Curse

Lord Sojar · Oct 08, 2008, 05:04 AM // 05:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I don't know whats wrong with all your computers, been running vista for 3 weeks now. no errors (knock wood, I hate saying that, everytime I say I have not been sick for xx time now, Boom, next day sick :P) what so ever, it even loads programs faster then when I was using xp sp3, using the same computer as before with no new hardware added, but it a new one :P

I still stand by my view that because users don't understand the system hence they dislike it, why, because they can't do shit with it, cos they don't understand it, but for someone like me, yes, I don't claim to be a computer wizard, because I am not, I am a user, I don't mess around with the system or do technical stuffs with it, after 3 weeks on vista, it serve its purpose better then my old xp. So whats wrong with that?

I run a very powerful workstation on Vista 64 for work related endeavors. Errors are not the issue. Inefficiency is the issue. Vista is inefficient and mismanages so many areas of a PC, it basically is sad and pathetic.

pumpkin pie · Oct 08, 2008, 05:08 AM // 05:08

not on my computer

too bad you can't run it, i enjoy using it.

Senrath · Oct 08, 2008, 05:18 AM // 05:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

not on my computer

too bad you can't run it, i enjoy using it.

Note that he said he runs it. It not working isn't an issue.

And even if it runs well for you, it doesn't mean it isn't inefficient.

pamelf · Oct 08, 2008, 06:06 AM // 06:06

These days it runs fine, but I totally agree that it is inefficient. I never though I'd see the day when 2gig is just enough ram to actually do things.

Faer · Oct 08, 2008, 06:23 AM // 06:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

i enjoy using it.

Yes, yeeeess. Enjoy your fail. Enjoy it with a side of pumpernickel. Enjoy it with a cup of Mexican water to wash it down. Enjoy it with an audience who is oooohing and ahhhhhing at it. Any way you wish to enjoy it, enjoy it thoroughly, for it is the hardest fail you shall ever have to endure.

fenix · Oct 08, 2008, 07:16 AM // 07:16

To quote a wise man;

[6:06pm] <+Faerbear> like seriously every second you use vista your god pisses in your skull

That is all.

pumpkin pie · Oct 08, 2008, 09:45 AM // 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faer

Yes, yeeeess. Enjoy your fail. Enjoy it with a side of pumpernickel. Enjoy it with a cup of Mexican water to wash it down. Enjoy it with an audience who is oooohing and ahhhhhing at it. Any way you wish to enjoy it, enjoy it thoroughly, for it is the hardest fail you shall ever have to endure.

how did you conclude that me liking a new system that runs smoothly on my computer to be a failure?

Etta · Oct 08, 2008, 10:06 AM // 10:06

All hail, Mac OS® X Leopard™

mwa ha ha ha ha. (Apart from that time when it crashed, oh and the other time when it decided not to boot up at all. Oh and there was this one time when the damn Suitcase Fusion corrupted.)

I Dont Do Coke · Oct 08, 2008, 02:36 PM // 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

These days it runs fine, but I totally agree that it is inefficient. I never though I'd see the day when 2gig is just enough ram to actually do things.

Yeh, no kidding. And some of my games make Vista's mem' usage of 2GB hit the roof at 99%... It's really sad.

Senrath · Oct 08, 2008, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

how did you conclude that me liking a new system that runs smoothly on my computer to be a failure?

It's more that Vista itself is a failure. It's a bloated resource hog. It requires, REQUIRES, at least 2gb of RAM in order to run middling-well, and 10x more hard drive space than XP. And XP does a better job of just about everything.

JupiterStarWarrior · Oct 08, 2008, 04:23 PM // 16:23

Why are people saying that XP SP3 is bad? I'm running it and it works fine for me.

My second question, though, is directed toward those who are bashing Vista: Have you tried it? Have you sat down and actually tried Vista? If the answer is no, then you don't really know to form an opinion. I've sat down a couple of times with it. It takes some time getting used to, I'll admit. And, admittedly I haven't actually USED it (meaning it was a few times and I didn't really play around with it). However, I still like it (that's why my XP is using the Aero theme).

If you have used it, why do you not like it? Just because it's a resource hog? Bleh. You can get more resources. And besides, other programs out there are resource hogs, too. It's inefficient? How? Now, I admit that the EULA states that one with Vista cannot downgrade, however there is a way around that: FULL COPIES. That's more expensive, yes, but at least you'll have something to fall back on if needed.

Am I defending Vista? No. Like I said, I have very limited experiences with Vista. But, hopefully, that will change when I get enough money to buy it.

Senrath · Oct 08, 2008, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by JupiterStarWarrior

Why are people saying that XP SP3 is bad? I'm running it and it works fine for me.

My second question, though, is directed toward those who are bashing Vista: Have you tried it? Have you sat down and actually tried Vista? If the answer is no, then you don't really know to form an opinion. I've sat down a couple of times with it. It takes some time getting used to, I'll admit. And, admittedly I haven't actually USED it (meaning it was a few times and I didn't really play around with it). However, I still like it (that's why my XP is using the Aero theme).

If you have used it, why do you not like it? Just because it's a resource hog? Bleh. You can get more resources. And besides, other programs out there are resource hogs, too. It's inefficient? How? Now, I admit that the EULA states that one with Vista cannot downgrade, however there is a way around that: FULL COPIES. That's more expensive, yes, but at least you'll have something to fall back on if needed.

Am I defending Vista? No. Like I said, I have very limited experiences with Vista. But, hopefully, that will change when I get enough money to buy it.

I've tried it, and here is why I don't like it:
1. It's a resource hog. I'm on a limited budget, so I can't, as you say, "get more resources." And I generally don't use resource hogging applications, finding alternatives to them.
2. It is inefficient. Start up takes minutes longer than it should and programs load slower than in XP.
3. It has many incompatibilities with existing hardware and software, and even some new hardware and software. A job I held over a summer had me testing various pieces of software for incompatibilities with Vista. For the software we tested, none of them were completely compatible.
4. Having to say "yes" or "no" to pretty much everything you're trying to do gets really annoying.

Malice Black · Oct 08, 2008, 04:38 PM // 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

how did you conclude that me liking a new system that runs smoothly on my computer to be a failure?

Silly little boys being silly....there is your answer.

Snow Bunny · Oct 08, 2008, 06:25 PM // 18:25

Just use XP SP2 with the Zune theme so it looks tricked out.

It runs really well and looks slick.

Just waiting for Redshift for FireFox3 to come out....

Tyla · Oct 08, 2008, 06:35 PM // 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

To quote a wise man;

[6:06pm] <+Faerbear> like seriously every second you use vista your god pisses in your skull

That is all.

My laptop uses Vista. (sadly)

I'm an athiest so I don't have a god.

What now, bitch?

DarkNecrid · Oct 08, 2008, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Dont Do Coke

Yeh, no kidding. And some of my games make Vista's mem' usage of 2GB hit the roof at 99%... It's really sad.

Yes, it is sad you don't understand how Vista works.

Vista uses most of your RAM at any one time. This is a feature called SuperFetch. What it does is optimize the use of your RAM, catching programs you use often to improve loading times etc.

It frees up the RAM it uses (exactly enough at any time, instantly) whenever you actually run anything.

The program isn't LITERALLY using all your RAM, Vista is using Super Fetch & giving you exactly enough RAM for the game you are running.

If you're going to bad mouth Vista you could at least get a clue about one of it's most basic features. Vista sucks balls, I use it (the 64 version is way good tho, worse than XP but it just came out gotta give it time to catch up, XP sucked balls on release too.) tho. But at least I know how it works.

Diddy bow · Oct 08, 2008, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

how did you conclude that me liking a new system that runs smoothly on my computer to be a failure?

There is some general problems with it.

Then there is the "hate teh Vista" bandwagon.

Senrath · Oct 08, 2008, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Vista uses most of your RAM at any one time. This is a feature called SuperFetch. What it does is optimize the use of your RAM, catching programs you use often to improve loading times etc.

Ah, yes, SuperFetch, thanks for reminding me about that. It's probably the only feature I really like about Vista. Pity that ReadyBoost isn't as useful.

Faer · Oct 08, 2008, 09:24 PM // 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyla

I'm an athiest so I don't have a god.

Everyone has some sort of god. Even atheists.

Lord Sojar · Oct 08, 2008, 09:30 PM // 21:30

Here, allow me to point out some specifics as to why Vista is bad. There is no arguing with fact. All you Vista carebears, this is Factshotgun. You are terminated.

Vista cannot properly manage GPU scaling or X-Loading.
Vista cannot handle cross management of linear GPU signaling.
Vista cannot do memory dumping effectively on programs without creating a memory hole the size of Texas. (and we all know George Bush is from Texas, which doesn't say much)
Vista cannot properly manage CPU to GPU direct interfacing without substantial overhead.
Vista cannot be modified extensively in Ring0, like XP could.
Vista has a DRM that is intrusive, buggy, and eats resources without showing it.
Vista has one of the largest, most RAM intensive indexing services ever created (search feature is nice looking and acting, but at a huge cost)
Vista has over 120 services devoted entirely to its own operation because it is so Ring0 dependent to keep itself stable.
Vista has horrible plug and play support, thanks to Microfail's commitment to making a "driver free" system that still relies entirely on drivers. (Yes, that doesn't make sense, if you noticed that)
Vista is unable to effectively map memory banks without using a service that in turn, consumes more RAM.
Vista has the ability to secure its root, effectively locking itself from itself (again, sense is lacking there... JUST A BIT???!?!)
Vista's UAC system restricts all services from running without acknowledgment, even those that Vista requires to perform a root task. (Sense was thrown out the window, no pun intended)

There are plenty more reasons, most very technical and on the GPU side of the table.

In short, Vista is a poorly programmed, inefficient, heaping pile of horse shit that is some excuse for an operating system. BUT HEY GUYS, IT HAS DX10!

Still want to argue that Vista is even remotely good? You will be smashed into tiny pieces if you dare try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senrath

Pity that ReadyBoost isn't as useful.

By "as useful", you of course meant completely useless. The resources Vista uses to enable and run the service typically outweigh the performance gain from said ReadyBoost. Funny enough, this is another reason Vista is bad. Vista cannot handle FLASH memory without treating it as low speed memory. GG?