View Full Version : What you Vista lovers often overlook...
XP is not perfect. XP is good at many things, but its not perfect.
Vista is not perfect. Vista is good at many things, but its not perfect.
OS X is not perfect. OS X is good at many things, but its not perfect.
Linux is not perfect. OS X is good at many things, but its not perfect.
Now that I have that out of the way...
Every time someone even thinks the phrase "there is something wrong with Vista", we have several members who go off the deep end and are like "RAWR! You must be an idiot because you can't make Vista work! I don't have any problems! Blah blah blah." After this, I usually see this statement... "All of you people who love XP so much seem to forget that XP had its fair share of problems when it rolled out".
And you know what, these members are right.
However, I think that many people here are missing the big picture. When XP rolled out, there were both home users AND businesses running Windows 98 and Windows ME. Thank God there were many businesses running NT4 and W2k, but the vast majority of home users were using a Win9x operating system.
What does this have to do with the cost of tea in China, you might ask? Even though XP had a similar volume and severity of compatibility, performance, and other random buggy issues when it released, it had a HUGE incentive for putting up with these problems during the migration: vastly improved stability and security. XP is the operating system that moved the majority of users from the crash prone and insecure Win9x architecture to the stable and relatively secure NT architecture.
What it all boils down to is this: if a user is going to have to put up with growing pains, how large is the incentive going to be for that user for putting up with these issues? At the current time, the cost-benefit ratio just doesn't seem to be in the favor of Vista. For XP, even with the severe and numerous issues it had at launch, there was a huge reason for the average user to migrate. Of course the average user didn't realize what NT was, but the case could easily be made to them that "your computer will not randomly crash nearly as often" and that was enough usually. Vista does NOT have this same level of incentive for migrating users. There IS an increased level of security, but the overall increase in security from XP to Vista pales in comparison to the increase in security and stability from 9x to XP.
There ARE, without a shadow of a doubt, things that Vista is absolutely wonderful at doing. I'm using Ultimate at home as a HTPC/Home File Server and after I got a driver issue straightened out (ATI and Hauppauge TV cards were fighting) I have loved it. The way I have this configured, it is nearly impossible to do with XP MCE. I'd have to hack Server 03 and lay the MCE interface on it and that would be a royal pain. Also, the new MCE interface in Vista is fantastic! For most gamers, Vista is a good OS, as well. Even though DX10 isn't all that it should be at this time, most other games run just as well or sometimes better under Vista (in DX9), especially since most gamers have rigs that far exceed the "run Vista acceptably" threshold.
Overall, I just wanted to bring another perspective to this issue. I hope you have an open mind concerning this perspective. I'll try to keep mine open as well when you guys chime in. :D
You're absolutely right.
MS has dropped the ball on 64bit and Dx 10 implementation. These are the major changes to cause a want to migrate in the marketplace.
Unfortunately there is little to no software to compel a reason to change.
DX10 is really the one to bring people around but until the game developers start releasing DX10 only games there will be little to compel people to switch.
32 to 64 bit jump simply isn't as dramatic a change as the 16 to 32 bit jump was. I'm not sure what it is going to take to make 64 bit relevant.
Another
Vista
Thread
:headexplode:
The 64bit more is more about the future and RAM, people are starting to move beyond 2Gb these days, and it seems to be paying off in some of the newer games.
And if you want your full 4Gb usable you need a 64bit OS (or one with tricks and workarounds, as I think Win 2k3 for example offers).
Vista 64 has a bunch of security improvements over the 32bit version aswell, to mention one it loads stuff into RAM in random order at boot, which as I understand it will eliminate ALOT of viruses that are made to target certain memory spaces as they would know what would be loaded there.. or somesuch.
Vista 64 is breath of fresh air compared to XP x64 that never really got any decent driver support, and with Vista 64 out, prolly never will.
When 4gb RAM becomes MAINSTREAM, most users will prolly be on Vista anyway (its gonna take a while).
As time moves on we´re prolly gonna se some neat things with Vista come along, the new driver model and APIs (avalon/WPF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation) for one) allow for more casual, seamless and mainstream use of 3d in alot of different areas, which I guess is mainly a cosmetical thing but may find some decent usages.
There are a few bits and bobs that arent mentioned alot that may have future potential.
As it is, Im not overly impressed with the OS as such, but for the 64bit part it is getting ALOT better support then XPs 64bit part ( I think MS requires drivers to be released in both 32 and 64bit versions for Vista, anyone?).
Im using XP and Vista 64 on my rig, and I mainly use Vista these days since Maya got some really wierd viewport issues in XP for some reason (dunno what thats about, works fine on XP normally).
Gaming performance is usually a bit lower, other then that I have no real gripes about Vista.. But then again, Im not overwealmed by it either in any way.
six_storm
12-07-07, 02:24 PM
I totally agree with G. Vista should've been 64-bit ONLY and DX10 has been a huge disappointment IMO.
I'm building a HTPC right now (slowly but surely) and I will be buying a new copy of Vista Home Premium just because the Media Center is great! I've been reading threads and threads about Vista MCE vs. Linux MCE vs. etc, and Vista MCE has always been the best and easiest to use.
But when it comes to gaming, I think hardware (GPU mainly) needs to take one more jump before I can go into Vista fully. XP just provides better framerates for me right now with my current config and it's blazing fast compared to Vista.
I found my copy of Vista Ultimate x64 last night, installed it and forgot that I didn't have a product key. :( Oh well, that's what you get when you d/l torrents lol. (lee63)
Redeemed
12-07-07, 02:29 PM
I totally agree with G. Vista should've been 64-bit ONLY and DX10 has been a huge disappointment IMO.
I'm building a HTPC right now (slowly but surely) and I will be buying a new copy of Vista Home Premium just because the Media Center is great! I've been reading threads and threads about Vista MCE vs. Linux MCE vs. etc, and Vista MCE has always been the best and easiest to use.
But when it comes to gaming, I think hardware (GPU mainly) needs to take one more jump before I can go into Vista fully. XP just provides better framerates for me right now with my current config and it's blazing fast compared to Vista.
I found my copy of Vista Ultimate x64 last night, installed it and forgot that I didn't have a product key. :( Oh well, that's what you get when you d/l torrents lol. (lee63)
Aren't you a student? If so you should be able to get a copy of Vista x64 for real cheap.
six_storm
12-07-07, 02:32 PM
Aren't you a student? If so you should be able to get a copy of Vista x64 for real cheap.
We have a MSDN Alliance which lets us download ISOs or rent out CDs from the CS building, but there is a limited selection. This is how I got Vista Business for free.
Any students here that wanna help get a me a copy for cheap? :D
64 bit being unimpressive is more the fault of AMD/intel than it is Microsoft. Intel had developed a new method for 64 bit with the Itanium which was a complete rework over 32 bit. It was fast but required software emulation for 32bit. AMD then came up with the x64 system which was backwards compatible but only seemed to allow more RAM; no real performance improvements. Intel then jumped on AMD's x64 bandwagon essentially killing off any possibility of improved performance with 64bit.
I'm not saying Itanium was the best way to go, but I don't think x64 was the way forward. They should've worked on it some more before it got down to the wire.
Another
Vista
Thread
:headexplode:
That's what I thought to myself before I posted this thread.... I wanted to air this out, but I didn't see a Vista thread that wasn't already raped to post this in.
To the community: I am sorry for another Vista thread. :p
That's what I thought to myself before I posted this thread.... I wanted to air this out, but I didn't see a Vista thread that wasn't already raped to post this in.
To the community: I am sorry for another Vista thread. :p
I made the 9x was crap, XP was a welcome change, Vista isn't that big of an improvement point in one of those other threads. Of course, it got over looked with the "Vista runs fine for me" stuff.
Anybody who used 9x extensively when Win2k was out was really nuts, especially after the hardware support came.
The 9x kernel was just terrible and I was glad to leave it behind. It wasn't stable on anything I seen, extremely prone to corruption, sucked at multitasking, and had to be restarted anytime you changed the slightest thing. If that was worth a few more FPS to you, then have at it. XP exhibits none of those drawbacks and Vista shows no clear advantage over XP. There is no comparison between the 9x-XP (or 2k) switch to the XP-Vista switch.
I jumped on 2k with a quickness, but took 2 years after XP came out to get it. Why? Because the 9x-2k change was really worth it, XP offered nothing more to me over 2k than a more modern UI. I feel the same now about the XP to Vista change except their is a much larger performance hit for no good reason.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=103374&page=2
Another
Vista
Thread
:headexplode:
+ 20
See what you did Q?
We still love ya though.
crainger
12-07-07, 05:01 PM
OMG j00 guys! **** Vista! Just use da Vista transformation pak n xp will be just liek vista jsut alot better n fasta!
I made the 9x was crap, XP was a welcome change, Vista isn't that big of an improvement point in one of those other threads. Of course, it got over looked with the "Vista runs fine for me" stuff.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=103374&page=2
See, you should have made a thread about it so it was noticed.
:p
:D
OMG j00 guys! **** Vista! Just use da Vista transformation pak n xp will be just liek vista jsut alot better n fasta!
I know. It is just SO hard to see the forest because of all of those trees. We should really cut them down and build a strip mall.
I know. It is just SO hard to see the forest because of all of those trees. We should really cut them down and build a strip mall.
You cant do that we need the trees for the Wolves
Aren't you a student? If so you should be able to get a copy of Vista x64 for real cheap.
yep, i got my Vista copy for $20. that's why im running vista.
Butter Bandit
12-07-07, 08:10 PM
yep, i got my Vista copy for $20. that's why im running vista.
I'm actually supposed to get a copy pretty soon as well, though for free ^_^
My grandmother bought a Dell a while back that came with XP installed, but it had that promotional Windows Vista free upgrade thing, and she's hooking me up with it.
$45 for ultimate :D Bought it like 9 months before I even used it.
six_storm
12-07-07, 09:54 PM
$45 for ultimate :D Bought it like 9 months before I even used it.
Holy crap where did you get yours?
conroejoe
12-07-07, 11:32 PM
ROTFLMAO so all the people that love Vista paid $50 or less for it. Classic. :captnkill:
Holy crap where did you get yours?
Microsoft.
Redeemed
12-08-07, 12:03 AM
ROTFLMAO so all the people that love Vista paid $50 or less for it. Classic. :captnkill:
Seems ironic you mention that when there was a massive pirating issue when XP was first released. :rolleyes:
i'm just happy coz there is a dx9 very high settings tweak for crysis.
no point for me getting vista :D
ROTFLMAO so all the people that love Vista paid $50 or less for it. Classic. :captnkill:
Why is this funny? Do you think it would run worse on my machine if I paid more for it? I don't get it. You will find any reason at all to bash. I feel sorry for you.
You do know I am that 1 person that has zero issues with my system right? I know I'm the only one because you claim everyone else is having problems with it.
I happen to know people who work at Microsoft. It's really not that difficult living in the Seattle area to bump into one or two employees.
I spent over 3k on my machine but I'm only enjoying Vista because I paid less that $50 for it?
:tool:
conroejoe
12-08-07, 12:11 AM
Seems ironic you mention that when there was a massive pirating issue when XP was first released. :rolleyes:
So what? Vista is being shared like candy on Torrent and newgroups. In fact the boot loaders work flawlessly - Vista is easier to pirate than XP was. What is your point though?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.