Windows Vista Discussion
- Thread starter Tyler1989
- Start date
- Status
waynejkruse10
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,782
it has its similarites to firefox but still a lot of differences.
Somebody said the Royale theme for XP is a rip off of Mac os X, year sure if Apple had patented the colour blue and and a a gradient.
Somebody said the Royale theme for XP is a rip off of Mac os X, year sure if Apple had patented the colour blue and and a a gradient.
Tyler1989 said:Vista has better security and the entire kernal was even reworked for the purpose of security. Have you dived into Vista or did you just look at the new themes and pictues.
tyler you seem aweful defensive of vista, but i guess if i was stupid enough to bendover...uh i mean pay all that money so i can "offically" download it then...i guess, but try to feel special on your own time and please no more responses of your thoughts on pirating, no one cares
but in answer to your question, its still nothing more than an xp upgrade pack, the "reworked kernal" leaves much yet to be desired as we will still see viruses and spyware and we will still download patches like a bunch of good little b*****'s
were talking about a likely $200 price tag and for that kind of money the fact that they fixed some bugs that were in xp and increased security is the least of my thoughts..it doesnt change how we can use our pc's, its still organized like an fbi library with endless clicking on folders and icons....its almost like winME all over again.
dont get me wrong, i'm not bashing it totally, i'd be the type to upgrade to it at some point but its still far from how a good OS should be, it'll be bloated with apps that were forced to install and we will still be using 3rd party applications to manage almost all user end tasks while most of ms's stuff sits there and takes up space, most will no doubt have to buy a new zone alarm firewall and all these other programs for mundain tasks
i'd rather see a cheaper version thats just the core os istelf without all the junk and then just install all the 3rd party apps i want cuz thats what most will do not long after its release..just watch
You are ignorant, MSDN is not bending over for vista it is so I can get free XP, free Vista, any microsoft OS free, infanant amount of serial keys, Free Visual Studio, among many other goodies. Many people use this service so I dn't know why you are even speaking like it is a bad deal.
To further prove you are ignorant everything is patched even Linux is patched on a daily/weekely baisis.
To again prove you are ignorant Vista is not based on XP pal it's based on Server 2003 SP1. I personally think it will be $300 but I'd love to see a $200 price tag.
Your ignorance goes above all in this one. Yes it does no more clicky with WinFS. Search for what you want just like you were googling your own PC. If you want to be left behind be my guest.
don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing you totally, I'd be curious to know how you cna make these jugdments though when you never used it. And as always you can go in windows components and unistall the apps you don't want and heck every OS does this.
To further prove you are ignorant everything is patched even Linux is patched on a daily/weekely baisis.
To again prove you are ignorant Vista is not based on XP pal it's based on Server 2003 SP1. I personally think it will be $300 but I'd love to see a $200 price tag.
Your ignorance goes above all in this one. Yes it does no more clicky with WinFS. Search for what you want just like you were googling your own PC. If you want to be left behind be my guest.
don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing you totally, I'd be curious to know how you cna make these jugdments though when you never used it. And as always you can go in windows components and unistall the apps you don't want and heck every OS does this.
Oh please every new OS is based off of the previous kernal. Common fact that the next OS will be based off the "current" most stable kernal. Vista is based off of the 2003 SP1 kernal and reworked. 2000 is based of that evil buggy NT4.0 kernal and XP is based of the 2K kernal.
NT4.0 = shit bad evil buggy
Win2K = Ok by my standards good to others
Point is don't judge something by what it's based off of.
NT4.0 = shit bad evil buggy
Win2K = Ok by my standards good to others
Point is don't judge something by what it's based off of.
Tyler have you ever even used NT4? I mean, have you ever installed it, or so much as logged into a computer running it?
The fact that you call NT4 "buggy" just makes me scoff. Where I used to work we had NT4 SP6a servers with uptimes far more than a year. And they only ever got downed for hardware upgrades or something like that.
But you probably heard or read somewhere how much NT4 used to suck, so you act like you're "in the know" and spout it off like gospel.
The same with Win2k. You sure hate it a lot for someone whos probably never used it, since if you had, you'd know its almost indistinguishable from XP. The only thing that 2k didn't have going for it was the fact that it was never meant to be an "average joe" OS. If Microsoft had kept supporting it today, there would be absolutely no difference between using it and XP. In fact, I'd still be using 2K today.
I was one of those "early adopters" of 2K. I had a lot of experience with NT4 workstation, and I knew that it was really not suited for general purpose use. I also knew that Win98 was a piece of garbage. So when Win2k professional came out, I picked it up, back in 1999.
And I suffered through all the BS that was inherent with moving to the NT kernel, which is that a lot of older (poorly written) programs did not get along with NT, as well as the fact that a lot of (crappy) hardware did not work with it. I suffered through having to scour the internet for "in development" NT/2K drivers and used what I could. When I first started using it, you couldn't find drivers for anything. I got used to asking "Does it support Win2k" when buying hardware or software.
Back then, all the fanboys were running Win98SE still, because nobody wanted to use Win2k. Nobody wanted to touch the NT kernel.
Also, Win2k was not "based" on the NT4 kernel other than the fact that they were both "based on NT technology." Win2k was an entirely new kernel revision, i.e. 5.0 instead of 4.x.
And then came Windows XP late in 2001, and all the fanboys made the switch. I stuck with Win2k long after, into 2003 when I finally ended up having to switch because of lack of support for 2000. (For instance, poor Hyperthreading support)
Windows XP 5.1.2600, as far as I am concerned, was just a fancy graphical update for the 2K OS. Nothing even close to impressive until you get to SP2 where it at least stands on its own.
And so now I am an "early adopter" of Windows XP x64, and I am going through the same driver hell that I did back then. And I'm going to stick with it. Because it isn't bloated with eye candy, it runs on the fast, stable, and lean 2K3 SP1 kernel, and because I enjoy the benefits of actually USING the 64 bit extensions of my processors.
... but then I have to read threads by you and others who have probably NEVER USED it, talking about how much it sucks and how its just "a transitional OS." Yeah, well, Win2K was also a "transitional OS", since its where the NT kernel integrated into the desktop line of development. And it was a lot more stable than XP.
The fact that you call NT4 "buggy" just makes me scoff. Where I used to work we had NT4 SP6a servers with uptimes far more than a year. And they only ever got downed for hardware upgrades or something like that.
But you probably heard or read somewhere how much NT4 used to suck, so you act like you're "in the know" and spout it off like gospel.
The same with Win2k. You sure hate it a lot for someone whos probably never used it, since if you had, you'd know its almost indistinguishable from XP. The only thing that 2k didn't have going for it was the fact that it was never meant to be an "average joe" OS. If Microsoft had kept supporting it today, there would be absolutely no difference between using it and XP. In fact, I'd still be using 2K today.
I was one of those "early adopters" of 2K. I had a lot of experience with NT4 workstation, and I knew that it was really not suited for general purpose use. I also knew that Win98 was a piece of garbage. So when Win2k professional came out, I picked it up, back in 1999.
And I suffered through all the BS that was inherent with moving to the NT kernel, which is that a lot of older (poorly written) programs did not get along with NT, as well as the fact that a lot of (crappy) hardware did not work with it. I suffered through having to scour the internet for "in development" NT/2K drivers and used what I could. When I first started using it, you couldn't find drivers for anything. I got used to asking "Does it support Win2k" when buying hardware or software.
Back then, all the fanboys were running Win98SE still, because nobody wanted to use Win2k. Nobody wanted to touch the NT kernel.
Also, Win2k was not "based" on the NT4 kernel other than the fact that they were both "based on NT technology." Win2k was an entirely new kernel revision, i.e. 5.0 instead of 4.x.
And then came Windows XP late in 2001, and all the fanboys made the switch. I stuck with Win2k long after, into 2003 when I finally ended up having to switch because of lack of support for 2000. (For instance, poor Hyperthreading support)
Windows XP 5.1.2600, as far as I am concerned, was just a fancy graphical update for the 2K OS. Nothing even close to impressive until you get to SP2 where it at least stands on its own.
And so now I am an "early adopter" of Windows XP x64, and I am going through the same driver hell that I did back then. And I'm going to stick with it. Because it isn't bloated with eye candy, it runs on the fast, stable, and lean 2K3 SP1 kernel, and because I enjoy the benefits of actually USING the 64 bit extensions of my processors.
... but then I have to read threads by you and others who have probably NEVER USED it, talking about how much it sucks and how its just "a transitional OS." Yeah, well, Win2K was also a "transitional OS", since its where the NT kernel integrated into the desktop line of development. And it was a lot more stable than XP.
waynejkruse10
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,782
i like Win 2k, i found the advanced networking stuff great (even though u can probly do the same in xp) but 2000 is so lean.
- Status
Similar threads
