Windows 7 will be released

[Lord Banshee]

I think vista is great, no problem since Jan 07 except for graphics card driver and even that was minimal.

About people saying ram of vista and office07 is too much? I have 3 different firefox's open, couple folders, a word07 document with 22 pages with tons of uncompressed bitmaps images & visio graphs, winamp, Norton anti-virus, hamachi, and of coarse windows task manager running (machine has been running all day with other programs like matlab and audacity from earlier). Vista reports it is using 0.99GB out of my 2.0GB and cache the rest. How is 1GB a lot with and after all that abuse? And that current open programs i do not see a typical computer user doing more than that anyway. Also, this machine as not been reformatted for at least 10 months and i have all kinds of programs install( <2GB left on OS drive) but it runs as slick as ice. I am 99% sure XP would be running like crap if it was run though the same thing all day and having all the programs i have installed. Maybe XP would only use a total of 700MB instead of 1000GB at my current runtime but if you can not afford $30 1GB ram stick (only needing 1/3 of that, so really $10) then why did you upgrade to vista in the first place where it starts at $100 dollars.

Also for all my friends that i have gotten to give vista a "REAL" attempt they tell me they can not go back to XP. Most reasons being vista is a polished version of XP (in terms of interface/ OS function) and they have no need to backtrack.

 

[seemingly random]

I don't get why some are being evangelical about vista. If some like, fine. If others don't, fine. What does it matter?

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I don't get why some are being evangelical about vista. If some like, fine. If others don't, fine. What does it matter?

Boy, you make it clear that you are new here.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Bullshit. Unless they're planning on making people pay for Windows Vista SP2 by calling it "Windows 7", they'll never make a 2009 deadline. Hell... they don't even have a beta for Windows 7 released yet! Keep in mind that the beta test cycle for Vista lasted for almost TWO YEARS, and still somehow got shipped with some serious bugs and lousy drivers.

Mark my words... Windows 7 won't ship until early 2011 if not later. They learned their lesson from Vista, and will make sure that STABLE drivers will be available for most major products on it's release date. That means an even longer test cycle than Vista with multiple release candidates.

Windows Seven will not be the first time service pack is sold as a new version.

98 was basically a service pack to 95

98SE was basically a service pack to 98

Win ME was basically a service pack to 98SE

XP was basically a service pack to 2000

Windows Seven will following the same pattern that Microsoft had developed prior to XP SP2. It was heatedly debated by the board of directors at Microsoft that SP2 for XP should be released as a new version. Jim Allichin was the man responsible for convincing the board, including Gates and Balmer to the idea that SP2 should be offered for free. This was purely for public relation reasons due to Windows lackluster security model prior to SP2.

With all that said, I will not be surprised if Windows Seven is available for the holiday season next year. That will make it three years since Vista went RTM so this is not out of the realm of possibility. From the reports so far out of Microsoft, it looks like Windows Seven is a minor update to the Vista/Server 2008 code base.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Bah... not buying it. Windows 2000 was a far bigger revamp of Windows than Vista was, as it was the first consumer version * of Windows that used the NT kernel. Before then, every consumer version of Windows still had DOS underpinnings and wasn't even remotely stable compared to their business products.

Manufacturers had over a year with the 2000/XP code base before XP was released. This gave the hardware manufacturers a lot more lead time to develop drivers for XP and software companies to prepare for the switch to the NT code base on the consumer level.

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Windows Vista wasn't much more than Windows XP with some added features and some (poorly implemented, in my opinion) changes in the network and multimedia interfaces. How they screwed it up as badly as they did still amazes me.

This is so obviously wrong why bother to explain again for the millionth time the truth? Go ahead and continue to convince yourself this is the truth. The fact is Vista is almost as big of a change as XP was to the 9X code base. The driver, network and sound stacks now belonging in the user space alone makes this true of Vista.

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
* Keep in mind that Windows 2000 was a business release. There was no "Windows 2000 Home Edition", or many consumer desktops that shipped with the OS.

Yes there was. It was called Windows XP Home and Professional. Win 2000 was Windows 5.0 and XP was 5.1. They are practically the same code base.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, if MS actually release something that help running my apps faster, like those new CPU does, I'd have no problem with them releasing OS every year like CPU companies. All MS does is adding features I don't need, rewriting stuff that already works and make hardware companies re-write their drivers and introduce possible imcompatibilities, oh and not only there is no performance gain with the new drivers, you'd be lucky to get new drivers that performs as good as the one on the old OS.

You guys can feel good and happy about new OS'es and whatever new features MS decide to feed down your throat. I just want OS that runs fast, efficient, and work with the hardware/softwares out there. Any features I'd want I will do my own research and decide on the best companies out there that that provides those features.

Yes, we all know Microsoft develops their new operating systems specifically to piss you off with new features you don't need. They rewrote the driver stack just to make your life a living nightmare. I heard a Microsoft employee say specifically "Vista needs to run dog slow on any computer that rchiu owns as revenge for pissing Gates and Balmer off!"

What did you do to piss Gates and Balmer off?

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I don't get why some are being evangelical about vista. If some like, fine. If others don't, fine. What does it matter?

It's not about being evangelical. I could give a rat's ass what OS a person uses, but the contortions woven to show how bad Vista is are maddening in their FUD content.

We'll start with the Driver Argument. How is MS responsible for crappy driver writers? Why is it MS's responsiblity to write the drivers for other people's hardware. The Vista driver model was pretty much fixed a year befor release. The only major component that got changed relatively late was audio. The old model was still supported, but would lack new features. Nothing stopped the audio driver writers from writing from the old model, with reduced funtionality, and releasing newer one's later. Diminished functionality sucks, but basic sound would work. But no, instead they throw out old drivers to start new drivers for the new model. Why? MS made it clear that the old model would work.

The video stack was pretty much finalized 15 months before release. That nVidia was able to show their poor programming skills is not MS's fault.

The RAM Argument. What is it that makes the Superfetch concept so difficult to understand? Take away the cached memory and Vista and XP have very similiar footprints. However, Vista will make use of your idle memory. Through a rather simple algorithm, Superfetch figures out your typical usage and pre-loads program segments into idle memory. This helps with "the snappy". If a program needs that idle memory, it is immediately given to the program.

The UAC Argument. Security is a problem with Windows machines. Windows comprises approx. 97% of desktops. The largest vector for infection is idiot users. If you have ever used SELinux and dealt with SUDO, then you understand UAC, and will appreciate it. When or if Linux and OSX reach a large enough audience, the same vector will be there for them, idiot users.

The No Business is jumping on Vista Argument. Here's a clue, maintaining an enterprise organization is expensive. If your primary output as a business is Office documents and CADD, why would you jump on every new OS release? The company I work for just standardized on XP 2 years ago. We just moved from Office 2000 to Office 2003 in October 2007. Given the current economical outlook in the US, I suspect there will be only a slow migration to Vista. It's the Economy. Ironically, every new laptop we purchase comes with a Vista license, and a standard XP image is formatted onto the drive, so MS gets to show a Vista sell, but we are using our XP client license. This will probably change when XP is officially unsupported.

The Vista is Slower than XP Argument. If you're comparing Vista on a P4 with 512k RAM, yea, XP wins. However, on newer hardware with 1 or 2 GB RAM, the difference is only measurable by a benchmark. The only place I see a difference is with network file transfers, and while SP1 addressed that, I think there is still some work to be done. I run Vista on a C2 DUO T7200 laptop with 2GB RAM. I'm the only person in the office, and probably in the company, running Vista. I know the IT guy very well, he thinks I'm competent (fool!), but has made it clear, I'm on my own for support. I just re-installed XP on an identical laptop for him and the performance diffence is negligible. But the Vista UX blows XP out of the water. I am able to work faster in Vista.

The Vista took too long and has no improvements Argument. Yes, Vista took 6 years to release, however it was pretty much ready in 2003, but then came the reset. Why did the reset occur? Because MS realised that security is more than lip service, and the code had to be tightened up. This is a good thing. Does anyone remember the XP release? Has history been revised that much? XP, pre-SP1, was a disaster. Not only were there driver issues, but the code was Swiss Cheese. Stability was horrible. For a release 1 product, Vista has been extremely stable. A few real bugs, especially the file copy issue, but beyond that, what's the problem? As far as no new improvements, the integrated search, Superfetch and display driver model are huge. The new network stack is fast and efficient, wireless connectivity much improved and of course the compositing engine. yea, nothing new under the hood.

Just my $0.02

PhreePhly

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I don't get why some are being evangelical about vista. If some like, fine. If others don't, fine. What does it matter?

Boy, you make it clear that you are new here.

Stating simpleton stuff might give some pause to reflect on the intensity of their words and thoughts. I'm pretty much os agnostic - they're all interesting and each has it's place. I used to have fun with mac and unix zealots in the late eighty's - like throwing a tennis ball up in between a doberman and shepherd.

But seriously, when an evangelist gets too strident their motives become suspect.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: PhreePhly

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I don't get why some are being evangelical about vista. If some like, fine. If others don't, fine. What does it matter?

It's not about being evangelical. I could give a rat's ass what OS a person uses, but the contortions woven to show how bad Vista is are maddening in their FUD content.

We'll start with the Driver Argument. How is MS responsible for crappy driver writers? Why is it MS's responsiblity to write the drivers for other people's hardware. The Vista driver model was pretty much fixed a year befor release. The only major component that got changed relatively late was audio. The old model was still supported, but would lack new features. Nothing stopped the audio driver writers from writing from the old model, with reduced funtionality, and releasing newer one's later. Diminished functionality sucks, but basic sound would work. But no, instead they throw out old drivers to start new drivers for the new model. Why? MS made it clear that the old model would work.

The video stack was pretty much finalized 15 months before release. That nVidia was able to show their poor programming skills is not MS's fault.

The RAM Argument. What is it that makes the Superfetch concept so difficult to understand? Take away the cached memory and Vista and XP have very similiar footprints. However, Vista will make use of your idle memory. Through a rather simple algorithm, Superfetch figures out your typical usage and pre-loads program segments into idle memory. This helps with "the snappy". If a program needs that idle memory, it is immediately given to the program.

The UAC Argument. Security is a problem with Windows machines. Windows comprises approx. 97% of desktops. The largest vector for infection is idiot users. If you have ever used SELinux and dealt with SUDO, then you understand UAC, and will appreciate it. When or if Linux and OSX reach a large enough audience, the same vector will be there for them, idiot users.

The No Business is jumping on Vista Argument. Here's a clue, maintaining an enterprise organization is expensive. If your primary output as a business is Office documents and CADD, why would you jump on every new OS release? The company I work for just standardized on XP 2 years ago. We just moved from Office 2000 to Office 2003 in October 2007. Given the current economical outlook in the US, I suspect there will be only a slow migration to Vista. It's the Economy. Ironically, every new laptop we purchase comes with a Vista license, and a standard XP image is formatted onto the drive, so MS gets to show a Vista sell, but we are using our XP client license. This will probably change when XP is officially unsupported.

The Vista is Slower than XP Argument. If you're comparing Vista on a P4 with 512k RAM, yea, XP wins. However, on newer hardware with 1 or 2 GB RAM, the difference is only measurable by a benchmark. The only place I see a difference is with network file transfers, and while SP1 addressed that, I think there is still some work to be done. I run Vista on a C2 DUO T7200 laptop with 2GB RAM. I'm the only person in the office, and probably in the company, running Vista. I know the IT guy very well, he thinks I'm competent (fool!), but has made it clear, I'm on my own for support. I just re-installed XP on an identical laptop for him and the performance diffence is negligible. But the Vista UX blows XP out of the water. I am able to work faster in Vista.

The Vista took too long and has no improvements Argument. Yes, Vista took 6 years to release, however it was pretty much ready in 2003, but then came the reset. Why did the reset occur? Because MS realised that security is more than lip service, and the code had to be tightened up. This is a good thing. Does anyone remember the XP release? Has history been revised that much? XP, pre-SP1, was a disaster. Not only were there driver issues, but the code was Swiss Cheese. Stability was horrible. For a release 1 product, Vista has been extremely stable. A few real bugs, especially the file copy issue, but beyond that, what's the problem? As far as no new improvements, the integrated search, Superfetch and display driver model are huge. The new network stack is fast and efficient, wireless connectivity much improved and of course the compositing engine. yea, nothing new under the hood.

Just my $0.02

PhreePhly

What FUD are you talking about, they are all real issues. First about driver, who cares whose fault is it. All we end user care about is if something works or not, it doesn't matter if it's Vista or company XYZ. And with Vista, the probability something won't work because of driver is higher then XP period, that's all we care about.

Then the ram, you yourself acknowledge that with 512mb, xp is faster. Not everyone bought PC in the last year or two you know, and plenty of people don't even know or dare to open their box to add memory.

Then the UAC, sure security is important, but how Vista implement it is idiotic. Is there a need to ask user everytime he/she does something? I work with Unix, a much more secured OS and even Unix is not that anal in asking for everything like an idiot.

Then the business argument, they don't upgrade to vista for the precise reason why lots of us are not going to vista. It doesn't bring any tangible benefit for the cost.

Then the Vista is slower thing, so you are saying after putting in 1~2gb, the best vista can do is run as fast as xp when it is suppose to be new and we have to pay extra money to upgrade?

Yeap, vista got lots of new stuff under the hood, but what is better? Loading program faster? Yay, that's huge. Bloated desktop search where they go access HDD every freaking sec? New network stack with worse networking performance? New audio stack that doesn't work with tons of audio cards out there? Geeks are happy to use the latest and the greatest, but for the rest of us, we prefer something that actually benefit us in the real life.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: PhreePhly

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I don't get why some are being evangelical about vista. If some like, fine. If others don't, fine. What does it matter?

It's not about being evangelical. I could give a rat's ass what OS a person uses, but the contortions woven to show how bad Vista is are maddening in their FUD content.

We'll start with the Driver Argument. How is MS responsible for crappy driver writers? Why is it MS's responsiblity to write the drivers for other people's hardware. The Vista driver model was pretty much fixed a year befor release. The only major component that got changed relatively late was audio. The old model was still supported, but would lack new features. Nothing stopped the audio driver writers from writing from the old model, with reduced funtionality, and releasing newer one's later. Diminished functionality sucks, but basic sound would work. But no, instead they throw out old drivers to start new drivers for the new model. Why? MS made it clear that the old model would work.

The video stack was pretty much finalized 15 months before release. That nVidia was able to show their poor programming skills is not MS's fault.

The RAM Argument. What is it that makes the Superfetch concept so difficult to understand? Take away the cached memory and Vista and XP have very similiar footprints. However, Vista will make use of your idle memory. Through a rather simple algorithm, Superfetch figures out your typical usage and pre-loads program segments into idle memory. This helps with "the snappy". If a program needs that idle memory, it is immediately given to the program.

The UAC Argument. Security is a problem with Windows machines. Windows comprises approx. 97% of desktops. The largest vector for infection is idiot users. If you have ever used SELinux and dealt with SUDO, then you understand UAC, and will appreciate it. When or if Linux and OSX reach a large enough audience, the same vector will be there for them, idiot users.

The No Business is jumping on Vista Argument. Here's a clue, maintaining an enterprise organization is expensive. If your primary output as a business is Office documents and CADD, why would you jump on every new OS release? The company I work for just standardized on XP 2 years ago. We just moved from Office 2000 to Office 2003 in October 2007. Given the current economical outlook in the US, I suspect there will be only a slow migration to Vista. It's the Economy. Ironically, every new laptop we purchase comes with a Vista license, and a standard XP image is formatted onto the drive, so MS gets to show a Vista sell, but we are using our XP client license. This will probably change when XP is officially unsupported.

The Vista is Slower than XP Argument. If you're comparing Vista on a P4 with 512k RAM, yea, XP wins. However, on newer hardware with 1 or 2 GB RAM, the difference is only measurable by a benchmark. The only place I see a difference is with network file transfers, and while SP1 addressed that, I think there is still some work to be done. I run Vista on a C2 DUO T7200 laptop with 2GB RAM. I'm the only person in the office, and probably in the company, running Vista. I know the IT guy very well, he thinks I'm competent (fool!), but has made it clear, I'm on my own for support. I just re-installed XP on an identical laptop for him and the performance diffence is negligible. But the Vista UX blows XP out of the water. I am able to work faster in Vista.

The Vista took too long and has no improvements Argument. Yes, Vista took 6 years to release, however it was pretty much ready in 2003, but then came the reset. Why did the reset occur? Because MS realised that security is more than lip service, and the code had to be tightened up. This is a good thing. Does anyone remember the XP release? Has history been revised that much? XP, pre-SP1, was a disaster. Not only were there driver issues, but the code was Swiss Cheese. Stability was horrible. For a release 1 product, Vista has been extremely stable. A few real bugs, especially the file copy issue, but beyond that, what's the problem? As far as no new improvements, the integrated search, Superfetch and display driver model are huge. The new network stack is fast and efficient, wireless connectivity much improved and of course the compositing engine. yea, nothing new under the hood.

Just my $0.02

PhreePhly

What FUD are you talking about, they are all real issues. First about driver, who cares whose fault is it. All we end user care about is if something works or not, it doesn't matter if it's Vista or company XYZ. And with Vista, the probability something won't work because of driver is higher then XP period, that's all we care about.

Then the ram, you yourself acknowledge that with 512mb, xp is faster. Not everyone bought PC in the last year or two you know, and plenty of people don't even know or dare to open their box to add memory.

Then the UAC, sure security is important, but how Vista implement it is idiotic. Is there a need to ask user everytime he/she does something? I work with Unix, a much more secured OS and even Unix is not that anal in asking for everything like an idiot.

Then the business argument, they don't upgrade to vista for the precise reason why lots of us are not going to vista. It doesn't bring any tangible benefit for the cost.

Then the Vista is slower thing, so you are saying after putting in 1~2gb, the best vista can do is run as fast as xp when it is suppose to be new and we have to pay extra money to upgrade?

Yeap, vista got lots of new stuff under the hood, but what is better? Loading program faster? Yay, that's huge. Bloated desktop search where they go access HDD every freaking sec? New network stack with worse networking performance? New audio stack that doesn't work with tons of audio cards out there? Geeks are happy to use the latest and the greatest, but for the rest of us, we prefer something that actually benefit us in the real life.

It works both ways,personally I don't have any driver issues with Vista,actually I do with XP on my mums XP PC with a wireless network driver,but then I would never blame XP for a driver problem,its really is down to hardware company in question.

UAC well you really can't get more simple then that,however there are options available even UAC tweak programs that are free,some people are never happy,you was talking about 512mb ram,funny how XP was designed for 128mb/256mb when it was first released and now most XP users are on 512mb -1GB or even more(anybody knows XP really needs 512mb minimum nowadays,runs like crap with 256mb which it was designed for),ram goalposts do seem to move with time regardless of OS in question.

As to HD activity funny how people keep making FUD about it being active most times,bottomline its not,mine is idle right now and stays idle most times,you'll find its most active on initial startup.
As to speed well I don't notice anything in gaming or general use.

Nobody is saying go and buy Vista ,I just wish all the Vista FUD would stop,95% of it is unfounded and BS.

Then the Vista is slower thing, so you are saying after putting in 1~2gb, the best vista can do is run as fast as xp when it is suppose to be new and we have to pay extra money to upgrade?

Obviously ram demand increases with time remember old DOS 4mb days?..Remember how XP was using 128/256mb in its early days now we are on around 1GB for average user etc..
Unlike XP when it was first released,ram prices are a lot cheaper nowadays,even cheaper then the OS for the most part.

You always have to pay for upgrades,its not just about speed.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: rchiu

What FUD are you talking about, they are all real issues. First about driver, who cares whose fault is it. All we end user care about is if something works or not, it doesn't matter if it's Vista or company XYZ. And with Vista, the probability something won't work because of driver is higher then XP period, that's all we care about.

So what about the probability that something won't work due to a driver issue. This was true for XP at this stage in it's life cycle, so this is not something unique to Vista. Here is a little tip, don't upgrade to Vista until you are willing to buy a new computer and printer and invest in some new software. This tip will solve 99% of the issues people have with Vista.

Originally posted by: rchiu
Then the ram, you yourself acknowledge that with 512mb, xp is faster. Not everyone bought PC in the last year or two you know, and plenty of people don't even know or dare to open their box to add memory.

If a person is too stupid to figure out how to upgrade their RAM, they are too stupid to be buying and installing Vista. In fact I dare say that upgrading a existing computer to Vista is the furthest thing from these peoples mind. They are much more worried about who the winner of American Idol is going to be than if they should run Vista.

Originally posted by: rchiu
Then the UAC, sure security is important, but how Vista implement it is idiotic. Is there a need to ask user everytime he/she does something? I work with Unix, a much more secured OS and even Unix is not that anal in asking for everything like an idiot.

Bullshit!

UAC rarely bothers you after setting up your PC. It is hardly the annoyance you are making it out to be and is not any more annoying that a prompt for the root password on Unix. In fact it is less annoying because you don't need to remember the Admin password if you are running on the admin account.

Originally posted by: rchiu
Then the business argument, they don't upgrade to vista for the precise reason why lots of us are not going to vista. It doesn't bring any tangible benefit for the cost.

Why should businesses who just upgraded to XP in the last couple of years jump to Vista? Business don't stay profitable by dumping good equipment every time a new operating system upgrade comes out. There is plenty of tangible stuff for businesses to upgrade to Vista for. The better security model and improved stability of Vista alone are good reasons to upgrade. Businesses upgrade in cycles, so as these cycles come around businesses will upgrade to Vista. In fact, many are already starting to upgrade to Vista.

Originally posted by: rchiu
Then the Vista is slower thing, so you are saying after putting in 1~2gb, the best vista can do is run as fast as xp when it is suppose to be new and we have to pay extra money to upgrade?

Except for the file copy bugs (SP! addresses most of these) I dare say most users will never notice the difference in speed between Vista and XP while using their applications. The reasons they won't is the speed differences are so small most are measured in milliseconds.

Vista is not about a speedier operating system anyhow. Only geeks care about raw speed. End users want features and consider them a part of the operating system. This is what Vista is about.

Originally posted by: rchiu
Yeap, vista got lots of new stuff under the hood, but what is better? Loading program faster? Yay, that's huge. Bloated desktop search where they go access HDD every freaking sec? New network stack with worse networking performance? New audio stack that doesn't work with tons of audio cards out there? Geeks are happy to use the latest and the greatest, but for the rest of us, we prefer something that actually benefit us in the real life.

1. Loading Programs Faster: What hypocrisy you are spewing here. You complain that Vista is slower than XP, but when Vista is faster at something than XP you proclaim whoopdedoo. I have a tip for you, loading programs faster is a huge improvement over XP.

2. Desktop Search: You claim it is bloated, yet you can trim it down as thin as you want in the indexing options under the control panel. In fact you can even limit the file types searched and exclude any folder or document you want. The indexing service in Vista only accesses the hard drive to rebuild the index when changes have been made. It rarely bothers you after the initial building of the index.

3. New network stack: This comment shows how little you know about the changes in Vista. The network stack was rewritten and moved to the user space to improve the reliability of Windows when a network driver crashes. It also improves security by giving malware less access directly to the kernel. Most of the issues with poor network performance have been fixed in SP1. The one big remaining issue is not related to the network stack but is related to the MMCS service in Vista. The MMCS service is being rewritten to dynamical adjust itself according to the speed of the computer you have. The fix for this should be out some time this year.

4. New Audio Stack: Lets get one thing straight right off the bat. The only sound card company having issues with Vista is Creative. All the others including Asus have their shit together and have all their features working in Vista, without forcing the users to pay extra or jump through hoops. Creative is the one who sucks here, because they have not figured out how to deal with a driver that runs in the user space instead of attached to the kernel. The audio stack needs to be in the user space, since this is a major cause of crashes and will be lees likely to bring the entire system down. It also improves security as this is one less hole for malware writers to exploit.

5. Geeks and the latest and greatest: Umm, if you don't care what geeks think, then why are you here arguing with them about Vista? How is it that you coming here to the operating system forum and declaring your hate for Vista going to benefit you? I just don't get people like you one bit.

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: PhreePhly

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I don't get why some are being evangelical about vista. If some like, fine. If others don't, fine. What does it matter?

It's not about being evangelical. I could give a rat's ass what OS a person uses, but the contortions woven to show how bad Vista is are maddening in their FUD content.

We'll start with the Driver Argument. How is MS responsible for crappy driver writers? Why is it MS's responsiblity to write the drivers for other people's hardware. The Vista driver model was pretty much fixed a year befor release. The only major component that got changed relatively late was audio. The old model was still supported, but would lack new features. Nothing stopped the audio driver writers from writing from the old model, with reduced funtionality, and releasing newer one's later. Diminished functionality sucks, but basic sound would work. But no, instead they throw out old drivers to start new drivers for the new model. Why? MS made it clear that the old model would work.

The video stack was pretty much finalized 15 months before release. That nVidia was able to show their poor programming skills is not MS's fault.

The RAM Argument. What is it that makes the Superfetch concept so difficult to understand? Take away the cached memory and Vista and XP have very similiar footprints. However, Vista will make use of your idle memory. Through a rather simple algorithm, Superfetch figures out your typical usage and pre-loads program segments into idle memory. This helps with "the snappy". If a program needs that idle memory, it is immediately given to the program.

The UAC Argument. Security is a problem with Windows machines. Windows comprises approx. 97% of desktops. The largest vector for infection is idiot users. If you have ever used SELinux and dealt with SUDO, then you understand UAC, and will appreciate it. When or if Linux and OSX reach a large enough audience, the same vector will be there for them, idiot users.

The No Business is jumping on Vista Argument. Here's a clue, maintaining an enterprise organization is expensive. If your primary output as a business is Office documents and CADD, why would you jump on every new OS release? The company I work for just standardized on XP 2 years ago. We just moved from Office 2000 to Office 2003 in October 2007. Given the current economical outlook in the US, I suspect there will be only a slow migration to Vista. It's the Economy. Ironically, every new laptop we purchase comes with a Vista license, and a standard XP image is formatted onto the drive, so MS gets to show a Vista sell, but we are using our XP client license. This will probably change when XP is officially unsupported.

The Vista is Slower than XP Argument. If you're comparing Vista on a P4 with 512k RAM, yea, XP wins. However, on newer hardware with 1 or 2 GB RAM, the difference is only measurable by a benchmark. The only place I see a difference is with network file transfers, and while SP1 addressed that, I think there is still some work to be done. I run Vista on a C2 DUO T7200 laptop with 2GB RAM. I'm the only person in the office, and probably in the company, running Vista. I know the IT guy very well, he thinks I'm competent (fool!), but has made it clear, I'm on my own for support. I just re-installed XP on an identical laptop for him and the performance diffence is negligible. But the Vista UX blows XP out of the water. I am able to work faster in Vista.

The Vista took too long and has no improvements Argument. Yes, Vista took 6 years to release, however it was pretty much ready in 2003, but then came the reset. Why did the reset occur? Because MS realised that security is more than lip service, and the code had to be tightened up. This is a good thing. Does anyone remember the XP release? Has history been revised that much? XP, pre-SP1, was a disaster. Not only were there driver issues, but the code was Swiss Cheese. Stability was horrible. For a release 1 product, Vista has been extremely stable. A few real bugs, especially the file copy issue, but beyond that, what's the problem? As far as no new improvements, the integrated search, Superfetch and display driver model are huge. The new network stack is fast and efficient, wireless connectivity much improved and of course the compositing engine. yea, nothing new under the hood.

Just my $0.02

PhreePhly

What FUD are you talking about, they are all real issues. First about driver, who cares whose fault is it. All we end user care about is if something works or not, it doesn't matter if it's Vista or company XYZ. And with Vista, the probability something won't work because of driver is higher then XP period, that's all we care about. Look, this is just ridiculous. When Vista was first released, you bet your ass that there were drivers issues, what OS doesn't have that problem, but 18 months later, that is a bogus arguement, and frankly, any hardware company that hasn't written a driver for Vista, never will. My suggestion is to not support them, if they are unwilling to move forward.

Then the ram, you yourself acknowledge that with 512mb, xp is faster. Not everyone bought PC in the last year or two you know, and plenty of people don't even know or dare to open their box to add memory. And those people shouldn't upgrade. No one is saying you must upgrade. XP will not stop working. However, reading the PC mags and blogsphere, you'd think that Vista requires 2 GB RAM. That is plain false. For the average usage of e-mail and websurfing and the occasional Office type work, 1 GB is fine. I'm not sure who it was, but someone on the board here made a great comment, if you've got a 2 year old or older system, unless you are willing to take the time to research, don't upgrade, however if you are looking to build a new system today, there really is no choice, go with Vista. My comment with FUD has to do with the idiot advice of skipping Vista and "upgrading to XP" with a new system. Bunch of freaking Luddites.

Then the UAC, sure security is important, but how Vista implement it is idiotic. Is there a need to ask user everytime he/she does something? I work with Unix, a much more secured OS and even Unix is not that anal in asking for everything like an idiot. Unix is more secure? How? This is a serious question. People go on and on about Unix and Linux being "more secure than windows (NT kernel)", but please explain to me what make Unix more secure. Also, are you telling me you are running as root, so unix never asks you for root if you are changing a system file or config? When Vista is initially installed, and system files are being configured, UAC prompts. After that initial setup is complete, UAC is very much in the background. I get a UAC prompt maybe once a week. The usual cause is a poorly written app that requires admin access. Hopefully application writers finally start following MS's programming guides and stop that stupid practice. Again, the reason for UAC is to stop the idiot user vector. Unix is on maybe 0.3% of desktops and is typically used by a competent user, not so with Windows.

Then the business argument, they don't upgrade to vista for the precise reason why lots of us are not going to vista. It doesn't bring any tangible benefit for the cost. No shit, upgrading 1000's of machines is expensive. I know of fortune 100 companies that still have NT 4 on many of their standard word processing PCs. No need to upgrade if the primary use is to type word documents. NT 4 and Word 97 work just fine. This is not proof that Vista is bad, just that as a business decision, sticking with NT4, Win2000 or XP makes more sense. However, if they are moving to Server 2008, their IT department will start reconsidering when they see the Vista-server 2008 interop capabilities.

Then the Vista is slower thing, so you are saying after putting in 1~2gb, the best vista can do is run as fast as xp when it is suppose to be new and we have to pay extra money to upgrade? How much faster does it need to run? I start visual studio and it's up in 2 secs. maybe 1 second would give me a hard-on, but it really doesn't matter. It's an OS, it can only be so fast, after that it's all about the CPU, RAM and FSB. If I need faster, i need a new machine, OS be damned.

Yeap, vista got lots of new stuff under the hood, but what is better? Loading program faster? Yay, that's huge. Bloated desktop search where they go access HDD every freaking sec? New network stack with worse networking performance? New audio stack that doesn't work with tons of audio cards out there? Geeks are happy to use the latest and the greatest, but for the rest of us, we prefer something that actually benefit us in the real life. What the hell? You just chastise me for running "as fast as XP" and now running faster is "Yay , that's huge[sarcasm]" Have you used Vista or are you spouting FUD, 'cause search hits the HDD initially at setup in order to build an index, but after a day or so, the HDD is never hit. When you search, if the folders have been indexed, you dealling with a CPU bound task, not I/O. Networking is much improved, again, you obviously have not used Vista. There is a bug in the MMCSS service where MS stupidly hard-coded an I/O limit, but that has been somewhat corrected in SP1. I think it could have been made more user friendly. This only affected network connections while using multi media, so as to avoid skipping audio and video. Actual network throughput is improved. As far as the audio stack goes, only Creative seems to be having issues, and in fact, as it has been reported in many fora, an avid user/modder of their products actually modded their drivers to work quite well in Vista and actually enabled functions that Creative claimed were unavailable in Vista.

Look, if you want to represent "the rest of us" fine, don't upgrade. No says you have to, but stop spreading the FUD. Most (98%) new hardware works in Vista. Most new computers come with 1 GB RAM standard. If you're buying/building a new system, Vista is the way to go.

PhreePhly

 

[rchiu]

Heh, it's funny to see how defensive you Vista people are. Problem with people using Vista is not just FUD, it's real. I used Vista since it was beta, and I have one that came with my laptop. I experienced problem with HDD constant access. I experienced problem with network sharing with other XP machines, and online gaming. I experienced problem with UAC. I experienced problem with Audio. and if you google those issues, you will find plenty of people experiencing same problem.

Like I said, I really don't care who caused the problem. I am not placing blame, I am just stating fact that there are real problems going to vista, and it may or may not be MS's fault. But there is no denying that problems exist and if you stay with XP, many of those can be avoided easily. You people may love the security, improved load time, fancy UI. for me, I use my router and my own judgment for security, I don't find adding 2gb more ram to have my program load a few millisec. faster helpful, and I don't stare at my UI when I use my pc, I actually run stuff on it. Eventually more hardware and software will support Vista and not XP, at that time, that will be the reason for me to upgrade, but for now, it's just not worth it. You can feel free to disagree, that's just my humble opinion.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, it's funny to see how defensive you Vista people are. Problem with people using Vista is not just FUD, it's real. I used Vista since it was beta, and I have one that came with my laptop. I experienced problem with HDD constant access. I experienced problem with network sharing with other XP machines, and online gaming. I experienced problem with UAC. I experienced problem with Audio. and if you google those issues, you will find plenty of people experiencing same problem.

No one ever said people were not experiencing problems with Vista. I could google XP, Ubuntu, OSX, Debian, Unix and Solaris and find thousands of post of people having similar issue you just described. These things are no more unique to Vista than any other operating system. The way you were presenting these issues as Vista only issues with no fault or blame on the OEM's that put the equipment together is FUD.

Originally posted by: rchiu
Like I said, I really don't care who caused the problem. I am not placing blame, I am just stating fact that there are real problems going to vista, and it may or may not be MS's fault. But there is no denying that problems exist and if you stay with XP, many of those can be avoided easily. You people may love the security, improved load time, fancy UI. for me, I use my router and my own judgment for security, I don't find adding 2gb more ram to have my program load a few millisec. faster helpful, and I don't stare at my UI when I use my pc, I actually run stuff on it. Eventually more hardware and software will support Vista and not XP, at that time, that will be the reason for me to upgrade, but for now, it's just not worth it. You can feel free to disagree, that's just my humble opinion.

It doesn't matter what you want out of a new operating system from Microsoft. Microsoft develops Windows first for enterprise customers and then for the mass market consumer. People like you or me who want a mean lean operating system are a very small minority and are not worth Microsoft catering to.

No one here was telling you to upgrade your current system. We were just telling you to stop spreading FUD about things you don't understand about Vista. It is obvious from your disdain of the moving of the networking, audio and driver stacks to the user space you are not educated enough about the benefits of that change. You really need to stop deriding something you don't understand.

One last thing. If I had bought a notebook with all the issues you described, I would be on the phone to the manufacturer telling them to either fix it fast or refund me my money. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to properly test their systems before releasing them to the customers. This is who you need to be deriding and ranting against, not Microsoft.

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, it's funny to see how defensive you Vista people are. Problem with people using Vista is not just FUD, it's real. I used Vista since it was beta, and I have one that came with my laptop. I experienced problem with HDD constant access. I experienced problem with network sharing with other XP machines, and online gaming. I experienced problem with UAC. I experienced problem with Audio. and if you google those issues, you will find plenty of people experiencing same problem.

If you are having that many problems with a new laptop, you might want to consider having the vendor fix it. Those are not Vista problems. Look, I really don't care what OS you use, and I am a firm supporter of the "if it works, leave it be" line of thought. For upgrading, unless there is a specific need, or you have the talent, don't. Stick with XP, update to SP3 and continue on. The issue is you, and a vocal minority in the tech press, seem to get off on slagging MS, as if no other OS has the issues that Vista has. Guess what, we deal with XP machines having networking , audio and HDD problems everyday. They might be hardware, driver, or other apps interfering. Ubuntu is no different.

Originally posted by: rchiu
Like I said, I really don't care who caused the problem. I am not placing blame, I am just stating fact that there are real problems going to vista, and it may or may not be MS's fault. But there is no denying that problems exist and if you stay with XP, many of those can be avoided easily. You people may love the security, improved load time, fancy UI. for me, I use my router and my own judgment for security, I don't find adding 2gb more ram to have my program load a few millisec. faster helpful, and I don't stare at my UI when I use my pc, I actually run stuff on it. Eventually more hardware and software will support Vista and not XP, at that time, that will be the reason for me to upgrade, but for now, it's just not worth it. You can feel free to disagree, that's just my humble opinion.

Do you really think that MS designed Vista for your particular workflow? Why do you think there are so many versions of Vista? MS gambled on making distinct versions to provide choice to the consumer. Some folks only use a machine for e-mailing and websurfing. A Vista Home Basic setup with 512MB RAM (not shared RAM with video) actually works. It's not screaming, but for that application, it makes for a good user experience. Start adding more and more apps, and performance degrades rapidly. Home Premium is an option for the rest. It needs more power, alas. Ultimate is just that, the geek, the power user, etc, they want this. Pretty much any hardware you buy new today supports Vista, there is no eventually, it is supported today by a vast majority of new hardware. That you are not ready, or don't feel the need to upgrade is perfectly fine and I support your opinion. My problem is you pretending that somehow Vista is alone in its failings. The problems you seem to be having on your new laptop are not Vista problems, they are crappy OEMs not properly testing their hardware, or doing the research necessary to make the decision which OS is best for their hardware, they just want to make a buck at your expense.

PhreePhly

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, it's funny to see how defensive you Vista people are. Problem with people using Vista is not just FUD, it's real. I used Vista since it was beta, and I have one that came with my laptop. I experienced problem with HDD constant access. I experienced problem with network sharing with other XP machines, and online gaming. I experienced problem with UAC. I experienced problem with Audio. and if you google those issues, you will find plenty of people experiencing same problem.

Like I said, I really don't care who caused the problem. I am not placing blame, I am just stating fact that there are real problems going to vista, and it may or may not be MS's fault. But there is no denying that problems exist and if you stay with XP, many of those can be avoided easily. You people may love the security, improved load time, fancy UI. for me, I use my router and my own judgment for security, I don't find adding 2gb more ram to have my program load a few millisec. faster helpful, and I don't stare at my UI when I use my pc, I actually run stuff on it. Eventually more hardware and software will support Vista and not XP, at that time, that will be the reason for me to upgrade, but for now, it's just not worth it. You can feel free to disagree, that's just my humble opinion.

Yeah its like you made a joke about their mom or something, soonerproud & friends really REALLY love vista for some unfathomable reason.

Reminds of a guy who i think was called "Link13", he hated windows 98 and anybody who used/mentioned it lol, i mean absolutely despised windows 98 beyond just saying how out of date it is. These vista loving crazies are in the same train of thought, they just dont understand that people have problems with vista, they simply dont get that theres bad stuff spread about vista for a reason, not because its cool to hate on microsoft. Its waste of time arguing with them, they are blindly in love with an OS. They could be called "Vistards"

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, it's funny to see how defensive you Vista people are. Problem with people using Vista is not just FUD, it's real. I used Vista since it was beta, and I have one that came with my laptop. I experienced problem with HDD constant access. I experienced problem with network sharing with other XP machines, and online gaming. I experienced problem with UAC. I experienced problem with Audio. and if you google those issues, you will find plenty of people experiencing same problem.

Like I said, I really don't care who caused the problem. I am not placing blame, I am just stating fact that there are real problems going to vista, and it may or may not be MS's fault. But there is no denying that problems exist and if you stay with XP, many of those can be avoided easily. You people may love the security, improved load time, fancy UI. for me, I use my router and my own judgment for security, I don't find adding 2gb more ram to have my program load a few millisec. faster helpful, and I don't stare at my UI when I use my pc, I actually run stuff on it. Eventually more hardware and software will support Vista and not XP, at that time, that will be the reason for me to upgrade, but for now, it's just not worth it. You can feel free to disagree, that's just my humble opinion.

Yeah its like you made a joke about their mom or something, soonerproud & friends really REALLY love vista for some unfathomable reason.

Reminds of a guy who i think was called "Link13", he hated windows 98 and anybody who used/mentioned it lol, i mean absolutely despised windows 98 beyond just saying how out of date it is. These vista loving crazies are in the same train of thought, they just dont understand that people have problems with vista, they simply dont get that theres bad stuff spread about vista for a reason, not because its cool to hate on microsoft. Its waste of time arguing with them, they are blindly in love with an OS. They could be called "Vistards"

Oh dear now we got SOVIET and rchiu doing a comedy act,I suggest if you can't post anything constructive then remain quiet,as to Vista fan well I have used virtually every Microsft OS since DOS 6.22(Yes DOS was and is my favourite for many reasons I won't go in too).Did I say I have been using XP for 7 years as well?..So does that make me a XP or Microsoft fan?..Point being it does not really matter as long as you keep on topic and don't post FUD which a lot people here have done(I won't bother naming them).


Some people here are really childish with their attitudes.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Soviet
... Its waste of time arguing with them ...

ding, ding, ding. The people who continue arguing have too much free time, an agenda or ?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Mem
... DOS 6.22(Yes DOS was and is my favourite for many reasons I won't go in too) ...

You freak - mine too. Although, I liked v6.20 a little better. v5.0 was the first decent version but then v1.0 was pretty amazing if you were coming from an apple][ or trash80.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Soviet
... Its waste of time arguing with them ...

ding, ding, ding. The people who continue arguing have too much free time, an agenda or ?

And the people who keep taking the time to bash Vista don't have too much free time or an agenda? Soviet happens to be one of those people by the way.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Yeah its like you made a joke about their mom or something, soonerproud & friends really REALLY love vista for some unfathomable reason.

Reminds of a guy who i think was called "Link13", he hated windows 98 and anybody who used/mentioned it lol, i mean absolutely despised windows 98 beyond just saying how out of date it is. These vista loving crazies are in the same train of thought, they just dont understand that people have problems with vista, they simply dont get that theres bad stuff spread about vista for a reason, not because its cool to hate on microsoft. Its waste of time arguing with them, they are blindly in love with an OS. They could be called "Vistards"

And you seem incapable of ignoring us and moving on your merry little way.

You just don't understand that people have problems with ALL operating systems. If you don't like those of us who happen to like Vista, then quit acknowledging us and stay out of the conversation.

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, it's funny to see how defensive you Vista people are. Problem with people using Vista is not just FUD, it's real. I used Vista since it was beta, and I have one that came with my laptop. I experienced problem with HDD constant access. I experienced problem with network sharing with other XP machines, and online gaming. I experienced problem with UAC. I experienced problem with Audio. and if you google those issues, you will find plenty of people experiencing same problem.

Like I said, I really don't care who caused the problem. I am not placing blame, I am just stating fact that there are real problems going to vista, and it may or may not be MS's fault. But there is no denying that problems exist and if you stay with XP, many of those can be avoided easily. You people may love the security, improved load time, fancy UI. for me, I use my router and my own judgment for security, I don't find adding 2gb more ram to have my program load a few millisec. faster helpful, and I don't stare at my UI when I use my pc, I actually run stuff on it. Eventually more hardware and software will support Vista and not XP, at that time, that will be the reason for me to upgrade, but for now, it's just not worth it. You can feel free to disagree, that's just my humble opinion.

Yeah its like you made a joke about their mom or something, soonerproud & friends really REALLY love vista for some unfathomable reason.

Reminds of a guy who i think was called "Link13", he hated windows 98 and anybody who used/mentioned it lol, i mean absolutely despised windows 98 beyond just saying how out of date it is. These vista loving crazies are in the same train of thought, they just dont understand that people have problems with vista, they simply dont get that theres bad stuff spread about vista for a reason, not because its cool to hate on microsoft. Its waste of time arguing with them, they are blindly in love with an OS. They could be called "Vistards"

You must have me confused with someone else. i really don't care what OS you use. My only dog in this fight is the FUD. I'm running Vista just fine. I've installed vista on numerous older systems, with some hardware upgrading without issue. I've also looked at systems and told the owners that Vista would be more problems than it's worth to install on that system, so they should stick with XP. I'm here to counter the FUD, that's all. If you lack the technical skill to install an OS or your system is not to spec, stick with what you know, I really don't care, just don't blame your ignorance or lack of hardware on the software.

PhreePhly

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Soviet
... Its waste of time arguing with them ...

ding, ding, ding. The people who continue arguing have too much free time, an agenda or ?

And the people who keep taking the time to bash Vista don't have too much free time or an agenda? Soviet happens to be one of those people by the way.

Don't have a horse in this race - applies to both camps.

After stating perceived facts, continuing is moving into another realm.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: PhreePhly

You must have me confused with someone else. i really don't care what OS you use. My only dog in this fight is the FUD. I'm running Vista just fine. I've installed vista on numerous older systems, with some hardware upgrading without issue. I've also looked at systems and told the owners that Vista would be more problems than it's worth to install on that system, so they should stick with XP. I'm here to counter the FUD, that's all. If you lack the technical skill to install an OS or your system is not to spec, stick with what you know, I really don't care, just don't blame your ignorance or lack of hardware on the software.

PhreePhly

See this is why I can't stop posting, heh. So just because you don't have any issue, everyone else who have issue is either spreading FUD or don't know what they are doing? If you were right and Vista is just perfect because you don't have any issue, why do MS need to release SP1?

With any OS release, there will be problems. All I am saying is you Vista people keep on denying that fact, denying the fact that there is problem that comes with new OS, the incompatibility, the bugs, the new way of doing things that maybe not well thought out or confusing and cause user error. Everytime someone point out the fact that people are having problem, you people just starting to call people stupid or become really defensive and point finger at everyone except MS. Seriously, Vista is just an OS, not your mom or gf. It is not perfect, some people find it worthwhile to deal with the imperfection because of the new feature, I happen to find it not worth my time.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Soviet
... Its waste of time arguing with them ...

ding, ding, ding. The people who continue arguing have too much free time, an agenda or ?

And the people who keep taking the time to bash Vista don't have too much free time or an agenda? Soviet happens to be one of those people by the way.

HAH! Your a time waster so like i said before, im not gonna bother arguing with you.

Guys... look through this thread, check my what.. TWO SHORT POSTS! omg! Check out soonertools posts, he breaks down almost every persons post he replies to and takes every oppertunity to defend vista like its his brother or something, its creepy.

Originally posted by: PhreePhly

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, it's funny to see how defensive you Vista people are. Problem with people using Vista is not just FUD, it's real. I used Vista since it was beta, and I have one that came with my laptop. I experienced problem with HDD constant access. I experienced problem with network sharing with other XP machines, and online gaming. I experienced problem with UAC. I experienced problem with Audio. and if you google those issues, you will find plenty of people experiencing same problem.

Like I said, I really don't care who caused the problem. I am not placing blame, I am just stating fact that there are real problems going to vista, and it may or may not be MS's fault. But there is no denying that problems exist and if you stay with XP, many of those can be avoided easily. You people may love the security, improved load time, fancy UI. for me, I use my router and my own judgment for security, I don't find adding 2gb more ram to have my program load a few millisec. faster helpful, and I don't stare at my UI when I use my pc, I actually run stuff on it. Eventually more hardware and software will support Vista and not XP, at that time, that will be the reason for me to upgrade, but for now, it's just not worth it. You can feel free to disagree, that's just my humble opinion.

Yeah its like you made a joke about their mom or something, soonerproud & friends really REALLY love vista for some unfathomable reason.

Reminds of a guy who i think was called "Link13", he hated windows 98 and anybody who used/mentioned it lol, i mean absolutely despised windows 98 beyond just saying how out of date it is. These vista loving crazies are in the same train of thought, they just dont understand that people have problems with vista, they simply dont get that theres bad stuff spread about vista for a reason, not because its cool to hate on microsoft. Its waste of time arguing with them, they are blindly in love with an OS. They could be called "Vistards"

You must have me confused with someone else. i really don't care what OS you use. My only dog in this fight is the FUD. I'm running Vista just fine. I've installed vista on numerous older systems, with some hardware upgrading without issue. I've also looked at systems and told the owners that Vista would be more problems than it's worth to install on that system, so they should stick with XP. I'm here to counter the FUD, that's all. If you lack the technical skill to install an OS or your system is not to spec, stick with what you know, I really don't care, just don't blame your ignorance or lack of hardware on the software.

PhreePhly

Well ill not argue with soonerproud because hes an idiot, so ill reply to this instead.

See what ive bolded? Yeah, thats absolute horse shit, insulting horse shit, which is a shame because the first half of your post was really good, some people are better off on XP and others on vista yep im in agreement with that. But to call out those who dislike vista and brand them as ignorant people who simply are too dumb to handle the OS is garbage. If a person is on this forum in the first place they probably have the technical know how to install vista, its not brain surgery, in fact its the easiest OS to install.

Question is, why is there FUD in the first place? Why? No not because its cool to hate on microsoft, no not because everyone else is too dumb to use vista as you seem happy to cite. Its because of whats been said by other posters on this thread, including you to an extent in that post i quoted!! Vista has its problems and some are better off on XP.

For the record i use both vista x64 and XP, and i still dont see why some people defend vista so ferociously. Just look through this thread, ultimatebob and rchiu are simply people with opinions about the OS, opinions that soonerdipshit dosent seem to respect. It amazes me the lengths this guy goes to in vistas defence and to attempt to correct people its batshit crazy.