The Vista Death Watch

[EricB]

Your signature says it all, some people can't handle the truth..

But, we can't expect large companies to NOT be greedy..

So nothing will change, MS will never do what it "should" do..

so true............

 

[KSoD]

they are not forcing it. not that's funny

just give me my money back on my store bought copy. I don't use vista. I use to dual boot it. I've been wipe it out.
I have a dell that came with vista. I wipe it and put media center on it. give me my money back on that too

you ain't going to see the kill switch through their in house spyware anytime soon. it will be awhile. the simple fact is it's there. just because you haven't seen it and you were a beta tester doesn't mean anything. it was design for you not to detect it. it is a ms exclusive. they enable it in a year or two whenever the money stops rolling in.

anybody that think that vista was design from the ground up know little about computers. longhorn was kinda designed from the ground up, but it didn't work. period. so they went back to the xp drawing board.

vista is nothing but xp with extra's. vista lovers are going to argue differently but nobody is going to produce proof stating otherwise. vista 32 bit was suppose to overcome the 3 gig limitation. guess what? it didn't.

why is everybody ignoring the winfs question? that was suppose to be the main advantage of vista (longhorn). copernic seems to have it down pat

They wont activate any spyware in 2 years because in-case you havent read, Windows 7 will be started in it Beta cycle by then. Which means that M$ isnt going to wait 5-6 years to roll out a new on like they did this time.
Eric i have very high regards for you and your opinion but in this case i can not agree. I have run Vista since it was a Beta. I am a MVP i have some connections at M$ in Redmond and not a single person can even back up your statement about spyware being included. Not even the people in the MVP program who have hacked Vista can find any trace of it.
You are right about WinFS. It was supposed to be in Vista. Just like Avalon was as well. But Avalon got renamed to something stupid and only a partial piece of that software was included. the fact is Vista was rushed. It was forced out before it was ready. I am not argueing that fact at all. There were so many promises that were broken about VIsta because they had to rush it out and WinFS to this day still isnt anywhere near ready. From what they say WinFS wont even be ready for Windows 7.

But also ista is a totally new code base. It has many simularities to XP yes but the coding is new. Which is why the XP drivers among many applications do not work on Vista without some tweaking. To think that Vista is just a recode of XP is wrong because if that was the case then ALL XP things would work on it easily.

this says it all. I know. pro vista people won't absorb one word of it.




I am realist. I'm a independent person too. I judge everything for myself, by myself. I could care less about somebody's opinion. my opinion is what matter to me

I look into stuff open minded. most people look at stuff narrow minded.

I gave vista all kind of chances, yet I kept going back to xp. a lot of people have done the same. the funny thing is 70 percent of you guys that don't agree with me are still using xp. do you care to explain that?

people that had windows xp when it first came out didn't go back to windows 98. so stop comparing xp debut with vista's. everybody loved xp. only the dos tech didn't like it. so instead of bashing me, go delete xp off of your hdd and use vista exclusively. you won't. why? because you can't.

which brings back my point

vista isn't an improvement on xp. it isn't an opinion it's a fact. but it is here to stay. the monopoly also known as MS have brainwashed millions into thinking that vista is better.

last time I checked atomic tofu, this was a tech forum designed to help people. it is not a vista promoter.

Vista as of right now is not a improvement on XP. The statements made in the PCWorld mag were close to accurate. I was not brainwashed nor do i think that Vista is the best OS since Windows 3.1 was released either.
But at the same time Vista is a improvement on what XP started. The combination of the 9x platform and the NT platform. The ability to network easily within a home and to share files and tools easily. This is what Vista has done better than XP and as time come around people will start to see how easy it really is to use Vista. When SP1 comes out (even though oughly 90% of the updates are already available) people will see a improvement in speed. But sadly no one will still be happy cause of the fact that the drivers are crap for Vista. Nobody has been able to provide drivers that perform well on the system.
This problem is due to the coding that M$ has done with it along with the lackluster support from everyone. Why should companies bother to code better software for Vista when the only thing we hear is "XP is Better". Didnt we hear that same statement back in 2001 when everyone was saying 98 was better? But did the companies push on and MAKE XP the best? Yes. So when companies start to push Vista and make it better with more applicaitons and better driver support what willbe said then?

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.

XP runs very few programs more than Vista. Overall i have seen and gotten well over 95% of XP applications to work on Vista with very little effort. The rest are applications that have to be tweaked at the code level to work. To boast that XP runs more is a futile arguement. As more and more software is developed for Vista only we can say the same thing that there is software that will only run on Vista and not XP. DX10 being a prime example of software that has full advantages in Vista over XP.


So you can call me what you want. Vista fanboi, M$ fanboi...whatever. Why? Cause honestly i dont care. I have not used a M$ product in over 2 weeks now and i do not see myself going back anytime in the near future as i am trying to learn Linux. Even so there are thigns that Vista can do better than XP and things that XP can do better than Vista. XP is faster than Vista but PCLinuxOS is faster than XP. So what? Ubuntu is faster than XP as well. Does that mean anything? No.

It isnt the speed of the OS. It is the ability to get the tasks done. Whatever they may be. Coding Video, internet, email, gfx, audio...the list goes on. We each have our likes and dislikes. We each will fight about each one till we are blue in the face. Doe that mean this person is right over that person? No. Why cause they are jsut opinions. Opinions are like buttholes. We all have one and they all stink. Espically mine.

So in the end we all can say what we want. We all can think what we want. But in the end it wont make no difference. I guess my opinion of Vista isnt that bad cause i didnt have to buy it. I got it for free. So why would i hate it when i didnt have to spend the $$ on it. The truth is i wouldnt have bought it if i didnt get it for free. I would have pirated it. EricB i already said i value your opinion. You and me have disagreed on many things. But i do see your point. Vista isnt that easy to get used to or like. It took me well over a month of work to get it to where i like it. Apok i also see what you are saying. But again i see the other side as well. In the end my opinion is changing cause of the fact that i have gotten away from M$ right now. Using PCLOS and Ubuntu and seeing that simple things like Internet, music and videos can be done easily in Linux and why pay for a OS when you can get one for free.

To me this arguement is futile cause right now we say we hate Vista. After SP1 gets released many opinions will change. Then Windows 7 will get released and this vicious cycle will start all over again.

 

[Apokalipse]

Maybe what I said was a cop-out, but what you say is just not true. What I gave you were actual requirements of those OS's. I have used Linux extensively, and I like it. While it's resource requirements are much lower than Vista, with each release they do require more resources, definitely not less.

which version(s)?

yes, some Linux distributions will use more resources. Some distributions are specifically coded to perform better, however.

XP runs very few programs more than Vista.

DirectSound, C&C Red Alert (1), ProfitSource and OptionGear, ATI Tool, Mplayer, FileZilla, Dawn Of War: Dark Crusade

Those are some of the things that I actually use that won't work - or at the very least not properly - in Vista.

 

[krazyq]

ati tool worked for me on vista 32bit, but is having problems with the 64 bit.
I dont regret going to vista...i regret going to 64bit.

 

[Apokalipse]

DX10 being a prime example of software that has full advantages in Vista over XP.

But not because it can't be made for XP. It's because Microsoft refuses to do it.

Even so there are thigns that Vista can do better than XP and things that XP can do better than Vista.

The things XP can do better outweigh the things Vista can do better

XP is faster than Vista but PCLinuxOS is faster than XP. So what? Ubuntu is faster than XP as well. Does that mean anything? No.

Not only is XP faster, but it is more compatible with programs.

Even if XP was only as compatible with programs as Vista, I'd much prefer the OS that runs the programs I use and uses less resources in the process.

It isnt the speed of the OS.

In that case, go and install Norton Antivirus. you know, because it isn't about speed.

It is the ability to get the tasks done. Whatever they may be. Coding Video, internet, email, gfx, audio...the list goes on.

Yeah, and XP does what Vista does (with the exception of DirectX 10), but faster.

Apok i also see what you are saying. But again i see the other side as well.

I see the other side aswell, but it's shaky at best.

In the end my opinion is changing cause of the fact that i have gotten away from M$ right now. Using PCLOS and Ubuntu and seeing that simple things like Internet, music and videos can be done easily in Linux and why pay for a OS when you can get one for free.

I agree, I don't like paying heaps for an OS.

Which reminds me, why the **** are there so many different vista versions?
Ultimate costs far more than it really should, and the other versions are just unnecessarily cut-down.

OS X has a much better model. It's just the same OS, that's continuously improved.

To me this arguement is futile cause right now we say we hate Vista. After SP1 gets released many opinions will change. Then Windows 7 will get released and this vicious cycle will start all over again.

We'll just see about that.

ati tool worked for me on vista 32bit, but is having problems with the 64 bit.
I dont regret going to vista...i regret going to 64bit.

it works fine on XP x64.

 

[EricB]

I've twice posted link about windows vista kill switch and the ability for ms and other companies to go into your computers and search for whatever they want delete whatever they want. I was reading an article about somebody recently asking ms about the kill switch and ms would not comment on it. I don't remember which mag it was, but I think that it was maxiumus pc

I will start posting more articles about it when I see them.

they did it before with xp, but then you had to go to windows updates to get it. the problem then was they locked thousands of legits computer and then they had the nerve to blame it on a virus (msblast). this feature is built in vista with worse consequences .

vista is based off xp. it's a fairly simple matter for an os to check to see if it installing software from a wrong os. shoot sony's software and hardware drivers and programs will always check to see if the computer is a sony computer. if it ain't it won't install.

but you can backdoor vista driver install by heading to the xp inf file. if the inf file is xp based, the driver will install because vista is xp based. ask anybody that works with code. they will tell you that vista is xp.

vista is xp because it was rushed. longhorn didn't work, winfs didn't work (why don't ms buy copernic's services). their biggest problem with longhorn (which was actually different from xp) was everything leaked too much memory. by ms being pressed to release it, they had to released something that worked. they did. xp again

 

[KSoD]

which version(s)?

yes, some Linux distributions will use more resources. Some distributions are specifically coded to perform better, however.

DirectSound, C&C Red Alert (1), ProfitSource and OptionGear, ATI Tool, Mplayer, FileZilla, Dawn Of War: Dark Crusade

Those are some of the things that I actually use that won't work - or at the very least not properly - in Vista.

C&C i have got working on Vista. Along with DirectSound, ATi Tool, Mplayer, VLCPLayer, FileZilla works.
I am not sure of Dawn of War. I thought there was a patch for that to work.

As for your 2nd statement....

You only see it as XP can do more thing better than Vista. This is YOUR opinion not a proven fact. Becuase PCWorld, Computer Shopper and many other magazine has shown in tests that Vista is our performing XP in their tests. It may only be by a percent or 2 but Vista has outperformed XP in tests.

Again XP is NOT more compatible. Maybe with the outdated software you use. But with everything that is being released now there are few to none that are not working on Vista. This again is your thoughts. With EVERY peice of software that i use it works on Vista with no issue what so ever. So why is it that you say XP works with more apps when i can run everying on XP or Vista with no problem?? As i stated it is your opinion and the software that you are running not ALL software. Just because you have software that doesnt work wtih Vista doesnt mean that ALL software is incomatible with Vista.

Vista doesnt HAVE to use more resources. Becuase if you turn off the Aero then it doesnt use that much more than XP. Granted it is more but by less than 10%. Considering again the fact that i have a Laptop with only 1GB of RAM and no dedicated GFX card and it run Home Premium jsut fine. How can i run it so easily yet EVERYONE on this site doesnt seem to be able to ??

I have Norton for many years. But why run a inferior product? I was talking about OS speed. Talking about Norton and what it does to your system does nothing to compare OS speeds. When there are products out there that are better like Avast! and NOD32 why would a person run Norton? You are talking about a 3rd party application having a negative affect on your system when i am just comparing a OS from install.

It is not shaky at best. This is your opinion. Because it is shown that Vista is raising in sales while XP is falling even with XP being available till June of 08. So why it is a superior OS in your opinion is falling in sales even though it is still available and supported till 2012? If its so shaky sales would not be raising.

I have not had any issue with Vista doing anything that XP couldnt. In fact with my Video conversion Vista was faster as well as working with Photoshop CS3 and Fireworks CS3 Vista was faster than XP. Your opinions are so biased toward XP. You have not even given Vista a chance. I can see this just by what you are saying.

The truth about the versions of Vista? There isnt one. M$ jsut wanted to confuse everyone and try and get more $$. That is the only answer that is available.

So in the end it is people who are the ones who make Vista seem so bad. Because for every person here who has a gripe about how bad it is or doesnt work i can direct you to people who use it and have absolutely no issue with it. As i have stated several times it seems that only people on this site express a deep dislike for Vista. Many other sites i visit have a rather high regard for it. Why is that? To me that is the most interesting thing i have come across.

I have stated it before and will say it yet again. Vista is not perfect. But neither is XP. XP would not be where it is today if it did not have the support of the software developers. So when those developers start working on stuff for Vista instead of XP everyone opinion will change cause everyone will be able to do the stuff on Vista that they WANT to do. Not what they have to do. This vicious cycle never ends. So now i have expressed my opinion jsut like the rest have. But i have swayed from many things. At first i was a big defender of Vista and what it does. I was a person who was taking in by Vista and i did swear by it for so long. But if everyone is so scared to even give it a chance then it isnt the OS that fails it is the user. Becuase for all you who say that Vista uses so much resources you are full of it. You have not applied all the patches out there that are available (Bascially the stuff in SP1) because it brings down the resouce usage drasticaly.

 

[CalcProgrammer1]

I read this in PC Magazine yesterday. I totally agree. My parents' computer runs Home Premium (I use Windows XP Home and Ubuntu 7.10 on all of my PC's apart from my two old Pentiums that can only run 95/98). I have 3 computers running XP (the three in my sig) and all run it well. Same goes for Ubuntu. I can play Jedi Academy (a somewhat old Q3-based game) on all 3 of them with decent frame rates. However, when I try to play it on Vista, which has an Athlon64 X2 3800+, 1GB DDR2, and a GeForce 6100LE, it does nothing but lag and have issues. Sometimes it won't start at all, sometimes it lags. The frame rate is high, but inconsistent, it fluctuates between high and low FPS and it is irritating to play on that computer. Meanwhile, on my Sempron 2600+ / GeForce4 MX420 with Ubuntu and Wine, I can get a smooth 30 to 60FPS depending on amount of detail in the map.

Oh, and the GeForce4 MX420 runs Compiz Fusion (a Linux window manager that provides better-than-Aero effects) just fine...try running Vista on such comp and you'd probably see nothing but lag.

Vista IS the reincarnation of ME...just hope SP1 fixes that...or Microsoft may be doomed. After all, people should want to upgrade to the new product, yet many still demand XP or wipe Vista after purchasing their new computers.

 

[beedubaya]

In my opinon the biggest reason people are let down by Vista is because XP was such a rock solid OS that people expected more after 6 years of development. Problems directly after the release of a new OS is expected, I remember XP and even 98 having tons of problems when they were first released. This time around, the release was much more evolutionary than revolutionary. In order to persuade people to ditch tried and true XP and upgrade en masse, MS will need to release a truly revolutionary product. DX10 isn't that because actually only 1% of so PCs are actually used for gaming anyways.

The releases that have been loved and stood the test of time were those that brought about mass change in the way people use their computer. So far those have been 3.1 --> 95, 98 or NT4 --> 2000, and ME ---> XP.

People compare Vista to ME, while for the most part I dont agree with that comparison (anybody who actually used ME can say Vista is in far better shape), I will say this. ME was a very evolutionary release over 98. It brought nothing really new or striking to the table, just minor updates here and there with a few new features such as system restore. Same has been with Vista over XP.

 

[J9Darkwing]