX10 (or Vista) to run, and none are made by Microsoft. WoW? That doesn't even *offer* DX10, and probably never will as the game is purposely designed to be cartoony and simple. Age of Conan? It came out four days ago. I doubt MS was thinking this far ahead about a game they didn't make.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

LOL...yes there was an 'outside group' that tried to do this...an OUTSIDE group...not Microsoft!!...a third party type of hack...same way Creative released their Alchemy software for Vista which enabled hardware acceleration when using Vista and playing games...why do so many 3rd party manufacturers need to release work-arounds for Vista to enable features that worked fine for the past few operating systems?

"So many?" Umm.. there was the DX10 attempt, and Alchemy. That's two. I can't think of any others offhand that needed to "work around" Vista to enable things. Alchemy is also not technically a "third party" thing as Creative made it for their own products.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

you're right when you say "Absolutely"...ABSOLUTELY FALSE!...your memory is rusty in that regards...98/ME did not fall off the earth shortly after XP came out, not even close...

The only people who hung on were people with very old machines (borderline even for Win95) and people with drastic compatibility problems. Otherwise there was no big backlash on OEMs to keep using Win9x (WinME lol) and as far as corporate users who were getting new machines with XP there was not a big push to roll back to Win2K.

Originally Posted by polonyc2

and stop misrepresenting my words...I've stated time and time again that I like Vista a lot and am loving it more and more each day and use it as my main OS yet you keep spewing some garbage that I don't like Vista...

You seem very mad that I like Vista. I'm not sure how I was supposed to take it. You literally took this guy's thread and derailed the hell out of it just to yell at me, deliver personal attacks, and berate me. You're really, really mad and I have no idea why. You seemed to be looking for a fight and for some reason you just jumped on the first random person. I assumed you disagreed with me. Were you just looking for someone to troll?

[fvbounty]

COOL just like the GOOD OLD DAYS.......

[Rickwell]

Originally Posted by fvbounty

COOL just like the GOOD OLD DAYS.......

Well they are keeping it under control.It could get out of hand.But I've seen both of these guys in action here at the zone.So far by reading this,I've learned a few things.Some times it just gets to a name calling thing and then I turn to different station.But so far I'm still reading and no comercials either.

[Ozzie]

Wow...interesting debate going on here...

[JimTram]

Now is a good time to ask - can someone tell me unbiasly what Vista offers in the way of actual hands-down productivity enhancements and what is the prime compelling reason for an upgrade.

I got the hardware finally, but my first bout with Vista basic was not a sucess!

[ctal]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

there are legitimate complaints which are Vista related---too bloated, system req. for an OS seem ridiculous (it's a freakin OS not a high end game---MS needs to market the OS to the masses and not the high end gamer/videophile crowd and that was their biggest mistake)

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

The actual events were quite the opposite.. MS marketed Vista for everyone, when this was a bad choice. Vista is a high-end OS and it requires a good system to fully use it.. and if you can't fully use it, it's not worth using.

I'm not going to devote much time to sorting through the various antagonisms in the preceding posts. I just want to point out the two paragraphs quoted above as examples of how, unfortunately, two intelligent members who have made innumerable contributions to the Forum can be thinking and trying to say essentially the same thing, and yet end up flying off the handle at each other.

In Poly's post, just substitute the words "design the os for the masses" for the words "market the os to the masses," which I think is what he intended to mean, and it seems clear that the differences in their positions that they are fighting about, at least with respect to this one issue, are insignificant.

-- Al

[Ozzie]

Great observation Al...much of that could be easily attributed to different ways of communicating. Maybe an East Coast vs. West Coast thing, eh?