Strange, I find Vista to be very swift, stable and a pleasure to use. Certainly better than my experiences with XP.
[/quote
Two Vista machines in use at present. One desktop. One laptop.
Reboots ... loads
Hangups ... a few
BSOD .... none
Strange slowdowns ... A LOT
Each to their own I suppose
I suppose.
Boosting Ram ........ a tip I learned today
bigstuff
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 299
i find vista crap & my kid 11 thinks its crap wont run her games as she likes .so i went back to xp pro & its a lot beter
Last edited:
andy_k
MB Enthusiast
.... Can you recall what he said about OS/2, NT 3.1, NT3.5, Vista or ME before they dropped in on our lives?
popuptoaster
Active Member
yeah i guess he doesn't always manage to supply what he promised, but i would hope he see's some sense this time and does the right thing, Apple are making up ground and i see a future where they have a large share of the top end of the market and the budget end machines are running Linux (or whatever free OS works well) leaving MS stuck in the middle which wont do em any good, and if i can see that i hope they can.
Whatever MS's problems are, it IS handy to have an OS that works with nearly everything.
You mean XP.
Vista had a very hard act to follow. If Vista had followed NT 4.0 or perhaps even Windows 2000 then they would be talking about Vista 2 or Vista 2009 and not Windows 7.
Problem is that with XP they showed they can get things working pretty well and forgot the rule about not fixing what isn't broken.
popuptoaster
Active Member
I'd prefer them to sell a very stripped down OS with just the bare essentials and make the rest of it available as free downloads to license holders, if it was an automated process so that the first time you tried to play a movie it asked if you wanted to download media player for example then you'd only have what you needed running instead of all the cack most people never use.
andy_k
MB Enthusiast
yet when XP was released, all the so called "experts" were telling us that it was a bloated system that hogged memory, was unstable and for the most part we'd be better off sticking to '98 SE
I think that most people forget that new operating systems very often require new hardware to get the best out of them. Both of our Vista machines "score" 5.9 on the "Windows experience Index" and are as fast/reliable as they were using XP but they seem more stable with Vista when we push them to the limits (mainly 3D rendering)
I think that most people forget that new operating systems very often require new hardware to get the best out of them. Both of our Vista machines "score" 5.9 on the "Windows experience Index" and are as fast/reliable as they were using XP but they seem more stable with Vista when we push them to the limits (mainly 3D rendering)
Last edited:
andy_k
MB Enthusiast
trouble is that not everyone knows what they want.
Windows has made computing available to all age groups and it has achieved this by making an operating system that is equally relevent to an eighty year old who is getting their first machine to keep in touch with the family (and more as they learn) through to IT professionals
It tries to be all things to all people and for the most part it does a good job
Difference was that 1 year on and XP was bedded down. We're now just about into 2 years of Vista and it looks like MS have given up on it.
I wouldn't wish Win 98 on anybody
. The first decent Win NT variant was Win2K. (NT4.0 wasn't bad by that stage but simple things like DNS and DHCP seemed to confuse it and MS had decided not to pursue USB in NT 4.0).You mean most people forget that new Windows operating systems very often require new hardware!
popuptoaster
Active Member
hence the "automated" part of that sentance, you dont have to know what you want if the OS waits for you to need something and then adds it in for you.
Tis true every new OS has been accused of being to big and bloaty, and usually they run better on higher spec machines, but when Vista requires a gig more memory to run the same game XP does, on the same machine and yet gives no improvements in the game thats not your normall "uses more HD space and works better with a bit more ram" OS upgrade.
I have never had any stability problems with XP on my home built machine and its been running for over 5 years and through one major upgrade along with all the usualy swopping in and out of parts and experiments with over clocking AND using my machine to test parts from my mates broken PC's
me mums brand new designed for Vista pc has been nothing but trouble and is sposed to run faster than mine, but comes up slower when i benchmark it, my sisters vista laptop has also given trouble.
Normally i swop up to the next OS as soon as it becomes stable as i need to become familiar with em as i look after a fair few of my family and friends pc's cos i spent two years in hardware/software support, not this time though, i have alaptop with vista on just so i know what does what but it dont get used for anything else in case it packs in.
Tis true every new OS has been accused of being to big and bloaty, and usually they run better on higher spec machines, but when Vista requires a gig more memory to run the same game XP does, on the same machine and yet gives no improvements in the game thats not your normall "uses more HD space and works better with a bit more ram" OS upgrade.
I have never had any stability problems with XP on my home built machine and its been running for over 5 years and through one major upgrade along with all the usualy swopping in and out of parts and experiments with over clocking AND using my machine to test parts from my mates broken PC's
me mums brand new designed for Vista pc has been nothing but trouble and is sposed to run faster than mine, but comes up slower when i benchmark it, my sisters vista laptop has also given trouble.
Normally i swop up to the next OS as soon as it becomes stable as i need to become familiar with em as i look after a fair few of my family and friends pc's cos i spent two years in hardware/software support, not this time though, i have alaptop with vista on just so i know what does what but it dont get used for anything else in case it packs in.
andy_k
MB Enthusiast
see above, we have no issues with Vista - maybe we are in the minority but we certainly push our machines pretty hard
Nope, I meant what I said, people want the latest operating system (very often bought from some dodgy source at a boot fair) but don't want to upgrade their computer to run it
andy_k
MB Enthusiast
I see your logic but how are you going to find out if you want the computer to do something if you don't know that it can do that in the first place.
At least with the current system you can browse through all the programs and utilities that are packaged with windows then if you don't want them just simply remove them
flango
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
No, Vista will shortly be dead MS made a huge mistake and admitted it, there wont even be a corporate version of Vista a tweek to windows 7 until we get the replacement. Theres even further work going on to extend the life and capability of XP for corporate users, to use an Americanism "Vista sucks" resources that is
