Curse

DarkNecrid · Oct 09, 2008, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senrath

Yeah, but Vista doesn't run perfectly on Day 1 for the average user. For the average user, they will find that a lot of their programs don't work, that Vista boots up slowly, and, if they have a lot of pictures or other large files, that Windows Indexing will really slow things down.

-Vista has better compatibility modes than Windows XP does actually, all of their programs should work in XP Compatibility. (in fact I have yet to find one that doesn't, and I've tried really hard.)
-Vista will boot up at the same speed as Windows XP does, assuming it isn't their first time booting it up (which takes long no matter the OS.)
-The average user just buys a brand new PC with Windows Vista already on it, not upgrade the OS (which is how I'm assuming you have tons of pictures and other large files ready to go), just like your average car user doesn't BUY NEW ENGINE unless if they need it to fix their car. However, assuming they did upgrade their OS, this is a non-issue anyways as Windows Search indexes all the files during installation, so after it does its thing, and they are already in Vista, they won't have a "Windows Indexing really slowing things" because it's already indexed everything it needs to.

Senrath · Oct 09, 2008, 08:58 PM // 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

-Vista has better compatibility modes than Windows XP does actually, all of their programs should work in XP Compatibility. (in fact I have yet to find one that doesn't, and I've tried really hard.)

As part of my job at one point I had to test the software we used for compatibility with Vista. Only 2 of the 10 worked properly. The others ran for the most part, but had some serious errors when certain actions were taken that crashed the programs. In XP compatibility mode as well. These programs worked fine under XP.

Quote:

-Vista will boot up at the same speed as Windows XP does, assuming it isn't their first time booting it up (which takes long no matter the OS.)

In my experience even on the same machine vista boots up 10-20 seconds slower on average (not including differences due to machine specs).

Quote:

-The average user just buys a brand new PC with Windows Vista already on it, not upgrade the OS (which is how I'm assuming you have tons of pictures and other large files ready to go), just like your average car user doesn't BUY NEW ENGINE unless if they need it to fix their car. However, assuming they did upgrade their OS, this is a non-issue anyways as Windows Search indexes all the files during installation, so after it does its thing, and they are already in Vista, they won't have a "Windows Indexing really slowing things" because it's already indexed everything it needs to.

Because the installation indexing can totally index files that aren't on the machine during install. The scenario I was describing was a new computer, and a bunch of pictures on discs, etc being loaded onto it.

DarkNecrid · Oct 09, 2008, 09:25 PM // 21:25

-What programs?

-This really depends if you're dumb and have 600 things opening when the thing boots or not, tbh. I've cut all the stupid shit out and it loads MAYBE a second or two slower than an XP. MAYBE. Not enough for me to care anyways. In fact, I'm going to go time it now right after this post and I'll edit in how long it takes my machine to boot.
-Indexing is relatively fast for when you're moving things onto the machine. Big files or not. I mean, maybe if you're moving 2 entire dual sided DVDs worth of content, a card full of high def camera pics, and all the files on a flash drive AT THE SAME TIME maybe it'd be slow, but I've moved an entire DVD's worth of content and indexing is relatively fast and doesn't slow the machine down in any way.

EDIT:
Exactly 18 seconds compared to my XP's 15. Not going to kill me any to wait a whole 3 seconds, especially since my rig is normally on all the time anyways, usually doing crunching for medical facilities.

Senrath · Oct 09, 2008, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

-What programs?

-This really depends if you're dumb and have 600 things opening when the thing boots or not, tbh. I've cut all the stupid shit out and it loads MAYBE a second or two slower than an XP. MAYBE. Not enough for me to care anyways. In fact, I'm going to go time it now right after this post and I'll edit in how long it takes my machine to boot.
-Indexing is relatively fast for when you're moving things onto the machine. Big files or not. I mean, maybe if you're moving 2 entire dual sided DVDs worth of content, a card full of high def camera pics, and all the files on a flash drive AT THE SAME TIME maybe it'd be slow, but I've moved an entire DVD's worth of content and indexing is relatively fast and doesn't slow the machine down in any way.

Mostly assistive technology programs. I can't remember which ones they were, but they were things like screen readers and speech to text, and things like that.

And once again, you're changing the default specifications of the operating system. Try timing it between a clean default install of XP and a clean default install of Vista.

And whats the specifications of your machine? That makes a big difference.

DarkNecrid · Oct 09, 2008, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senrath

Mostly assistive technology programs. I can't remember which ones they were, but they were things like screen readers and speech to text, and things like that.

And once again, you're changing the default specifications of the operating system. Try timing it between a clean default install of XP and a clean default install of Vista.

And whats the specifications of your machine? That makes a big difference.

i'm using a dual booted Windows XP & Windows Vista with 2GB of RAM and an 8600GT, 2.0Ghz, single core. It's my old rig.

my current rig that I got financial help on building loads it a lot faster than that but it'd be an unfair comparison since this rig is rather out of reach for the average user money wise and performance and thus not in their interests anyways.

I see about your programs failing, but really the average home owner won't have that stuff. Compatibility mode works for that type of stuff a lot more than what you tested. :x

EDIT:
wow thats the weirdest error ever its telling me I need mod approval to post.

Lord Sojar · Oct 10, 2008, 06:03 AM // 06:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by legless477

To the idiots who think that vista is bad.

When your computer is upgraded to the needed specs 64bit vista is THE BEST OS you can buy.

If your computer is crashing when you have the needed hardware it means you have a Trojan that vista blocks and the Trojan RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOs your comp up but vista wont let that happen to it restarts or freezes your computer to prevent damage.

Vista Is the Best. You are at fault if your comp screws up. You downloaded the virus and/or don't have the right virus protection software. You bought the product without having the correct hardware. Don't call vista bad because you are a idiot. pce

In the words of Kevin Spacey:

"WROONNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG!!!!!"

some guy · Oct 10, 2008, 06:28 AM // 06:28

Modded XP themes + Rainmeter = Vista

Abedeus · Oct 10, 2008, 01:12 PM // 13:12

Quote:

To the idiots who think that vista is good.

Quote:

the idiots

Quote:

idiot

Quote:

you are a idiot.

And what Ranja's title says:

Quote:

You're still an idiot

And you fail.

Snograt · Oct 10, 2008, 09:37 PM // 21:37

There is a good reason to buy Vista: the 64-bit version. Why? Because the only alternative is XP x64 and that really is shit.

Don't go giving me any of that Mac or RISC bollocks either.

Kanyatta · Oct 11, 2008, 06:19 AM // 06:19

I can say with a pretty good amount of certainty that the 9 bytes/sec either lasted 3 seconds and you got a good screencap, or your computer is too crappy to run Vista, or you have a virus, or you were also downloading 85GB of pr0nz at the same time (or something equally intrusive).

I personally don't run Vista, because I know my computer is not good enough to handle it, and I don't have $150 laying around for Vista, or $1000 for a new machine. I personally use it every day at school and love the fruxing shat out of it. We don't have beastly rigs or anything, but the whole OS is just so much more streamlined and easy to use compared to XP, once you get the handle on it. The administrators say it's a bitch to network, but I've personally never had a problem doing anything on the user end.

Office 2007 is also probably the coolest thing to ever come out for a home computer ever. I can't handle running '03 on my home computer anymore.

To anyone that hates Vista: Wait for SP2, even XP wasn't good until then.

Also, I would say the #1 reason for people hating Vista is the fact that they are too stupid to use a computer. Reason #2 would be the specs.

Lord Sojar · Oct 11, 2008, 06:30 AM // 06:30

No service pack can fix what I have mentioned unless the service pack completely changes ring0 in Vista, which would require millions of man hours of reprogramming. Windows7 would take less time.

And if we continue this thread with any more pro-vista business, I will be forced to shoot more people with the Factshotgun. It will be bloody and horrible.

Abedeus · Oct 11, 2008, 07:26 AM // 07:26

Quote:

To anyone that hates Vista: Wait for SP2, even XP wasn't good until then.

They had over... 6 years? to make Vista good. Why would you assume it will be better (hehehe) after SP2?

And just to remind you - XP wasn't even half as bad as Vista before it's SP2.

Senrath · Oct 11, 2008, 09:47 AM // 09:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

Also, I would say the #1 reason for people hating Vista is the fact that they are too stupid to use a computer. Reason #2 would be the specs.

Actually, I'd say the #1 reason for people hating Vista is, as Rahja, myself, and many others have been saying, because Vista is a horrible, horrible piece of software.

Turbobusa · Oct 11, 2008, 10:35 AM // 10:35

While some of the features are annoying, some are great, and I'm still able to play and work with it with no problem at all.
I don't really care about how it manages dual core systems or RAM or w/e, it works.
No real advantage over XP, but hey, I'm still able to work.
From a basic user POV, Vista does what it's supposed to do.

Abedeus · Oct 11, 2008, 02:29 PM // 14:29

Quote:

From a basic user POV, Vista does what it's supposed to do.

If by "what it's supposed to do" you mean lag horribly, force you to buy better rig and it prevents you from installing and using older software and hardware, in exchange for... better looks that can be achieved by modifications?

For example, right now I'm using the Vista menu and used to use the clock add-on, but it was eating too much memory and caused some minor lag while playing PC-demanding games. But this way I could install the Object Dock application. Frees up my desktop, allows me to quickly open applications I often use and I can finally enjoy all wallpapers without worrying about them being obstructed.

Vista = Beta Windows 7. Maybe W7 will be good, who knows. But Vista is a lost cause and anyone supporting or buying it is a moron.

/thread.

Turbobusa · Oct 11, 2008, 05:41 PM // 17:41

I don't know, I can start 2 games and have my PCB router&schematic editor work in the background with no lag. Using a laptop, using aero theme, no gadgets.

Your super explanation to the fact that it runs fine on my PC and not on yours is?

Abedeus · Oct 12, 2008, 07:15 AM // 07:15

Maybe you traveled to the future and you already use Vista SP3 or those 2 games are from 99'-03' where games don't require almost any GPU usage.

Or you paid $10000 for your laptop/are a liar.

Lord Sojar · Oct 12, 2008, 07:38 AM // 07:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbobusa

I don't know, I can start 2 games and have my PCB router&schematic editor work in the background with no lag. Using a laptop, using aero theme, no gadgets.

Your super explanation to the fact that it runs fine on my PC and not on yours is?

Here is my super explanation:

Your laptop may run Vista with relative ease. Your laptop would gain 300-400% performance boosts by running XP Pro SP3.

Do I win yet?

Some of you need to lookup the word EFFICIENCY.

DarkNecrid · Oct 12, 2008, 07:44 AM // 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Here is my super explanation:

Your laptop may run Vista with relative ease. Your laptop would gain 300-400% performance boosts by running XP Pro SP3.

Do I win yet?

Some of you need to lookup the word EFFICIENCY.

You'd gain a 1500%+ performance boost by running Windows 1.0 too.

edit:
and yes for the silly people that was a joke

Lord Sojar · Oct 12, 2008, 07:45 AM // 07:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

You'd gain a 1500%+ performance boost by running Windows 1.0 too.

edit:
and yes for the silly people that was a joke

Explain what you gain by switching to Vista from XP besides DX10. Go ahead, I will be waiting in the corner.