Bye bye vista
- Thread starter Combat squirrel
- Start date
Sadly nobody seems to take this point into consideration when comparing XP and Vista. It's always just people saying "Vista is great, it does what XP does and better".
But the thing is, out of the box it doesn't. It can be made "better" with a bit of work, changing settings and looking up your problems on Google.
What if I don't want to do that? What if I just want an OS that just works out of the box, no "faffing" around?
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
Really whats all the talk about snow leopard being 64 bit then ?
Im loving x64 right now, EVERYTHING'S JUST WORKING, all my software I used on vista64 which all had there own 'quirks' (things you should and shouldn't do otherwise it would crash), DOESN'T happen here its just running, working fast and fine without hassle, fantastic
EDIT:
Ahh so the current version does 8+ gb ram now then ? *Ponders a mass exchange to apple pro and laptops even more,lol
yes... People are running 4Gb In MacBook Pros with the 512Mb 8600GT M and see all the memory, hence 64 bit...
Also how else would the MacPro use 16Gb and then 2Gb of graphics memory if you max it out?
why? faster than vista 99% less pain. also MS sent me a nice free copy
Server 2008 faster as a desktop OS than Vista - course it is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I just installed mine and I let the updates run automatically, what else is there to do?
I've not had a propblem or a crash or a even a sniff of an issue in the last 10 months and I don't know anyone (in meatspace as opposed to cyberspace) who has had a problem.
If something has 99% less pain than Vista then 1% of 0 is still 0.
Did you use Windows XP during it's first 18 months of release? Compared to the early days of XP, Vista is a revelation in how well it's actually worked.
This is what I tell people as well, I did use XP as soon as it was released and 100% agree with you.
Surprising how many people don’t remember all the fuss about XP being rubbish and how many people went back to using Windows 98!
Still each to their own I guess...
The slow release was started in November 2006, with full launch of Vista on 30th Jan 2007
Indeed, I remember everyone on here absolutely slating XP for probably the first two years, with some diehards doing it for at least 4-5 years after release. I also remember the "XP sucks cos business isn't adopting it" argument that is currently used against Vista in the same way (ignoring the fact that businesses are notoriously slow and reluctant to change, especially to something fairly new and unproven, and also frequently skip every other generation. At work we changed from NT4 to XP in 2004, for example, I'd be very surprised if we move to Vista any time soon, I'd expect us to skip it and go to windows 7 instead, but not because Vista is rubbish, just that, like Win 2K, it doesn't offer sufficient benefits for the level of hassle involved.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 3,951
Xp is so rtard trying to connect to wireless, had to install a hotfix for wpa2. Rubbish, should support this out of the box.
Use exactly the same motherboard. Never had a missing hard-drive (perhaps you can define that please? what exactly do you mean? are you on about network drives, usb drives, etc?) - I'm using Vista x64 Enterprise, 4GB RAM, x8800GTS 640MB Graphics Card and it works flawlessly. I use USB sticks, external hard-drives, etc. every day as well.
Well lets put it like this. If you go out and buy a car and you put endless mods on there then who should support it if it goes wrong? Do you ever maintain your car? Of course you do. You can't expect something thats taken years of design to work perfectly in every situation there will be hardware problems, software compatibility problems, etc. but like the car you need to maintain it. Vista does an awesome job of maintaining itself. Have a look in scheduled tasks to see the massive difference there is between itself and XP. As time goes on these get fixed. XP was awful to begin with yet in time has become very, very solid. Vista is in it's infancy yet is easily better than XP was in the same timeline.
M.
Are you saying XP64 got it right the first time? As far as I can recall XP64 was plagued with similar issues (particularly driver related) to what Vista had at launch.
Actually I didn't switch to XP until it was a good 36 months old. Windows 2000 was fine at that point.
I just wish, for once, that an operating system would be released with all the major bugs ironed out. I mean come on, Microsoft have had decades of practice with this. They seem to totally forget what they've learnt from the previous version.
Third party support (both hardware and software) seem to make up the bulk of complaints about bugs with Vista, all of which are out of MS's control. The only thing that could have classified as a 'bug' with vista really is the copy time issue, but that was more because XP's approach was bugged (ie it didn't give an actual indication of how long the system spent copying the files because the dialog box was dismissed long before the copy was completed), and Vista gave more realistic times. There was also the issue with incorrectly predicting common copy usage, as the two file copy structures are very different but excel in different areas, and the vista interpretation tended to be slower in common usage than the XP one, but that's not strictly a bug...
Compared to NT4, W2K and XP at launch, Vista has actually been much better than previous releases.