Vista: good or bad?

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

You're just resorting to plain old lying Spyhop:



We're gonna cling to it until it remains a fact and you cant deny it. Oh yeah, please don't down-track your statements, you said 4 GB RAM is standard. Well it isn't!

I told you. You're a troll and I'm not participating with you any longer in this discussion. You created this thread just to pick a fight with Vista advocates.

[Squall-Leonhart]

1GB is still the standard actually. since Custom builts only make up a small segment of the market, the majority of computers are factory builds.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by Squall-Leonhart

1GB is still the standard actually. since Custom builts only make up a small segment of the market, the majority of computers are factory builds.

2GB is becoming more common on many of the proprietary systems. But, int he eventuality that someone only has a a gig, another gig of ddr2 is maybe 30bucks. Not unreasonable. If someone's computer is just too old to upgrade then they can stick with older software. Hell, I still have customers with ancient machines who can't upgrade to xp. lol

[gamefreak94]

You created this thread just to pick a fight with Vista advocates.

I honestly changed my mind when I did some searching on the Internet.

I told you. You're a troll and I'm not participating with you any longer in this discussion.

Fact is, you're acting like a cornered cat which doesn't have any way out. You started out with the power of reasoning, when that didn't work, you resorted to lying, when that (obviously) didn't work, you're resorting to the most childish action possible, calling someone a troll (I think crying would be the next step).

In simpler terms, you have ran out of excuses to defend Vista.

2GB is becoming more common on many of the proprietary systems.

I think you are using this as your last escape goat, well you're wrong. When we were in the heat of the arguement, you said 4 GB is standard. It might seem that I am saying this too often but then again so are you. I just think it my duty to push your excuses down where they belong.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

Fact is, you're acting like a cornered cat which doesn't have any way out. You started out with the power of reasoning, when that didn't work, you resorted to lying, when that (obviously) didn't work, you're resorting to the most childish action possible, calling someone a troll (I think crying would be the next step). You just can't go on defending Vista.

Sure I can. I've seen many valid points here that are worth considering. It's not a black and white, right or wrong issue. It comes down to preference in the end, and I've seen nothing that would somehow lead me to believe that I've been "proven wrong".
But notice I'm still participating with everyone else but you? You just want to turn this into a fight and I'm not interested. Troll elsewhere.

[Chaos_Blader]

4gb is not a standard, especially when 32 bit systems can only recognize 3gb of it. But honestly, vista sucks because it uses more ram? If you don't want to take advantage of more ram, then take it out. 2gb is fine for vista, and was the sweet spot for xp. Most of you have probably never tested this out yourself and are just repeating garbage you found on google. I ran vista fine on 1 gb ram, p4 630 @ 3.0ghz and geforce 6200.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by Chaos_Blader

4gb is not a standard

When I said that I was referring to this crowd, not the general computer using population at large.

[a_en]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

Fact is, you're acting like a cornered cat which doesn't have any way out. You started out with the power of reasoning, when that didn't work, you resorted to lying, when that (obviously) didn't work, you're resorting to the most childish action possible, calling someone a troll (I think crying would be the next step).

In simpler terms, you have ran out of excuses to defend Vista.



I think you are using this as your last escape goat, well you're wrong. When we were in the heat of the arguement, you said 4 GB is standard. It might seem that I am saying this too often but then again so are you. I just think it my duty to push your excuses down where they belong.

1>oi 14 years old,>>Mr. Troll<< guy (hope that number in ur username is false i assume, but teh troll part is really true!.. aha..)

2>nope most spyhop statement is right, it is you that run out idea to bash vista.

3>it's depend on the user (comp builder mostly), 4 gb is plainly cheap(readocket friendly) , most computer enthusiast will opt it.
sure if i go for 64 bit, i wll take 8gb. yup enthusiast=power user

from what i read in your post

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

well getting back to the reason why I posted this thread, can someone please tell me how well the E2160 will cope with PCSX2?
Other specs:
RAM: 1 GB DDR2
video card: ATI HIS HD 2400 Pro (512 MB)

Will I get reasonable (20-40 fps) on this configuration (I know this goes against the forum rules but its just that I can't get my PC specs listed below, that would help)

that is low end and cheap comp, and from what i can understand from quote above, you haven't got that comp yet..... what is your current comp ? Pentium4?

that's very low end for vista but still...
you've installed vista right? it's legit ? have you update it to sp1+another update? have you ever try to use it more than 24 hours maybe for a few days?
.
.
.
last word cheap is troublesome... (it's about system hog,slow,eyecandy hellness..,etc,etc...)

[Chaos_Blader]

Found an article explaining what I was saying before.

Most people haven't tried Vista.

Microsoft looks to 'Mojave' to revive Vista's image | Beyond Binary - A blog by Ina Fried - CNET News.com

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by Chaos_Blader

Found an article explaining what I was saying before.

Most people haven't tried Vista.

Microsoft looks to 'Mojave' to revive Vista's image | Beyond Binary - A blog by Ina Fried - CNET News.com

Spurred by an e-mail from someone deep in the marketing ranks, Microsoft last week traveled to San Francisco, rounding up Windows XP users who had negative impressions of Vista. The subjects were put on video, asked about their Vista impressions, and then shown a "new" operating system, code-named Mojave. More than 90 percent gave positive feedback on what they saw. Then they were told that "Mojave" was actually Windows Vista.

Haha. That's brilliant.

It illustrates my point too. Most of the people vehemently trashing Vista as if the OS killed a family member haven't actually tried it out for a reasonable amount of time.

[gamefreak94]

You just want to turn this into a fight and I'm not interested. Troll elsewhere.

Oh excuse me! I think I said stuff like "you like Vista, you walk home with that, I like XP, I walk home with that" and "bottomline is, its your opinion" but did you shut your trap, no! It was you or Samor who always started the merry-go-round of quoting the other person and finding faults in it?

Anyway, can we put the arguement between the two of us to rest with this post? It'll benefit both of us because you're just making yourself and me look like arguing little 3 year-olds!

from what i can understand from quote above, you haven't got that comp yet..... what is your current comp ? Pentium4?

Yeah, as if you have taken reconnisance photos of my PC! And in that case, how can anyone in this forum be trusted for the PC specs they list down eh?

you've installed vista right? it's legit ? have you update it to sp1+another update? have you ever try to use it more than 24 hours maybe for a few days?

Look man I don't mean to be rude, but I can tell that you haven't read all the bs in the past 6 pages of this thread

14 years old

Yeah sure! I believe its the hottest topic amongst 14 year-olds today: Is Vista good or a load of bs? Very intersting topic for high school students that barely know what operating system means!

[P_RePTiLe]

Originally Posted by Spyhop

Switching to Vista is a lot like switching to XP from 2000. You're not really sure why you did it until you use the new OS for awhile. Vista has a lot of small details that makes it worth it. (No, not aero)

You mean the windows 2000 who wasn't actually targeted towards the home-market, but for server systems? - i never made that switch since i had just wrestled and shaped my win 98 to perfect non-blue-screen'ish shape.
And 2000 were just slow like i don't know what. the boot-times were horrible - and that never convinced me, as vista fail to do aswell.

It's true that XP weren't as glorious pre SP2-(the second/third version of sp2), and that it shines even better now that i have made my own installation of it (no iexplore, cmd-commands and other junk - and nvidia drivers and other important stuff auto-configuring during installation).

And i don't say that they might improve vista more and more, if they don't think it is unnecessary since they are already making a new one.

What i say is that there is no need for vista, they could have continued the XP that already is almost bug-free and working, instead of starting a new bug-hunt.

You _need_ an os, and microsoft isn't handling it well when they are seeing the dollars in their eyes for forcing people to be dependent on switching to another immature os.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by P_RePTiLe

forcing people to be dependent on switching to another immature os.

How is Vista an immature OS?

I don't see MS "forcing" anyone to do anything. They just released a new XP service pack after all. If someone is already running XP and happy with it I don't see a huge reason to pay the money for Vista. It would be like having my E6850 CPU, and knowing I would get more out of an E8400, but not thinking it's worth the money. (Mind you, my personal opinion on the matter is that Vista IS worth the upgrade cost, but that's me).

However, I see no reason for people to not get Vista on a new computer.

[P_RePTiLe]

Originally Posted by Spyhop

How is Vista an immature OS?

I don't see MS "forcing" anyone to do anything. They just released a new XP service pack after all. If someone is already running XP and happy with it I don't see a huge reason to pay the money for Vista. It would be like having my E6850 CPU, and knowing I would get more out of an E8400, but not thinking it's worth the money. (Mind you, my personal opinion on the matter is that Vista IS worth the upgrade cost, but that's me).

However, I see no reason for people to not get Vista on a new computer.

I were aiming on the long cycles of sorting through random bugs and the likes, improving performance and stability. something MS handles with it's updates and service packs. Since vista is new, and XP is "sort of" complete at last.

The forcing part is wellknown, new computers with preinstalled vista, discontinued driver-support, and gradually the games will be hard to run since they will keep the new direct-x versions to vista of course.

And yeah, every one runs what they pleases.

[Xblade]

Originally Posted by Spyhop

2gb is nothing. How long are you going to cling to the notion that 2gb is unreasonable for most people to have?

Well you must have a lot of money to throw out to think that its standard. Majority of normal users aren't willing to throw down 700 bucks for a pc or 1k for a laptop. Unless your planning to game then its a waste of money and f.y.i most users aren't gamers.

[P_RePTiLe]

I believe the main reason behind the dislike of vista, is based on the feeling that microsoft is going in the wrong way by being more and more demanding on the hardware.

Sure, the performance of the "general computer" improve all the time.
But the feeling vista gives (and i _have_ used it extensively even if i don't want it for my system - since i do a lot of support and custom-builds for peers) is that they don't focus as much on sleekness and having a trimmed and quick background environment for your apps - which is what an os is meant to be in my pov.

It is like the thing the insane and rapid evolvement of the graphic-cards we have today. the feeling that gives me are that they put everything on the shaders and more and more api-like stuff - while the coders get sloppier, leaning back on the latest gpu-card-abilities.

They just seem count on the hardware to be more powerful, instead of improving more and more to give more room left of that power for the user.

[Xblade]

Originally Posted by Spyhop

How is Vista an immature OS?

I don't see MS "forcing" anyone to do anything. They just released a new XP service pack after all. If someone is already running XP and happy with it I don't see a huge reason to pay the money for Vista. It would be like having my E6850 CPU, and knowing I would get more out of an E8400, but not thinking it's worth the money. (Mind you, my personal opinion on the matter is that Vista IS worth the upgrade cost, but that's me).

However, I see no reason for people to not get Vista on a new computer.

Most pcs and ALL store bought pcs come with it pre-installed. I had vista on my pc for about 5 minutes after startup but not any longer :3
Vista isn't a bad os. They just should of waited a few more months to release it. Eventually its gonna make xp look crappy but for now I'll stick with xp(I'm planning to change when I buy a new pc.)

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by Xblade

Well you must have a lot of money to throw out to think that its standard. Majority of normal users aren't willing to throw down 700 bucks for a pc or 1k for a laptop. Unless your planning to game then its a waste of money and f.y.i most users aren't gamers.

An extra gig of ram is 25-30 bucks.

Originally Posted by P_RePTiLe

I believe the main reason behind the dislike of vista, is based on the feeling that microsoft is going in the wrong way by being more and more demanding on the hardware.

To be fair, that's something they're addressing with minwin.
Although, I'm of a firm belief that most of the vista hate was generated by sheeple who thought the mac vs pc propaganda ads were true. I'm sure there's other factors, but those ads were quite effective in circulating Vista dissent. If you ask most people, who haven't even tried Vista, what they think of it they'll respond, "I dunno. I heard it was bad." If you ask why they usually won't have an answer.

[Squall-Leonhart]

I'll put it like this.

XP has lasted what, 8 years? Its stable, vendor support for it is highly likely.
Vista has been out 1 year and about 8 months, It hasn't had the mega boom that XP had, nor does it provide that much over XP.

Alot of the core features meant to be in it, aren't, this was done simply to get it to market faster. Further decreasing any reason to upgrade. Not to mention that Codename Windows 7 is scheduled for a 2009 release.

People are saying Windows 2000 was crap, i agree in some cases it was, it wasn't until SP2 that it was any good. However, Windows XP was a major update of the Windows 2000 kernel, gaining the .1 increment (NT5.1).

Vista is the equivalent of NT5 (2000), Full to the brim with bugs, 800 which were well known and unpatched on release, and more then 400 have been found since. SP1 was a cumulative update that pretty much just installed all the previous hotfixes, and patches, and added some functions from Server 2008, (bringing it from Build 6000 to 6001).

If you want to wait for a real upgrade, i would suggest skipping Vista, and waiting for Windows 7, as just like Windows XP was to 2000, Windows 7 will be a far more secure, stable, and feature packed Operating System, then Vista was, and still is. Now you can't blame beta testesr for Vista's swisscheese appearance, many, were vocal about keeping it in Beta for a bit longer. However, since there is no regulator in regards to software quality control, Windows Vista released with 800 bugs, many of which were severe stability problems. Anyone remember the Nvidia bsods, how microsoft pinpointed them to buggy drivers. Yep, you got it, bugs in the vista driver stack. Microsoft finally took responsibility (without outright appologising for ****ing up) with the Performance and Stability pack. while vista still does have some stability bugs on certain setups. alot of these now are due to people using optimial bios defaults.

The current cause of most Vista TDR's are incorrect Ram settings, usually just Voltage, but sometimes also Timing spd's.

However, Vista also fails in its versions, gone are the days of Home, and Pro versions, seriously why? saturating the markets with different versions of the same OS, which typically add 1 or 2 features that you can get from software that cost 1/2 the extra cost of buying a more expensive license? Xbox360 Core, Pro, Elite anybody? Epic phail?

Totally.

OH, as of this date, Microsoft has released updates for Vista, which completely breaks IE7 if the google, yahoo, or msn toolbars are installed.
Quality Control? Not likely.