Overall, 2000 is still where it's at imo. The only reason Vista even exists in my world currently is for DX10.
Overall, 2000 is still where it's at imo. The only reason Vista even exists in my world currently is for DX10.
Originally posted by: dNor
"Fair comparisons" between Windows OSes when pointing out how each one has required a system performance increase is moot; it's a simple point of "Older versions of Windows require less resources than new ones". Eli seemed to understand it. /shrug
I'd rather run 2000 than XP for that. Don't upgrade to a new OS if you don't need to is an easy rule to live by.
By your analogy up there means that your original argument comparing windows95 to windows xp is moot. I'm not Eli.
If you have a base OS that utilizes more memory rather than adding it on the heap for other apps to use then that's a pretty shitty design. I work with different OS's at work and most of my customers stay away from vista due to this very reason.
No, it's an example of a simple to understand concept. I think it's time you accepted it and moved on. :beer:
There's customers that stay away from Vista and then there's ones like mine that are fine with it and it runs perfectly for them. :laugh: That doesnt' stop the internet from bringing out people who want Microsoft slaughtered since the latest Windows is slower than the previous on their hardware. It happens every release.
Justify it all you want. It still is a shitty OS and the proof is in the pudding (Vista). No wonder MS keeps extending the deadline for XP support and is scrambling to bring Windows7 out.
RadiclDreamer
Diamond Member
- Aug 8, 2004
- 8,622
- 40
- 91
I'm still waiting on someone to tell me what new features I get out of Vista that make it worth the $300+ and headache
Your answer didn't make sense at all. He's referring to why Vista would cost $300 with piss poor memory utilization with driver headaches. Also why would it cost $300 where XP could be had for $150.
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
Yeah, you didn't understand my answer. Hint: Windows upgrades haven't been worth inflated prices and increasing headaches for nearly a decade, being conservative.
Nik
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2006
- 16,101
- 3
- 56
Re-read what I took the time to type out. Just because it's available in 64-bit doesn't mean it's only available in 64-bit. Even if it IS available in 64-bit, is there a significant performance boost or feature upgrade to warrant spending money to upgrade my hardware, buy a completely new OS, and then buy that program (for like $700, at that, too)?
No. Fail. Think before you type.
Does the 2003 Adminpak.msi not work in Vista? That's what I use in XP. It's not like I use a workstation admin pack for server admin tools. The next admin pack would probably be 2008, although I don't know if that exists.
Just like Windows 2000 users beta tested XP for everyone else. Both times it's been more of a pleasure to be the beta tester than the retail buyer.
I didn't say you had to like all these features, however they are present, as well as many other additions to the OS. Dreamscape is pretty cool as far as desktop enhancements go, I'm a gamer at heart so I turned it off, but if I was a more general user, I'd have that shit running 24/7, it's beautiful.
Search 4.0 is pretty amazing, I'm guessing you haven't used it. Searching might sound laughable to you, but one of the biggest things Mac users always mention is how easy it is to search for something in their OS, Search 4.0 was a good step in the right direction. I know where pretty much everything is on my machine, but the 4-5 searches I have had to do in Search 4.0 were amazingly quick. You probably won't hear much about Search 4.0 until it hits something like the Office environment and people realize what they are missing (it just came out a couple months back). However, if you're running XP and you think it's a perfect OS, you still cannot argue against the fact that the search engine is an abortion - even the search UI in XP is annoying.
As far as 64 bit, It allowed me to run 8GB of memory, which singlehandedly makes it the most tangible thing I could get out of an OS upgrade. Any time a 64bit version of software comes out, I make use of it, but there really hasn't been a required application. However all these people bitching about 512mb and 1gb of memory? That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from my standpoint, Vista could take several gigs at bootup and I wouldn't give a shit. It's really nice to be out from underneath the constant looming 4GB limitation of 32bit operating systems. However, it makes me lazy. I don't run any virtual memory and sometimes I don't close video games like Crysis for several days in a row because of all this extra memory I've got.
Using classic theme is great, I used to swear by that when I was on XP. But eventually you've got to move on and Vista's theme is much better. Not the Aero shit mind you, but the start menu and other aspects of it. I have the basic black Vista theme, which is very slick.
Your comment about headphones proves you don't understand the upgraded audio environment in Vista. Not only does it allow application based volume levels as someone specified, but things like FRAPS gain a benefit in performance when recording audio in Vista because of how streamlined the engine is.
Also, bootup time in Vista is lightening fast, I tend to forget to mention that because I never reboot my PC, but when I do... I get reminded of it.
Nik
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2006
- 16,101
- 3
- 56
With the exception of audio, I'm pretty familiar with Vista because of applications for work. All of that crap isn't necessary. It's all fluff. Who NEEDS more than 4 gigs of ram? Who NEEDS to be able to leave Crysis running for days on end? Who NEEDS a better system search --hell, who uses search more than once a year anyway? Who NEEDS Vista? Nobody.
My XP install boots fast. My Vista install takes forever. It's a resource hog and there's simply no denying it. Spending in the thousands to buy new hardware and an OS just so you don't have to close Crysis for days on end? Please. :roll:
Like I said, there's no reason for me to upgrade from XP.
My XP install boots fast. My Vista install takes forever. It's a resource hog and there's simply no denying it. Spending in the thousands to buy new hardware and an OS just so you don't have to close Crysis for days on end? Please. :roll:
Like I said, there's no reason for me to upgrade from XP.
There is something wonderful about having to hit alt-tab and, without any hesitation, having a full blown game come popping right back to the fore front and continuing where you left off.
Hell, sometimes I leave audiosurf running while I play a completely different game. The luxuries of available memory is an amazing thing. Think of it like leaving Outlook open even though you are currently working in Excel.
Why is your argument about needing something? This discussion was about people's misconception that Vista sucks, that it is somehow broken in some manner. Not that anyone needs it. You don't even need XP.
- Jun 10, 2004
- 14,604
- 6,091
- 136
I don't know why you folks are having performance issues with Vista.
I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and have no beef with the performance. While I do have some quibbles with the OS as a consumer OS it has worked fine for me (well, except for the Pharos Internet printing system... but that's the vendor's fault for not having proper 64-bit Vista support). I have my own printer so using the university print system is not that big of an issue to me. I like that I don't have to fuss with drivers and such for my electronic devices. So far no compatibility issues either.
I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and have no beef with the performance. While I do have some quibbles with the OS as a consumer OS it has worked fine for me (well, except for the Pharos Internet printing system... but that's the vendor's fault for not having proper 64-bit Vista support). I have my own printer so using the university print system is not that big of an issue to me. I like that I don't have to fuss with drivers and such for my electronic devices. So far no compatibility issues either.
Raduque
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2004
- 13,140
- 138
- 106
Let's take your logic a step further:
Who NEEDS 4gb of ram? Who needs 2gb, hell, who NEEDS more than 512mb ram? Who NEEDS to leave any app running, period?
Searching is a very convenient thing. When you have 1.4tb (let me guess, who NEEDS 1.4tb too, right Nik?) fast searching is a wonderful thing.
How fast does your XP install boot? I bet my Vista boots faster. Vista Ultimate on my laptop goes from off to desktop in about 20 seconds, and it's a 5400rpm drive.
Originally posted by: Nik
I actually do need XP, thanks. Why do you have to bitch at me? All I said was there's no reason for me to upgrade from XP to Vista and people are jumping all over my balls for it. If you don't like it, you can fuck right off.
The reason is you're using your personal situation as some argument for why Vista shouldn't even exist and that there's no reason anyone else should want to use it either. Needless to say that is just stupid. Hell, I doubt you need plenty of things that you have on your XP install, yet you're not bitching about all of them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter