Computer manufacturers cant build Vista compatible PC's to save their lives. They're the reason Vista has such a bad word out for itself, outside of the bullshit stories spread around by Mac fags. I've yet to see a manufacturer send out a "Vista Compatible" system that actualy functioned correctly.
...
...
Come to think about it, I've yet to see a computer manufacturer actually ship out a single computer that actually functioned correctly. Curious.
Yea, the hilarious thing is that Vista runs great on Macs. Vista gets a bad rap because Microsoft is nice enough to let us run it on whatever hardware we want, and people aren't always educated enough to make sure the specs are good. OSX only runs on Apple-designed computers, so everything runs the way they want it.
Neither is wrong, just different ways of going about it.
Well, I take that back. You can run osx86, but it's not sanctioned and certainly doesn't run the same.
If I ever get Vista I'll wait for a price drop. I've used XP since I was ten so It's really grown on me. Not sure how I got attached tho...
Weird.
n/a
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
14th March, 2009 at 15:36:41 -
Eh? If they shipped out a computer properly configured, it could last a long time. Why would they spend money and upgrade their computer if theirs works perfectly fine?
$$$
Edited by Peblo
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
Vista isn't ment to be bought and installed on older systems, because naturally speaking, these older systems, if properly cared for, should work as perfectly fine as they did the day they were bought. The reason for Vista is for people who have a computer that can handle it or want to build a new computer that can handle it. Now whether this was Microsoft plan is not my concern, I'm not here to defend Microsoft, I'm defending their product.
Originally Posted by OldManClayton Yea, the hilarious thing is that Vista runs great on Macs. Vista gets a bad rap because Microsoft is nice enough to let us run it on whatever hardware we want, and people aren't always educated enough to make sure the specs are good. OSX only runs on Apple-designed computers, so everything runs the way they want it.
thats because microsoft only makes money off the software. the OS. mac builds (or used to build. now theyre getting standardized, using intel, etc) the hardware and the software. not positive but cant you buy OSX and run it on a PC?
on topic. i dont have vista so i have no idea what my experience number thing is. on my laptop during the short time i did use vista it was like a 3.5.
But hey, it's a laptop only around US$800, so it's worth it, I suppose
IMHO, Windows Vista does suck. Upon starting up, my laptop had 1 GB used up and 60 GB. And it's a lot slower than it should be too. Why does "default graphics" have 3.5? An operating system should use minimum requirements, not try to drain everything it can.
With a high power computer, it sucks less, but it's not doing what it's intended to do - provide a functional, working computer to the average person, not just the powergamers.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
"An operating system should use minimum requirements, not try to drain everything it can. "
In the land of labtops that is true (for the sake of the battery), but not at all for desktops. Vista uses your Ram to cache programs you normally use so that they will start faster. Thus firefox is already on the welcome screen before i finished clicking the icon. When an app needs the ram, Vista gives it it. So vista isn't "draining" the ram, it's just using it while you're not. Also, because Vista takes care of itself in the background, you never have to defrag or do any of that other system maintenance.
It's not a perfect operating system, but it's no where near as bad as people pretend it is.
XP runs perfectly faster than Vista without any kind of maintenance. And it boots up a lot slower. So basically, if running XP, I could just shut down when I'm not using it. Then when I want to turn on firefox, I power it up, sit for a few seconds, then double click the firefox icon. And it's there.
With Vista, I have to put it in standby or it'll take a long time to boot up (enough for me to get out of the shower, brush my teeth, put on some clothes). Then yay, firefox is on the welcome screen. Then I click the icon.. it starts up a little, then lags. I then go do my hair, look at the screen, put on some socks, and yay, I get internet.
if i were rich and had a good, powerful computer, i would love windows vista.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Thats kinda why i like vista, becuase i have a big powerful machine, it can start up vista in under a two minutes, and there is no lag when starting up programs.
I tried to make a dual boot system a few days ago, i installed XP and stuff correctly, but when booting into XP none of my hardware drivers were on their and thus it was pretty much useless to me. So i uninstalled XP.
Originally Posted by RickyG
Sure just like you can steal tic tacs from a 7-11. No one will catch you, except for God.
Originally Posted by Muz XP runs perfectly faster than Vista without any kind of maintenance. And it boots up a lot slower. So basically, if running XP, I could just shut down when I'm not using it. Then when I want to turn on firefox, I power it up, sit for a few seconds, then double click the firefox icon. And it's there.
With Vista, I have to put it in standby or it'll take a long time to boot up (enough for me to get out of the shower, brush my teeth, put on some clothes). Then yay, firefox is on the welcome screen. Then I click the icon.. it starts up a little, then lags. I then go do my hair, look at the screen, put on some socks, and yay, I get internet.
if i were rich and had a good, powerful computer, i would love windows vista.
Windows Vista starts up faster then Windows XP did for me, and for the casual PC user, Windows XP actually requires a hell of a lot more maintenance then Vista ever will. The most obvious one is simply put, Vista keeps the hard drive defragemented and runs a lot smoother because of it.
Originally Posted by falkon Thats kinda why i like vista, becuase i have a big powerful machine, it can start up vista in under a two minutes...
2... Minutes?
I don't think XP on my slowest machine takes that long to boot. On my 3gb iMac XP takes 35ish seconds (depending on if it wants to freeze up on boot, but thats because I jiggled around with my graphics card drivers), OSX about 30. Or 40 if I have my freeview TV dongle plugged in which always boots on start no matter what I tell it
Advertisement
Post Reply
Vista gets a bad rap because Microsoft is nice enough to let us run it on whatever hardware we want, and people aren't always educated enough to make sure the specs are good. OSX only runs on Apple-designed computers, so everything runs the way they want it.
Edited by OMC
