[pncntigger]

Vista looks cool but hasn't been stable, at least the 3 machines that I've used. I haven't really messed with Vista yet. XP has been great for me. OSX is by far the most stable OS I've used.

Don't be afraid to dive in and tweak it, you can always reload if you mess something up. Just don't forget to back up all your important stuff before messing around.

[micromarty]

Originally Posted by redcard

It's not just noobs who think Vista sucks, about 80% of the tech community agree.

Nice made up statistics. Vista is more efficient than xp and runs better in certain situations ...Vista manages memory better as well as multiple cores....so in those cases it performs better than xp.

[screamforme02]

lol yeh but you couldnt use ur nivida chipsets for ages. lolol. and so many apps still dont work. thats why techs dont like it, cuz lots of them use propritary software that worked on 2000 and Xp but it just wont work in vista

[Happy Noodle Boy]

Originally Posted by screamforme02

lol yeh but you couldnt use ur nivida chipsets for ages. lolol. and so many apps still dont work. thats why techs dont like it, cuz lots of them use propritary software that worked on 2000 and Xp but it just wont work in vista

So what you're saying is that Vista sucks because software developers won't update their software to run properly on it?

[Poseidon79]

Microsoft has been expediting the release of Windows 7 in light of the fact that Vista is not being accepted by the business community and the IT people.

[Happy Noodle Boy]

Originally Posted by Poseidon79

Microsoft has been expediting the release of Windows 7 in light of the fact that Vista is not being accepted by the business community and the IT people.

It won't be that different from Vista and Microsoft is already sending out betas of it so companies get their act together and update their software in time for release. I know Vista gets a lot of flak for its not-so-stellar release but it was in beta/RC for almost two years and little to no companies took the time to update then went "lol its not us its the os". Video drivers were the really big offender there. Took like 7 months for gaming in Vista to catch up to XP.

[m3thodandr3d]

Vista flat out sucks. All vista does is eat up memory like crazy and give you a $hitty GUI that is supposed to compete with OSX. The sidebar is a joke, widgets anyone??? I have vista, xp, os x, and ubuntu on my system, and I would have to say that Vista is the worst OS I have ever come across. UAC sucks, and Vista laggggs like mad when you open programs that utilize alot of memory. I rather use my 2 gigs of ram for gaming instead of an ugly see through GUI. I feel sorry for the fools that went out and bought that *****. Isn't it funny how they still sell XP right next to Vista on the shelves? Obviously people don't like Vista, or they wouldn't be selling XP for almost the same price as Vista home premium.

P.S. Software developers shouldn't have to write their programs to conform to Vista. Everything from windows 2000 worked in XP, so what makes Vista any different. 16 million lines of bull$hit

[Jay316]

Anyone who has a experience with pcs's knows that '98 was the best.

[Yoyoyo1356]

look up the PC Decrapifier. It made my HP work twice as fast out of the box.

[redcard]

Originally Posted by micromarty

Nice made up statistics. Vista is more efficient than xp and runs better in certain situations ...Vista manages memory better as well as multiple cores....so in those cases it performs better than xp.

Sources? Can we get some more detail? Or did you just make that up like I did?

[micromarty]

Video - Tom's Hardware : Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown
That shows some, Vista does run slower on older machines than xp, I'll give you that, but with multicores and more than 3 GB of Ram Vista runs better....my AMD 6400+ x2 and 4 GB of ram can atest to that....I dual boot Vista and XP....XP only addresses 2.5 GB of ram out of My 4 GB....that is performance gains from the start.
And for people complaining about ram usage.....
Vista uses free ram to preload programs.....making everything run smoother...if that ram is needed for a program it frees it up.....
I agree that it's no perfect and that it is not worth the retail price...but if i come preinstalled on your system there is no need to uninstall it.

[screamforme02]

only 64 bit OS of windows will see more than 3 gigs

[Happy Noodle Boy]

4 gigs, but yes, you'd need the 64-bit to use more.

[runningwild]

Originally Posted by m3thodandr3d

P.S. Software developers shouldn't have to write their programs to conform to Vista. Everything from windows 2000 worked in XP, so what makes Vista any different. 16 million lines of bull

Isn't Vista built on an entirely different architecture than XP? Would that explain the incompatibilities? I'm not entirely sure on that though. Just wondering.
__________________________________________________ ___________

On another note, Seems like some people here expect Vista to be as fast as XP. I guess I should hate XP for not being as fast as win95.
How long has XP been released to the public? 7 years? And Vista has been around for about 1 and a half years? Yeah, totally fair comparison :/

Micromarty already explained the RAM deal. Why would you want less than half your RAM to be used EVER? I think we're forgetting the purpose of it's use. More "free" RAM =/= Faster computer. But if you have less than 2GB (800mhz) of RAM, you should complain about your parts not your OS.

I could say OSX sucks because I always seem to get that spinning rainbow wheel. But it's not OSX's fault, it's a great operating system, it's the craptastic computer I was using at the time that was probably worth less then $500 (yay for cheap public computers).

[micromarty]

Vista doesn't have too many compatibility issues......I would be all for dual booting OSX on my PC.....but it's against Apple's eula....