Vista is ME with new Facia

KevTucker · 3 Feb 2007 at 05:24

Been playing with Vista, updated to new Nvidia drivers and Vista is now Windows ME.

Liked it but now its not what I thought it would be

Zip · 3 Feb 2007 at 06:13

So what are you trying to say? :confused:

misterjingo · 3 Feb 2007 at 07:04

It seems because Vista doesn't look radically different to previous versions of windows (which tbh each version has perfected GUI a little bit more - so whats to change?) people automatically assume it's not much different. They completely ignore the vast changes made under the bonnet and focus totally on the most superficial aspects of the GUI to make these comparissons.

dayloon · 3 Feb 2007 at 07:14

KevTucker said:
Been playing with Vista, updated to new Nvidia drivers and Vista is now Windows ME.

Liked it but now its not what I thought it would be

Vista is now Windows ME ? What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

.:MBK:. · 3 Feb 2007 at 07:17

it runs like crap, crashes a lot and never works properly?

never had of those issues in Vista yet tbh

Priapus · 3 Feb 2007 at 07:36

Unless he's talking about the theme has gone back to Windows Classic?
I haven't had any problems witht he OS in the last week, very happy with it.

markyb · 3 Feb 2007 at 08:48

Windows ME was additions to a already aging Windows 98 OS. Did not improve security, performance or stability.

Vista has many improvements most of which take time to mature. Take a look at XP when it first came out...

Give it time.

Emlyn_Dewar · 3 Feb 2007 at 11:57

Apart from IE crashing on me one day when I tried to open multiple Youtube tabs I can't think of any issues I've had on Vista. The IE problem happened to me on XP aswell so I can't blame the new OS.
I was in a newsagent today and noticed one magazine had the headline "Is this the most pointless upgrade of 2007 *picture of Vista box*" on the front cover. I really don't see the need for such negativity*, if we all had that mindset then we'd still be using Dos.

*I did not read the report so do not know the reasoning.

Deleted member 58846 · 3 Feb 2007 at 12:10

shut up get a life

dirtydog · 3 Feb 2007 at 12:14

Emlyn_Dewar said:
Apart from IE crashing on me one day when I tried to open multiple Youtube tabs I can't think of any issues I've had on Vista. The IE problem happened to me on XP aswell so I can't blame the new OS.
I was in a newsagent today and noticed one magazine had the headline "Is this the most pointless upgrade of 2007 *picture of Vista box*" on the front cover. I really don't see the need for such negativity*, if we all had that mindset then we'd still be using Dos.

*I did not read the report so do not know the reasoning.

No we wouldn't, because even Windows 3.1 is a huge upgrade from DOS, never mind 95, 98 and 2000/XP.

How much of an upgrade from XP is Vista? Not much from where I'm sitting.

Psyk · 3 Feb 2007 at 12:47

It's definitely a bigger upgrade than 95 to 98. Possibly even a bigger change than from 98 to XP, but I'm not completely sure about that. I suppose it's hard to quantify how big a change it is.

dirtydog · 3 Feb 2007 at 12:49

It is more of a change than 95 to 98, but less than 98 to XP, I would say.

the-void · 3 Feb 2007 at 12:57

But it pales into insignificance compared to the jump from the commodore 64 to the commodore amiga.

misterjingo · 3 Feb 2007 at 13:10

dirtydog said:
It is more of a change than 95 to 98, but less than 98 to XP, I would say.

Would like to hear your reasoning on this? As most of the OS has been written from the ground up and functions completely different to XP. What parts of the OS do you believe are only slghtly more improved? Are you going off GUI alone, or have you really read up on what has actually changed and how things function different in Vista?

NathanE · 3 Feb 2007 at 13:14

Anyone who understands the technical changes under the hood of Vista will agree it is the biggest update to Windows since '95.

dirtydog said:
It is more of a change than 95 to 98, but less than 98 to XP, I would say.

Thank god though that isn't the truth

You really should try to look past the pretty GUI.

dirtydog · 3 Feb 2007 at 13:56

misterjingo said:
Would like to hear your reasoning on this? As most of the OS has been written from the ground up and functions completely different to XP. What parts of the OS do you believe are only slghtly more improved? Are you going off GUI alone, or have you really read up on what has actually changed and how things function different in Vista?

I am going on how the end user experience. Which surely is all that matters?

dirtydog · 3 Feb 2007 at 13:56

NathanE said:
Anyone who understands the technical changes under the hood of Vista will agree it is the biggest update to Windows since '95.

Thank god though that isn't the truth You really should try to look past the pretty GUI.

I think I have a fair understanding of the under-the-hood changes. But unless they affect the end-user experience, they are moot aren't they?

benjo plz. · 3 Feb 2007 at 13:59

dirtydog said:
But unless they affect the end-user experience, they are moot aren't they?

no, not if they deal with important issues. The end user experience isn't the end all and be all of an operating system.

dirtydog · 3 Feb 2007 at 14:01

Phnom_Penh said:
no, not if they deal with important issues. The end user experience isn't the end all and be all of an operating system.

I would think it is everything.

benjo plz. · 3 Feb 2007 at 14:04

dirtydog said:
I would think it is everything.

Define end user experience.

Vista is ME with new Facia

Deleted member 58846

Deleted member 58846