I've noticed a lot of people here criticise vista and they come up with all sorts of reasons. Althought I have yet to hear a convincing argument against it. I would like to upgrade to it as soon as I can but I do want to make sure it is actually better than XP before I spend money on it. So what are the possible problems with Vista?
Give me one legitimate thing wrong with vista?
- Thread starter Psyk
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,572
- Location
- Tilchestune
dont know yet , tell you when the public beta is released.
its all fud at the moment as it only went feature complete lock down a few days ago
its all fud at the moment as it only went feature complete lock down a few days ago
i think the main problem is that i just want a basic OS that has few bugs and security problems that takes up as little system resources as possible.
I get the impression that with Vista they dont care about system resources and are just making something pretty.
Will have to wait and see but not hopeful!
I get the impression that with Vista they dont care about system resources and are just making something pretty.
Will have to wait and see but not hopeful!
I remember hearing that they were still working on WinFS and trying to get it included(this was a long time ago so may not be 100% accurate). If true wouldn't it mean a reinstall when they released it as part of a service pack or whatever method they choose to use to release it?
The way I understand it, it will in some respects use less CPU power because more work is handed over to the graphics card. And I'm assuming that when you're playing a game, the desktop is no longer rendered so it won't affect the game. Although I'm sure it will take more CPU time than XP, you're getting more features in return. Many of which I'm assuming can be turned off if you want.MNuTz said:
Most people that bring up the WinFS subject don't actually know what WinFS was in the first place. In Vista they have wrote an abstraction layer to serve the same purpose as WinFS, so instant file searching is still possible. Then when WinFS is ready they can simply plug it in and reap further benefits. It really is a non-issue.
The system resources argument is flawed. Vista will actually be _less_ CPU intensive than XP due to the new video subsystems. It's easy to fall into the "Vista is just a fancy new GUI" trap because that's all the screenshots show and its all the laymen talk about. If you actually use it first hand or read some technical articles relating to Vista you will see it is FAR more than just a shiny GUI. It is the single biggest update to Windows since Windows 3.1->Windows 95.
The system resources argument is flawed. Vista will actually be _less_ CPU intensive than XP due to the new video subsystems. It's easy to fall into the "Vista is just a fancy new GUI" trap because that's all the screenshots show and its all the laymen talk about. If you actually use it first hand or read some technical articles relating to Vista you will see it is FAR more than just a shiny GUI. It is the single biggest update to Windows since Windows 3.1->Windows 95.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,572
- Location
- Tilchestune
then try linux , unless that is you play gamesMNuTz said:
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,572
- Location
- Tilchestune
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 16,338
- Location
- Plymouth
Hangon, I thought that was XPNathanE said:
I bought XP the day it came out, but I can't say I'll be doing the same with Vista. XP seems...fine for me, though I'm looking forward to seeing what Vista's actually like
Beansprout said:Hangon, I thought that was XP
I bought XP the day it came out, but I can't say I'll be doing the same with Vista. XP seems...fine for me, though I'm looking forward to seeing what Vista's actually like
Perhaps, but many many people said the same about either Windows 98se or Windows 2000.
