Cant stand Vista

TheVoice · 9 Aug 2007 at 16:33

Nefarious said:
I must say that I'm quite surprised, whenever I've voiced any dislike over Vista I've been lambasted.

I find Vista, the licence situation and the zealotry of its followers totally abhorrent. I do have to admit that it is damned pretty but at what cost? Well over £100 certainly.... (if you include the extra cost of the hardware to handle the bloated operating system)

What hardware would that be? I didn't seem to need any.

Nefarious · 9 Aug 2007 at 16:39

That would be my 486 DX4, yeah baby - that's the hog I run and boy does it go!

Nefarious · 9 Aug 2007 at 16:41

stoofa said:
So it is just a lot easier when people come along and have another moan about Vista and they make a suggestion about going back to XP, to help them do it than explain yet again why they are wrong about Vista.

Are you trying to say that you disagree with the statement that Vista requires more system resources than XP? A statement that not even M$ would disagree with?

Final8y · 9 Aug 2007 at 20:23

Nefarious said:
Are you trying to say that you disagree with the statement that Vista requires more system resources than XP? A statement that not even M$ would disagree with?

So what that Vista requires more system resources than XP!. big deal.
No different from new games requires more system resources than most older games.
No different from bigger PSU, gfxcard & CPU`s requires more juice overall than before.

stoofa · 10 Aug 2007 at 12:25

Nefarious said:
Are you trying to say that you disagree with the statement that Vista requires more system resources than XP? A statement that not even M$ would disagree with?

Oh for gods sake
STOP USING M$ - IT ISN'T COOL IT ISN'T FUNNY!!

I'll have an intelligent debate with you once you've grown up past the point where you need to use silly acronyms.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Aug 2007 at 12:34

Nefarious said:
I find Vista, the licence situation and the zealotry of its followers totally abhorrent.

What is this 'abhorrent licensing situation' you speak of?

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 10 Aug 2007 at 12:34

Nefarious said:
Are you trying to say that you disagree with the statement that Vista requires more system resources than XP? A statement that not even MS would disagree with?

It does require more system resources, yes, but it's much more effecient with the system resources it has than XP.

Burnsy

marc2003 · 10 Aug 2007 at 12:51

Nefarious said:
(if you include the extra cost of the hardware to handle the bloated operating system)

admittedly vista likes ram. the more the better. but as for the rest of it's requirements, it will run on any old crap. any cpu over 1ghz and a dx9 card for aero - fx5200 or 9500 minimum. now of course that's way more than xp requires but this is the year 2007.

stickroad · 10 Aug 2007 at 12:53

Nefarious said:
Are you trying to say that you disagree with the statement that Vista requires more system resources than XP? A statement that not even Microsoft would disagree with?

Once again i had to fix your post, its getting very boring.

Serious question, why do you write Microsoft (matture version) like M$ (idiot, stupid, childish, loser, no one will take you seriously version)?

MikGriff · 10 Aug 2007 at 13:13

stickroad said:
Once again i had to fix your post, its getting very boring.

Serious question, why do you write Microsoft (mature version) like M$ (idiot, stupid, childish, loser, no one will take you seriously version)?

Because its "cool" of course, it shows he is against "The Machine" but still uses their software! :rolleyes: