Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > O/S's, Drivers & General Software

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old September 4, 2008, 12:19 AM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzetsin View Post
there isnt really anything "wrong" with vista...per se... other than its a huge resource hog for no apperant reason. but if you have abundant ram, and if your looking at vista 64 for the high mem thing, then you wont have a problem with that...

its not much different than say, going from win 2k to win xp, except that xp actually had better technology in it and vista really doesnt. or if it does, you nor I will ever notice/see it... except for dx 10, wich is only available in vista because if it was available for xp nobody would use vista, and the ability to use quad sli i guess. not sure why THAT doesnt work in xp, but it doesnt.

some nice utilities wont work in vista, or maby even specifically vista 64. One that comes immidiatly to mind is Nvidia's Nvision, which allows you to span two monitors as one high resolution display (great for gaming on a super large "display") there is currently no way to span monitors in vista like you could in xp... wich is BS in my opinion... (however there is hardware you can buy that gives you this functionality)

pretty safe to say that vista is an extreemly bloated OS, that will work fine if you have a fairly high end system with LOTS of memory (my vista64 instally uses almost 800 megs of ram at idle and i have all the services i can do without turned off)

dont be scared to move to vista if you have a system that can handle it. Just be aware that there will be some things you cant do or use when you move over. again, its no different than what happend when xp replaced win2k
Actually your incorrect in a lot of ways.

The MAJOR difference between 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> XP/2k was the fact that it was all a VERY easy transition.

Things stayed the same mostly and didn't much and people were able to adopt and feel comfortable fairly quick.

Then came Vista and the transition was absolutely and totally different. What takes a few clicks in XP may take 5 in Vista; UI changes that can't be changed, fixed or set to your liking and etc etc.

Most people don't like Vista because its not friendly for people who are experience with computers and want things their way. If you want a OS that picks your nose and scratches your ass then run Vista, but myself I want a OS that I can make the way I want and for that I stick with XP.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old September 4, 2008, 12:43 AM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: AB
Posts: 1,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaberif View Post
Actually your incorrect in a lot of ways.

The MAJOR difference between 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> XP/2k was the fact that it was all a VERY easy transition.

Things stayed the same mostly and didn't much and people were able to adopt and feel comfortable fairly quick.

Then came Vista and the transition was absolutely and totally different. What takes a few clicks in XP may take 5 in Vista; UI changes that can't be changed, fixed or set to your liking and etc etc.

Most people don't like Vista because its not friendly for people who are experience with computers and want things their way. If you want a OS that picks your nose and scratches your ass then run Vista, but myself I want a OS that I can make the way I want and for that I stick with XP.
well i sure cant argue with you at all on those points. but i was realy only talking about vista from a technical / performance standpoint. and the only real stupid UI change was the display properties and the device manager... there are others, but those, at least for me, are the only two i actually use on a regular basis. and i used a registry hack to put the device manager in the menu when i right click my computer, an i can cope with an extra click to get to the display properties considering that they actually made the few customizable features of vista in their own little spot instead of in an out of the way spot like they where before.

your right though, vista's UI is a fairly big change over xp, but not as big as switching to linux is, not by half. Linux is definatly the OS for guys like us, but vista needs to cater to the inept and those mac like fools.

I'm actually kindof glad they made things a little different, even if they made a few mistakes along the way, its progress. I'd hate for the OS market to stagnate because they never tried to do anything different. I just wish they didnt get so crazy bloated. I also wish they had a check thinger on install that asked what options i wanted installed with the OS, cause i dont use any extra vista has but picture viewer and paint.... and occasionally mahjong ;)
__________________

vista 64 on these rigs
Q9450 @ 3.5Ghz | E8400 @ 4.2Ghz
8gb Muskin Redline. | 2gb Kingston Hyperx
________________________________|_________________ ______________
EVGA 780i FTW ----\--||___||--/---- EVGA 780i SLI
Antec TP Quatro 1000W \ :==^==: / Antec TP Quatro 850W.
Nvidia 9800 GX2 X 2 SLI \|--o--|/ Nvidia 8800 GTS X 2 SLI
1X 500GB Western Digital. \_____/ 3X 150GB WD RAPTOR RAID-0
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old September 4, 2008, 03:03 AM
Dashock's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,938
Default

well i hope they let me beta test Windows 7 lol you guys should have seen vista at the early stages my my my but i must say i did enjoy it. Still use vista but i dual boot mostly in xp.
__________________
Intel Xeon E3110 @ 3.0ghz
XFX 8800 GT Alpha Dog Edition
Asus P5Q-E
Mushkin Ascent Redline 8000 4gb DDR2 @ 1066 5-5-5-15 2.05v
OCZ 600W GameXstream
Seagate 7200.11 500gb
Seagate 7200.10 320gb
Antec Spot Cool
Logitech X-230
Samsung 32" 720P HDTV



Coolermaster Cosmos S/
Swiftech Mcp655/ MCR-320-QP/ 6X Noctua NF-P12'S/ Swiftech Apogee GT/ Swiftech Mcw-60/ Swiftech Micro-Res.

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old September 4, 2008, 04:48 AM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashock View Post
well i hope they let me beta test Windows 7 lol you guys should have seen vista at the early stages my my my but i must say i did enjoy it. Still use vista but i dual boot mostly in xp.
Personally Longhorn was A LOT better than Vista.

Theres leaks of "beta" of Windows 7, tho I don't know the validity of them.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old September 4, 2008, 11:50 PM
Moneyless's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 303

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzetsin View Post
well i sure cant argue with you at all on those points. but i was realy only talking about vista from a technical / performance standpoint. and the only real stupid UI change was the display properties and the device manager... there are others, but those, at least for me, are the only two i actually use on a regular basis. and i used a registry hack to put the device manager in the menu when i right click my computer, an i can cope with an extra click to get to the display properties considering that they actually made the few customizable features of vista in their own little spot instead of in an out of the way spot like they where before.

your right though, vista's UI is a fairly big change over xp, but not as big as switching to linux is, not by half. Linux is definatly the OS for guys like us, but vista needs to cater to the inept and those mac like fools.

I'm actually kindof glad they made things a little different, even if they made a few mistakes along the way, its progress. I'd hate for the OS market to stagnate because they never tried to do anything different. I just wish they didnt get so crazy bloated. I also wish they had a check thinger on install that asked what options i wanted installed with the OS, cause i dont use any extra vista has but picture viewer and paint.... and occasionally mahjong ;)
Actually Vista is only a little more bloated then XP. The reason Vista uses so much memory is because (IIRC/AFAIK) it remembers the applications you use the most and it pre-loads all the info for them into the RAM for you so that they can start up faster next time you decide to do so.

I myself have XP and I told myself I wouldn't switch to Vista because I "didn't like it." But then I tried Vista on my laptop and it wasn't that bad. But since I've gotten 4GB of ram now I will be getting Vista Ultimate 64bit, since XP 64bit is complete fail.

Although I did end up putting Ubuntu on my laptop since Vista wouldn't stop BSODing, but I'll probably put XP SP3 on it once I get Vista 64bit on my desktop.
__________________
"I hate broccoli
And think it totally sucks
Why is it not meat?"
-Deadpool
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old September 7, 2008, 02:29 PM
b1lk1's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lindsay, Ontario
Posts: 2,527

My System Specs

Default

The transition to Windows XP was easy? Are you smoking crack? All I remember is the same whining and BS that is now being said about Vista when XP was released. Nothing was transferrable from 98 and older and it required all new drivers. In fact, 99.99% of the world cried "Not until SP1 will I use it" and then after SP1 failed to appease the whiney masses, they all screamed for SP2. I am sorry, but you are not using your head if you think/thought XP was even remotely well received the first 2 years.

You can hate Vista all you want, but I hate XP even more.
__________________
MY HEATWARE

Last edited by b1lk1; September 7, 2008 at 03:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old September 7, 2008, 03:17 PM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: AB
Posts: 1,212
Default

OMFG finally someone else who remembers! I was beginning to think that i somehow was passed over by the mass hypnosis that musta happened to make everyone think that xp was any different than vista the first couple years......
__________________

vista 64 on these rigs
Q9450 @ 3.5Ghz | E8400 @ 4.2Ghz
8gb Muskin Redline. | 2gb Kingston Hyperx
________________________________|_________________ ______________
EVGA 780i FTW ----\--||___||--/---- EVGA 780i SLI
Antec TP Quatro 1000W \ :==^==: / Antec TP Quatro 850W.
Nvidia 9800 GX2 X 2 SLI \|--o--|/ Nvidia 8800 GTS X 2 SLI
1X 500GB Western Digital. \_____/ 3X 150GB WD RAPTOR RAID-0
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old September 7, 2008, 04:28 PM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyless View Post
since XP 64bit is complete fail.
When was the last time or have you actually used xp64? Because its what I'm running now with absolutely no isssues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b1lk1 View Post
The transition to Windows XP was easy? Are you smoking crack? All I remember is the same whining and BS that is now being said about Vista when XP was released. Nothing was transferrable from 98 and older and it required all new drivers. In fact, 99.99% of the world cried "Not until SP1 will I use it" and then after SP1 failed to appease the whiney masses, they all screamed for SP2. I am sorry, but you are not using your head if you think/thought XP was even remotely well received the first 2 years.

You can hate Vista all you want, but I hate XP even more.
Transition was fine from 98 to XP it was driver compatibility that was the problem. You could just from 98 to XP and you'd feel the gui/interface was similar that it wasn't confusing.

Unlike XP to Vista where so much stuff is hidden deeper to prevent people from finding it or takes more clicks to do something simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzetsin View Post
OMFG finally someone else who remembers! I was beginning to think that i somehow was passed over by the mass hypnosis that musta happened to make everyone think that xp was any different than vista the first couple years......
Again the biggest issue with XP was the drivers not the OS itself. Windows XP prior Sp1 was a pretty stable and good working OS. The same can't be said with Vista cause it had so many little things that made it not work nicely.

But Vista is finally starting to catch upto XP in regards to function and speed and maybe more people will jump over but not me.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old September 7, 2008, 05:48 PM
b1lk1's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lindsay, Ontario
Posts: 2,527

My System Specs

Default

I am sorry, but I still cannot believe that you believe what you are saying. When Windows XP was introduced, it was pretty much called the devil and most Win 98 software and hardware would not work with it. If anything, most software and hardware that worked under XP works under Vista. Some XP drivers even work under Vista. XP was majorly unsafe and dysfunctional until SP1 and was not truly "fixed" until SP2. XP was full of security holes for 3+ years as well and still needs patches just like Vista does. How long have you actually been using XP? I don't mean to sound so confrontational, but you are completly overlooking XP's horrible past because you personally don't like Vista. Try to remember that the XP kernal is 8+ years old at this point and Vista is still under 2.

As for XP 64-bit, I agree that it has made MAJOR strides and is every bit as good as XP. Driver implementation has improved tremendously, but I still say that is thanks to Vista and their "push" towards 64-bit OS's. I for one think Vista should not even have a 32-bit version since XP takes that role up nicely already.

I for one have not had hardly any issues at all with Vista. It could be that I only use the latest available hardware, but either way I'd say 90%+ of the people running Vista have little to no issues. Vista has been far better at launch than XP could have ever dreamed of.
__________________
MY HEATWARE
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old September 7, 2008, 05:51 PM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by b1lk1 View Post
I am sorry, but I still cannot believe that you believe what you are saying. When Windows XP was introduced, it was pretty much called the devil and most Win 98 software and hardware would not work with it. If anything, most software and hardware that worked under XP works under Vista. Some XP drivers even work under Vista. XP was majorly unsafe and dysfunctional until SP1 and was not truly "fixed" until SP2. XP was full of security holes for 3+ years as well and still needs patches just like Vista does. How long have you actually been using XP? I don't mean to sound so confrontational, but you are completly overlooking XP's horrible past because you personally don't like Vista. Try to remember that XP is 8+ years old at this point and Vista is still under 2.
I was using Windows XP during its "beta" stages and even in the beta stages I had no issues with it at all.

Everything you are talking about is either due to a new OS being introduced and having to work out its quirks or instability issues due to driver support with a new OS.

Most of my grief with Vista is simply the GUI has been changed so radically I do not like it.

Oh and I've been using xp x64 before Vista 64bit became a major name.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes