|
I more or less agree with the title. Vista is a little better, certainly no worse than XP, but it's not that much better to make it a compelling upgrade by its own functions and features. I usually try to defend it, but don't argue it to better than XP. It's usually a waste of time though. It's has become "cool" to hate Vista and people mindlessly reiterate what they hear about it, adding their own hyperbole and misinformation to the mix.
|
|
|
|
|
I have XP. It does what I want. Why should I pay money to change?
Expategghead
|
|
|
|
|
I use both (on different machines). On initial use of Vista, the backup and restore facility didn't work with my Freecom NAS, although sorted by having mapped drives rather than UNC paths. I hate the UAC but I understand what it's for so I applaud MS for having it. Security is often a necessary pain.
I also don't like the fact that you can't drag and drop files into VS2005 like you can with XP.
But I'm now settled with it. I wouldn't be happy with it at work though.
|
|
|
|
|
An option that opinions are for those that have used it for more than a month and eitehr liked it or not. Most people attack it without ever trying it or try it for week and find it is a bit different and consider it bad.
Vista is the best version (althought I have not checked out Windows server 2008 yet) Microsoft has released. With the proper hardware and drivers Vista 64 is more stable, fast and and complete than any prior version (although I do not remember the stablity of Windows 3.11, but we will just leave that out  ). Additionally, it may be more secure.
Most of the moaning and complaining I have heard is usally due to running it on old hardware with little RAM or is using a bad driver, which is not Microsoft's responsiblity and they should not have the blame.
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky Moore wrote: although I do not remember the stablity of Windows 3.11
That's because there was none.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you not heard of Windows for Workgroups , Shame on you.
|
|
|
|
|
srobertson wrote: Have you not heard of Windows for Workgroups , Shame on you.
Are you under the impression WFW was stable? 
|
|
|
|
|
My mistake, I thought you'd implied there was no 3.11(the Upgrade that was really a patch), but yes even so I was quite happy with WFW, certainly better than 3.0 & 3.10, and as far a stability goes it beat the crap out of 95 & 98 Early XP was borderline until SP2 came along. Vista, now that SP1's in is not too bad. I think the real problem with the OS now is that we're asking it to do too much which is why Windows is so bloated with stuff next to nobody needs or uses every day, I know that ms dos & win 3.11 wasn't exactly feature rich but it loaded fast and let you do things straight away, now we've got to wait for the bloat to load before you can log-in let alone fire up even a browser. I say to MS give me the Lean Mean OS basics then let the sofware vendors build the rest and stop charging me for the crap I don't need, if you want to include it in the install then fine but just don't load it unless I ask for it.
|
|
|
|
|
srobertson wrote: wasn't exactly feature rich but it loaded fast and let you do things straight away, now we've got to wait for the bloat to load before you can log-in let alone fire up even a browser.
And lets not forget how uber people thought we were when we typed win at the command prompt to load Windows when people didn't have it in autoexec.bat. Ah, the old days.
|
|
|
|
|
Vista is an unfinished toy which even my dog does not want to play with.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I feel rather fortunate that I am smarter than my dog, and do not take advice from him on my computer systems.
Vista is much faster, more stable, more secure. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
In other words - depends on the situation. For a new home or business machine, I do recommend Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: For a new home
It is a demon consuming resources in tonnage.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: business machine,
It wastes valuable productive time.
Do you really recommend even then?
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep!
|
|
|
|
|
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote: It wastes valuable productive time.
depends on your system and needs. My new Vista system kicks the new work systems around the block hands down. Work refuses to give up XP, so they suffer the limitations therein. I am not held back by such limitations so can easily move beyond.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
|
|
|
|
|
El Corazon wrote: My new Vista system kicks the new work systems around the block hands down.
Now install OSX on it for even better results. 
Oh I had to. I wouldn't be me if I didn't, and we all know much people love me.
Specs, I want specs to :drool: over!!!
FYI, my list address isn't working right because I'm lazy and stupid, but I do intend to get it running again.
|
|
|
|
|
work system xp 32bit 4gig ddr2-800, dual 5430 quad core 2.6ghz Xeons, 4x300gig SAS 15k rpm drives single nv280 graphics. my boss designed it.
at home quad core 3.2ghz, 8gig ddr3, 2x1tb disks plus 150gig and 75gig raptor from before.... but the killer is dual 280's one is dedicated CUDA the other shared with graphics.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
|
|
|
|
|
El Corazon wrote: at home quad core 3.2ghz, 8gig ddr3, 2x1tb disks plus 150gig and 75gig raptor from before.... but the killer is dual 280's one is dedicated CUDA the other shared with graphics
See if I eat your chili now!
Kidding, nice ride man.
|
|
|
|
|
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote: It is a demon consuming resources in tonnage.
What are you talking about? My new home machine runs like a charm.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote: It wastes valuable productive time.
Again, I don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: What are you talking about? My new home machine runs like a charm.
Everyone has a new box but me! Nay I say; I won't stand for it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Vista contains far better technology than any windows OS before it, applications including development tools perform far better on it than an identical computer running XP which I verified personally, and any Windows developer who has avoided it up to this point and not learned to work with it properly is a fool.
The debate is over, let it go people and ask yourself if you are a true professional Windows developer or a ranting child who would be better off shambling over to Linux and taking your mindless hatred to SlashDot instead.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: Vista contains far better technology than any windows OS before it
Yeah, like the "Never Leave Your Hard Disk Alone for Useless Gains" technology. It rocks! 
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Yeah, like the "Never Leave Your Hard Disk Alone for Useless Gains" technology.
Pshaw. Vicious slander. You can turn those off.
Think of them as... rats. Sure, they gnaw on your stuff and spread disease, but you can always kill them. And maybe, if you weren't so quick to judge, you'd find that they make good pets, little beady-eyed friends to keep you company through the cold, dark winter.
---- You're right.
These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets .
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Pshaw. Vicious slander. You can turn those off.
But having them on by default is just, well, nas-to the-tay. Yeah, that's technical.
I just found that's it's crazy to assume the slowest part of a computer should be overused by default. I'm not sure what they were thinking wit that one.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I just found that's it's crazy to assume the slowest part of a computer should be overused by default. I'm not sure what they were thinking wit that one.
Well, supposedly they take process priority into account when scheduling IO now, so my guess would be they figured they'd be able to schedule all the disk access they wanted on a low-priority background task and rely on it being preempted when necessary.
That said, i have no personal experience to provide as evidence of this. It's all pretty slow on my poor unworthy hardware.
---- You're right.
These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets .
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: That said, i have no personal experience to provide as evidence of this. It's all pretty slow on my poor unworthy hardware.
Crazy. Remember when PATA was just called parallel cables? Ah, the good old days.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
