Ste
Do not Stare at my Avatar
- Messages
- 9,578
- Location
- Upon Gleaning Infinity
Oh yea, I forgot to mention that I wouldn't touch vista with a 10 foot pole at least until Service pack 1 OR 2. Just as I did with XP.
The Vista Death Watch
- Thread starter EricB
- Start date
- Status
Ste
Do not Stare at my Avatar
- Messages
- 9,578
- Location
- Upon Gleaning Infinity
Wait to suffer less.
Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Because Microsoft should have made it able to run on more configurations.
Such as low spec systems, systems with hardware that currently doesn't work (either because of drivers, or because Microsoft changed the way the OS works and no-longer supports it)
Microsoft could have given manufacturers of hardware the use of Vista, in order to make drivers for it before it even comes out
the ability to use unsigned drivers is really not a bad thing. It causes more problems than it solves. I'd much prefer to actually be able to use a piece of hardware that I paid for, than to remove a very small risk of getting a driver that might not be completely stable.
Microsoft removed DirectSound, so X-Fi's were not able to work in Vista for a while until Creative made a program which converts directSound calls to OpenAL. Which works, but is not ideal.
Also, why should I move to a new piece of software that slows down my system, when XP does what I want without the slowdown of Vista?
Which should work on XP, but won't. simply because Microsoft doesn't want it to.
HEY GUYS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!:
I can boot windows 95 on my machine in less than 5 seconds.. oh wait, I can boot MS-DOS in 2 seconds, I guess Windows 95 is the best windows ever because it's FAAAAST. All you fanboys that like XP, well that's just Windows 95 with more bling bling. The faster OS wins, right?? Oh wait...
That's what you guys are implying to me from this post.
I can boot windows 95 on my machine in less than 5 seconds.. oh wait, I can boot MS-DOS in 2 seconds, I guess Windows 95 is the best windows ever because it's FAAAAST. All you fanboys that like XP, well that's just Windows 95 with more bling bling. The faster OS wins, right?? Oh wait...
That's what you guys are implying to me from this post.
Ste
Do not Stare at my Avatar
- Messages
- 9,578
- Location
- Upon Gleaning Infinity
Im going to say this once, there are better drugs than glue...
I have much experience with Vista and used it for a long while. While I love Vista as an OS and I like the interface, I still choose to use XP for various reasons. XP is much faster on about any machine today than is Vista. It also runs games flawlessly which Vista does not. What prompted me to go back to XP initially was the inability to get Half Life 2 Episode 2 to work correctly on Vista.
For those who mention cutting backwards compatability, thats exactly what MS should NOT do. The biggest problem with Vista in the eyes of the average consumer is that even it does not have enough backwards compatability. Believe it or not, many businesses are still running programs from the MS-DOS era and Vista just does not work for them. What really needs to be done though is a transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. Its appalling that pretty much all retail PCs today carry the 32-bit version of Vista. I understand having a 32-bit version for those with older computers, but the 64-bit should be the main and marketted version. Last I read, intent was to keep Windows 7 as 32-bit as well, which I dont see happening as average RAM will be above the 3.2GB barrier by the time the Vista era ends. Also, the Home and Pro versions of XP worked real well....we don't need 6 different versions.
As for me, I look forward to a time when I can use Vista and get the same productivity as I get on XP. OS upgrades should provide greater functionality, not take it away.
For those who mention cutting backwards compatability, thats exactly what MS should NOT do. The biggest problem with Vista in the eyes of the average consumer is that even it does not have enough backwards compatability. Believe it or not, many businesses are still running programs from the MS-DOS era and Vista just does not work for them. What really needs to be done though is a transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. Its appalling that pretty much all retail PCs today carry the 32-bit version of Vista. I understand having a 32-bit version for those with older computers, but the 64-bit should be the main and marketted version. Last I read, intent was to keep Windows 7 as 32-bit as well, which I dont see happening as average RAM will be above the 3.2GB barrier by the time the Vista era ends. Also, the Home and Pro versions of XP worked real well....we don't need 6 different versions.
As for me, I look forward to a time when I can use Vista and get the same productivity as I get on XP. OS upgrades should provide greater functionality, not take it away.
Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Not only is XP faster, but it also runs more programs than Vista.
The only thing is, Microsoft refuses to make DirectX 10 for XP, even though XP is very capable of running it.
But in fact, your point does actually apply more than you'd think.
You could run a DOS machine for automated tasks in a factory, and it'd be more than capable. Even today. You don't need Vista, a heavy GUI and DirectX 10 to run some scripts.
In fact, DOS machines are used in a lot of manufacturing plants.
- Status
Similar threads
