Discussion in 'General' started by DarkLord7854, 29 May 2008.
I love vista *hugs vista*
Never had a real problem with it, not before or after SP1.
totally agreed with you here. I've been running Vista and I've had diddly squat in terms of problems. The only thing I don't like is the shape of the start button in the corner, i normally slam the mouse into the bottom left and expect to click on the start button, but now i have to carefully position the cursor over a selected area. other than that vista runs fine. the exact same thing happened when xp came out, everyone hated it, but now they all love it. vista needs time to grow and i'm pretty sure it'll get there.
I used to have a Audigy 2 (the fancy overpriced top end model), well, when I switched to vista 64 bit, it didnt have drivers, after some frustration with creative support (we dont know if there ever will be drivers, we have no eta and if we would know something we woudnt tell you style support) I trashed it, since then I only had one other Issue with Vista, stupid UAC... oh wait, I fixed that within almost no time.
Agree fully. And I think in many cases Vista simply isn't ready. Ironically, the problems do seem to be far lesser for just gamer-geeks. But for people who need to use any slightly obscure software (My cousin who required to install his non-vista department of agriculture programs, for instance) it's just a troublesome OS.
Don't blame Vista for that... Developers had plenty of time to adapt their software to the new OS, they refused...
Same thing happens on Linux... People whine that it doesn't support a lot of (new) games. Don't blame the Linux/OSS developers for that, blame the one who releases the software...
Well, firstly there is a fairly understandable argument that microsoft really should have made an OS that supports XP software without problem. Secondly theres an argument that, well it simply doesn't matter who's to blame - the bottom line for these people is that running XP allows them what they need and running Vista doesn't.
I actually switched to Vista at home yesterday after i`ve been using it at work since december. No problems at work other then a weird Office problem, which is more an annoyance then a problem. At home only my gfx driver play up with the screen going black for a second and then t says that they crashed but have recovered. No biggie and will be fixed asap. I heard a lot of commends at work about vista as I am the first and only so far to make the move and i dont regret it.
Backward compatibility is exactly the thing that makes Windows so gigantic in the first place. Just look at the USB2 stack if you want an example... One could argue that it should be able to run all Windows 3.1 applications too, because some *could* be still using them.
And maybe for the end user it doesn't matter who's to blame, but they mostly blame MS, while they should be blaming their third party software developer.
Vista works fine for me. I had far more troubles using XP.
i completely agree with DarkLord7854.
i installed vista on a new pc i made for my brother.... like 1 year ago.... or more... and it has never give him problems, and he knows jack about computers, windows defender tells him what to do and most of the time fixes the problems for him, i have been to his home recently and it is as fast as when i installed it, and he installs lots of stuff on it.
my brother also lent me his laptop (uni work), it has vista and is bloated with all that crap that comes with laptop installs... and the cd for it is a recovery cd (no vista cd), and i refuse to use it! I was at my university working and a friend from the IT course was laughing at the laptops pathetic battery life (1 hour and 20 minutes max) and blaming it on vista's nice interface and graphics..... i bet if i installed xp it would suck battery as fast as it does with vista, or almost as fast.
the thing i like the most on it, in the laptop POV, is the performance control system, you can lower performance and get longer battery (1 hour and 20 minutes max) or make it work at max performance and see it burn the battery in 45 minutes.....
the only quirk i can get out of it is the insane amount of install space it needs....
@spec and glider: I think it's good that some software breaks on Vista. For example, the way skins work in Winamp is a really dodgy hack, and as such, doesn't work properly on Vista. When people asked the Winamp devs what the problem was, they quite openly said that it was a dodgy hack and they weren't ever going to fix it because it'd be too much effort. Hence my interest in Foobar in the music players thread. I'm all for incompatibility with shoddy software.
No, they don't even blame MS imo. They don't really care about blame, what little they assign goes to vista, but mostly they just do not give a toss about the geek world. They want a PC, they want a PC that runs their programs. That's all they care about. When the new PC's are generally shipping with OS's which their programs don't run on, people get unhappy. Simple as that. They don't understand why XP programs don't work on Vista, they simply want them to.
I bought a laptop not long ago and it had vista installed, i love it.
Not only does it look 10 times better than xp, its easier to use.
I would love to upgrade my gaming rig to it but truth is, i dont have any money
Ding. I agree Wholly.
Besides, Im not spending money on something i dont like the look of. Sorry, but I helped my grandmother with her vista computer, and i just dont like the look of it.
I've got Vista running on a dual boot, I still use Xp more than Vista but that's due to the fact that the nvidia drivers still do not work for my 6600 graphics card (don't think they'll ever update them to be compatible with such an old graphics card) although some days I can use it for hours without problems and others (straight from boot-up) I get a black screen flashing up every couple of minutes followed by a "display driver stopped working but successfully recovered" message when the desktop reappears.
I can also run UT3 without any problems (apart from dire graphics, but what can you expect from a 6600) in Vista whereas it won't run at all in my XP install.
I like Vista, but it definitly needs better hardware than what I'm currently running.
I much prefer Vista over XP, but only on new hardware. I'm keeping XP on my older (Socket A/754 etc.) rigs.
I think a poll should be added; do you like Vista?
Vista does it. It works right out of the box. Unless you buy it from Dell/HP/Compaq/Sony/etc then no, it probably won't due to the programs they pre-load on it that are utter crap and completely unnecessary. Like those update programs.. You already have Windows Updates.. what more do you need? I cleaned off my laptop soon as I got it, and I've switched my Dad's 1.5Ghz Celeron 512mbs RAM to Vista recently, all drivers found via WinUpdate, no problems at all, it's really speedy too.
So I'll have to disagree with you, Vista is great out of the box, but if it goes through a computer manufacturer like Dell, then it's not out of the box, because they "tweak" it and stuff and make it run slow because they bog it down so much.
There will come a time when everybody will love Vista, and think it is the best OS evar, and that it could not possibly be improved on and that anything else that preceded it of follows it is just utter rubbish. They'll think Vista is cheesecake, to be honest, with fresh strawberries and chocolate wafers on top. And that time will be when Windows 7 has just been released.
Hey, nobody likes change. It's not rational, but there it is.
It now works (the early days were a mess tbh), its easier to use for those who don't know their way around a computer very well and it looks more up to date (OK, I don't care about that, but some do).
I don't get the point about old software not running on it. It was the same situation with the switch from Windows 9x to NT. If you upgrade your OS, upgrade your software - fairly obvious.
most of the people hated XP when it came out and they preferred ... win98 , MEH. You are 100% right Nexxo
Separate names with a comma.