Boswell Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 (edited) Windows vista has been out for a while now and personally I think its a let down. I think that Microsoft released it too soon without ironing out all of the problems. The graphics of the operating system also take up a large amount of memory which is really f**king annoying. Im running it on a laptop so I don't know how it runs on desktops so please vote and tell me what you think? Edited December 2, 2007 by Danny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_scott Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 Vista is pooooooooooo!XP, or better still save up for a Mac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeNNy Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 (edited) Not many things run on Vista.. Or if they do.. you'd have to download a plug-in or somethingI think that's they gayest thing about it..XP is "for the win" imo Edited December 1, 2007 by BeNNy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class Clown Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 i like my vista but iv got vista bissness which is smoother i think but yer it can still be a bitch and crash but it looks great and runs ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrongsideof40 Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 released to soon, To many versions, To many problems, To many incompatabilitys, Very high overheads, need a really top end Hi-spec pc to run it sensibly .... its rubbish but do have some nice features. as with any new MS OS dont use it for as long as you can avoid it. Oh yes almost all the same sort of stuff that MAC's suffer from but for only half the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan6061 Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 I haven't had a problem with Vista yet, and i've had it aaages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 It's a load of shite if you ask me, I havn't got any problems with XP, (post SP2), and vista just seems to use up a load more of your system resources to make it look pimp. I'd rather have a not so pimp system, that doesn't take 5 mins to log on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Aston Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 i was on c.net the other day and they did a reveiw on vista and they said that on processing tasks with the same pc xp was 5x fast than vista. Those figures just speak for themselves so unless you have a good 2k to spend on pc which will run vista the same as a and pc with xp thats half the price its not gonna be very good at all. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor the basher. Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Honestly its better i was like most people and said it was wank then i had to get it and its actaully mint you may aswell change becuase soon everything will be designed for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 But, even if you bought a 2k PC, would you want vista on it? I'd rather have the faster, simpler OS to be honest.Imagine that PC with Linux. Beeeeaaaasssstt.Linux is amazing, I love it but it feels a little constrained to me, I don't know why. Just feels a bit wierd.I've just built a spare computer up just for running Linux, my Dad got it from work for free, but my Mum's borrowing it for a while so it's got Windows on it for the minute.1.2GHZ AMD Athlon, 128mb of RAM, On board graphics, hell yeh.I have a broken PC, I can't find out whats wrong with it, but it has a 2.66ghz P4, and my main comp has a 2.4 P4, but they are different socket types. :@It will fit in my laptop though... I'm going to try it this week some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Jennings Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 No. Windows 2000 is the best of the windows OS's. Vista is awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Papasnap Maher Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I haven't had a problem with Vista yet, and i've had it aaages.+1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 No. Windows 2000 is the best of the windows OS's. Vista is awful.I sort of agree, I think that the older Windows OS's did the job they were designed for better than the more modern ones.But ME kicks 2000's ass every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbanPoet Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 But ME kicks 2000's ass every time.That's ridiculous; NT > 9x. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike W Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Mines had no problems at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 If you have a modern computer then yay.If you have a 4 year old heap of junk ney.Vista actually runs faster than xp on a pc with 2gb ram. Im interested to hear what all these 'incompatibilities' are because ive certainly not found any and i've been using it since RC1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 If you have a modern computer then yay.If you have a 4 year old heap of junk ney.Vista actually runs faster than xp on a pc with 2gb ram. Im interested to hear what all these 'incompatibilities' are because ive certainly not found any and i've been using it since RC1I've got a 6 year old piece of junk, and it's fast enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondy Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I dont like the way theyve tried to make navigating through windows too user friendly, i prefer xp on that side of things as i know where everything i want is (and i dont like change! )Another annoying feature is the fact it asks you for permission for just about everything you do(although that can be turned off)Other than that i dont really think ive had any problems with vista apart from with some games ive played on it, although i would not really recommend buying it separately, just something to have if it happens to come with the computer, go for xp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Vista actually runs faster than xp on a pc with 2gb ram. Im interested to hear what all these 'incompatibilities' are because ive certainly not found any and i've been using it since RC1I've tried to use the following on the Mrs. PC (Brand new, Vista junk)Arkaos Visualiser plug-in for WMP. Nope, sorry.Vice City, NFSU, GTR1 & 2 and various other games. Nope, sorry.Yet on my 512mb P4 XP system they run brilliantly.A few other things to, phone connectivity suites and stuff for my Samsung...It just seems that 90% of the stuff I try and do on it doesn't work.I hate Vista, and I've been using it on hers for about 6 months.LONG LIVE XP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
011001000110010101110010 Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 yay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai the Socket Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 released to soon, To many versions, To many problems, To many incompatabilitys, Very high overheads, need a really top end Hi-spec pc to run it sensibly .... its rubbish but do have some nice features. as with any new MS OS dont use it for as long as you can avoid it. Oh yes almost all the same sort of stuff that MAC's suffer from but for only half the cost.Lol I love how you're over 40 and write 'too' as 'to'.Then continue to rip Mac's however they don't have too many versions, and have hardly any problems, and you don't need a high-spec to run properly.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrongsideof40 Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 If the people that are using vista are happy with it and are not having any problems then good for you, I look after and maintain 300+ computers personally and about 2500+ as part of a team, PC's/MAC's with a range of OS installed So for the time being we will not be upgrading our windows pc's upto vista Due to the well documented information that me/team have access to, I/We cannot afford to spend loads of time trying to fix know/unkown incompatibility problems with vista. Its is a lot better than when it first was released but still not good enough for us to roll out vista to our users. I have 3 pc's running vista ( different specs ) that I test hardware\software combinations just for the record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spode@thinkbikes Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 If you dual-boot XP and Vista on the same machine, it really is noticeable that XP is considerably faster. When using SpodeMark (www.spodemark.com) I found it to be considerably slower under Vista. A lot of this speed decrease comes down to RAM usage. 2GB is no longer enough memory - and on a 32-Bit system, having above 2GB rarely makes much difference due to limitations in the way memory can be allocated. Really, Vista should have been developed as 64-Bit only and forced people down that path (MS love to force..). As it stands, Vista-64 and even 64-bit Linux distributions aren't as stable as they should be, because not enough people have made the transition. It needs to happen very soon.Vista does have a few nice touches, certainly when it comes to installing it. But they have moved a lot of things around inside control panel etc. that quite frankly, I just didn't feel needed moving. I feel it came out too early, but considering the delays already in launching it, it would have been embarrassing to have waited even longer.So after all this wait, certainly for me, the only real feature worth shouting about in Vista, is the fact it supports DirectX 10. At the moment, most games look very similar run on DX9 hardware, or DX10 hardware in a DX9 environment. So this feature is only really going to take effect with the next generation of games coming out. That annoys me somewhat, as MS is basically forcing you into upgrading to Vista if you want to play games.A lot of compatibility issues with Vista, are either due to the main user account no longer being an administrator - which quite frankly is lazy programming on the third party programmers side and not Microsoft's fault. However, Drivers have also been a nightmare, which to an extent IS Microsoft's fault, as they kept making changes in specification to its driver model right up until the launch. Most people who have had issues with Vista, are installing on older computers. If you BUY a computer with Vista already installed, generally speaking - it'll run without too many problems.With XP SP3 coming out soon - there's even more reason why you'd want to stay with XP. It's touted to improve XP's speed, and of course security. However, if you play games, realistically, you have no choice BUT to move to Vista eventually. But if you don't play games, there are other options - XP, Mac, Linux. Personally, I moved to Linux for my day to day activities. I have a second box with XP installed on for playing games, which eventually I'll put Vista on full time. Using Wine, you can get even the latest games working under Linux too (see www.linux-gamers.net).Playing games on PCs is becoming more and more costly as each generation of cards comes out. With triple graphics cards setups and quad core processors, PC Gaming is almost starting to become a niche again. Considering the relationships between modern consoles and PCs now - give it 5 years and I imagine everyone will be gaming with a console on an HDTV, with Linux on a low power consumption desktop PC for using the internet and word processing. Each year, the computer is getting closer and closer to becoming a toaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrongsideof40 Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Lol I love how you're over 40 and write 'too' as 'to'.Then continue to rip Mac's however they don't have too many versions, and have hardly any problems, and you don't need a high-spec to run properly.. I have nothing against the MAC to be honest it just seems that way, I think I have a problem more with some MAC users attitudes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 With XP SP3 coming out soon - there's even more reason why you'd want to stay with XP. It's touted to improve XP's speed, and of course security. However, if you play games, realistically, you have no choice BUT to move to Vista eventually. But if you don't play games, there are other options - XP, Mac, Linux. Personally, I moved to Linux for my day to day activities. I have a second box with XP installed on for playing games, which eventually I'll put Vista on full time. Using Wine, you can get even the latest games working under Linux too (see www.linux-gamers.net).Thanks for that! I want to move over onto my Linux PC full time for a while, but two things are stopping me.The modem doesn't work with it, apparently it's a common problem with my modem.I didn't know how to get most modern games to run on it.Cheers! Have a badger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.