| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 78091 | 2007-04-02 19:02:00 | Vista | JJJJJ (528) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 537784 | 2007-04-02 19:02:00 | Since 1994 I have had every new version of Windows installed on the day of release. It used to be a pleasure admireing all the improvements in each new system. Even the much berated ME had it's good points. But Vista! An OS that requires a gig of ram to run anywhere decently! Takes forever to load! And filled with unnecessary crappy graphics. By the time I had removed all the associated crap and got something like what I wanted I was left with something that performed like a Beta 1 version of XP. So Vista is out in the garbage. Long live XP. Why don't the LInux people produce a decent plug and play version? Then perhaps I will join you. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 537785 | 2007-04-02 20:17:00 | Good comments, Jack. When WinXP first came out, there were similar criticisms but it replaced the problematical Win98. For me, it was a joy to go from 98 to XP. Never have I had the BSOD with XP (unless I did something silly like disabling a vital system file), and with tweaks (see my signature) it runs clean and fast. Linux is tempting. I'll try it some day, maybe booting from a Linux CD. I am in no hurry to upgrade my pc but when that day comes, and if Vista is still a lemon (and with no way to bypass the DRM polling the hardware constantly), I will use Linux and hope that all programs work with it) or simply reinstall XP. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 537786 | 2007-04-03 01:42:00 | I have moved to Vista, the boot-up time is about 20% faster than XP for me. Runs fast and smooth, I have no complaints. Yet. AMD 3800+ Dual Core CPU running 2 GB RAM. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 537787 | 2007-04-03 03:54:00 | Oh dear,what is one to do,one says it's slow and one says it's fast. I feel caught in the horns of a dilemma. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 537788 | 2007-04-03 04:44:00 | Let me complicate matters: I say it's acceptable. Not fast, not slow. The moral of the story: you need good enough hardware to run it, otherwise it's like trying to run XP on Pentium 2 with 128mb of RAM. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 537789 | 2007-04-03 04:59:00 | 64mb. ;) | pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 537790 | 2007-04-03 04:59:00 | I actually find Vista much more stable than XP in general. I boot XP in about 18 seconds. With Vista, I used to boot in only 22 seconds. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 537791 | 2007-04-03 06:15:00 | It's a very strange thing, I have a comp that's capable of running Vista no prob... but I just can't be bothered. I think MSoft really stuffed up with all the WPA etc and there gets a point where people just can't be stuffed with the drama! |
Shortcircuit (1666) | ||
| 537792 | 2007-04-03 06:53:00 | I just look at Vista as another ME . . . window dressing of a previous and lesser opsys . . . it IS after all, just a derivative of XP anyway with some transparencies thrown at you and your RAM and more calls home to tattle on you . If it weren't, it would not have some of the same security risks and holes in it . WGA and DRAM run thru both of them . . . and are affected the same way in both too . I don't think more layers of code is a good idea . . . . simplify and get a stronger running and more secure system that way . C'mon M$ . . . lighten up! |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 537793 | 2007-04-03 07:03:00 | I just look at Vista as another ME . . . window dressing of a previous and lesser opsys . . . it IS after all, just a derivative of XP anyway with some transparencies thrown at you and your RAM and more calls home to tattle on you . If it weren't, it would not have some of the same security risks and holes in it . WGA and DRAM run thru both of them . . . and are affected the same way in both too . I don't think more layers of code is a good idea . . . . simplify and get a stronger running and more secure system that way . C'mon M$ . . . lighten up! Give Bill a ring and put him right,I am sure he would appreciate a few tips . . |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||