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.
the 64-bit version won't run ATI Tool, because it won't run unsigned drivers.
And no, Directsound won't work. You will only get programs to convert DirectSound calls to OpenAL.
And how about ProfitSource and OptionGear?
You only see it as XP can do more thing better than Vista. This is YOUR opinion not a proven fact.
XP can run more programs than Vista can. That
is a proven fact. Otherwise, you wouldn't get people having to patch some of their programs to work.
then, there are how many DirectX 10 exclusive games? the number is in the single digits.
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.
at best, Vista might run a couple of applications very slightly faster (as you said, by a percent or 2). But overall, XP is faster, and snappier.
I hate file copying/transferring in Vista. It takes ages for it to "prepare to copy" before it
actually starts copying. Whereas, XP doesn't waste time with that. It just starts copying right away.
And when Vista does start copying files, it will often only reach a few megabytes/sec. Or if I'm transferring to a USB drive, it will often only reach a few hundred kilobytes per second (and yes, I am using USB 2.0 ports)
Again XP is NOT more compatible.
Uh, yes it is. It runs more programs than Vista does.
Maybe with the outdated software you use.
Just because a piece of software might be old, doesn't mean you shouldn't use it.
I happen to like going back to old games, such as the original Red Alert from time to time.
and DOS is still used by many manufacturing plants. As I said before, you don't need pretty Windows to run a few simple scripts.
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.
doesn't mean all software for Windows works on Vista.
So why is it that you say XP works with more apps when i can run everying on XP or Vista with no problem??
because the apps you run don't happen to include ones that
don't work on Vista. Which, by the way, do exist.
As i stated it is your opinion and the software that you are running not ALL software.
It is not an opinion that there are more programs that will work on XP. Whether or not you use certain programs is besides the point.
Just because you have software that doesnt work wtih Vista doesnt mean that ALL software is incomatible with Vista.
yeah, and?
The fact is, there is software that's incompatible with Vista, that XP will run fine. That's my point. Why should I move to an OS that doesn't run all my programs, and is slower, when I already have an OS that's faster and does run all my programs?
Vista doesnt HAVE to use more resources.
You're right, it doesn't have to. And yet, it
does use more resources.
Becuase if you turn off the Aero then it doesnt use that much more than XP.
But it's still more.
Granted it is more but by less than 10%.
But it's still more. So, why should I move to Vista?
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 ??
Oh, I can run it. That's not the question. The question is why
should I run it, when I already have an OS that's faster and runs all my programs?
I have Norton for many years. But why run a inferior product?
Are you saying XP is inferior or Norton is inferior?
If you're saying XP is inferior, then I'll disagree.
I was talking about OS speed.
So was I. I just gave an analogy.
Talking about Norton and what it does to your system does nothing to compare OS speeds.
They're both pieces of software (Norton and Vista) that use more resources than they should, when there are alternatives that use less resources.
When there are products out there that are better like Avast! and NOD32 why would a person run Norton?
Exactly.
You are talking about a 3rd party application having a negative affect on your system when i am just comparing a OS from install.
Which runs slower, and there are compatibility problems with existing programs.
And that's not counting the bugs I've run into.
Why?
I happen to be basing my opinion on evidence.
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?
I already covered this.
1. More PC's are being sold today
2. Vista comes preinstalled on just about every PC you'll find
3. Microsoft refuses to make DirectX 10 for XP
If its so shaky sales would not be raising.
Uh, they could be actually.
Take a look at the Pentium 4 vs the AMD K8 CPU's.
Pentium 4's were selling like crazy. That doesn't mean it was better than AMD's K8's. In fact, K8 was significantly better.
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.
No, my opinions are based on what I've experienced first hand. Before I used Vista, I didn't have an opinion. It was just a new Os that I hadn't used before.
I formed my opinion
after having used Vista.
You have not even given Vista a chance.
I have too.
I can see this just by what you are saying.
No, you can see the aftermath of my experience with Vista, as compared with XP first hand.
Before I started using Vista, I was not against it. I only formed my opinion of Vista
after I started using it.
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.
Yeah, exactly.
So in the end it is people who are the ones who make Vista seem so bad.
If you mean, because it's people that program the OS.
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.
Because some programs do work with it. And not every person uses every program available for Windows. Some people are bound to use a combination of programs that happens to work perfectly with it.
But, the list of programs that work perfectly with Vista is still shorter than the list of programs that work perfectly with XP.
Not to mention, XP is faster.
As i have stated several times it seems that only people on this site express a deep dislike for Vista.
I dislike Vista, because of my own experience with it. I didn't make my decision copying other people, or listening to other people gripe about it.
No, I actually installed Vista myself, and I used it.
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.
See above.
I have stated it before and will say it yet again. Vista is not perfect. But neither is XP.
I know XP isn't perfect. Neither is Linux or OS X. That doesn't mean they're on equal footing.
XP would not be where it is today if it did not have the support of the software developers.
Yeah, and?
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 necessarily. It'll still probably be slower, more bloated etc.
Not what they have to do.
We don't have to move to Vista.
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
Hold on there. I did give Vista a chance.
then it isnt the OS that fails it is the user.
No, it actually is the OS.
Becuase for all you who say that Vista uses so much resources you are full of it.
No, actually, I speak from experience. I have actually used Vista.
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.
Now that's being presumptuous. Yes, I did have Vista updated.