Vista is functional and stable. Just like XP IS. It is the users who do not know how to cope with Vista. That is the issue. I have used Vista since Beta and have had few to no issues with anything since RC2 build of Vista. Yet everyone seems to think that it isnt stable. What did they do to make it that way? I haev gotten maybe 3 BSOD' total in Vista. 2 of them were after i switched GFX cards and didnt remove the old drivers. MY fault. Not Vista.
That's something I do agree with; many of the problems people are having on Vista are because they're just not used to how Vista works.
The same thing still applies to many problems people are still having on XP. Some people just don't know how to keep it running properly.
Vista isn't really an unstable OS. Initially there was trouble with driver availability (as there was with basically every other OS when they were released), but Vista as a whole is a functional OS.
It just isn't an OS that I'd install over XP.
ok, i skipped some of the latter responses...lol
here is why it's unfair to compare Vista with an older gen os..and I hope EVERYONE will understand this comparison, take it with them, and make sure to inform other clueless people...not to say anyone in particular is clueless...
GAMES...has any person here tried to play an older game on modern hardware? Have you found it to run way too fast?
In a few games, I have.
But then, I just enable Vsync (this can be done in ATI's CCC, or Nvidia's Control Panel).
It's a simple fix, and it works.
But that hasn't really got anything to do with the OS. it's the way the
game was originally programmed, and the capability of the hardware we now have compared to the hardware it was designed for.
The problem is...logic...simple logic...is failing way too many people.
I agree with you there (this isn't directed towards anybody specifically).
And that is more a matter of something have Microsoft, Windows, or Vista as its naming convention.
can you rephrase this? I'm not quite sure what you're saying.
Then, some also fail when they try to compare versions, but not matching up versions appropriately. A consumer version of an OS will be different from a SERVER version of an OS.
Some people use server OS's on their home PC.
And some people use a 'standard' OS on a server.
In fact, I think many people are using Server 2008 instead of Vista on their home PC's, because it's faster.
To be honest, I would probably use Server 2008 too if I had to use one of the newer OS's.
I used NT when people were using 95. I clung to w2k when people were using xp.
I think that makes sense.
When I upgraded to XP, I didn't realise how similar it was to 2000. But I did know it was more stable than 98, and
far superior in networking (one of the reasons I upgraded, networking wasn't working too well in 98)
I have this strangely uncanny knack for "logic". There is no logical way for me to fairly compare NT or W2K v 95 or xp...it simply was not valid. They were different for a reason.
This is where I don't agree. I don't think it's invalid to compare two OS's just because they were
intended for different purposes.
If they can perform the same tasks, but one does it more stably, more reliably and/or faster, it doesn't matter if they were originally made for different uses.
It matters what you can use it for and how well.
off topic: That's one thing you can learn from evolution. Functionality of something can change to something completely different, and maybe it'll even work better with the new function.
I think that concept easily works with software. All it is, is changeable data being manipulated and processed. You can make
software do pretty much whatever you want it to do, if you know how.
To throw a boomerang uturn back into the mix...if I use my 4gb, e6600, 512mb x1800, and install windows 2k on it, it will most likely be faster than Xp and Vista...but what does that argue? Absolutely nothing...and w2k is very very stable
Actually, that is a valid point.
I don't know what performance differences there would be on todays systems with several gigabytes of RAM and multi-core CPU's which are many times faster
per core than what was available then; in fact it would probably be indiscernable on most of todays systems.
But, if you have a system that has, say 64MB RAM, and a CPU of a few hundred MHZ (which wasn't unlikely even when XP was just out), Windows 2000 will happily run on it, and work stably.
In fact, I did install Windows 2000 on an old laptop with similar specs to the example above for a friend. XP would have probably run too slow on it, and 98 was horribly unstable comparatively.