Your Opinion on Vista?

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
AdamR
Former Team Member
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Name: Adam Reyher
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by AdamR » Fri May 18, 2007 5:34 pm

voyager1337 wrote: Very nice but I asked for things which XP couldn't do and with addons it can do all that rubbish
You could modify a 1974 Ford Pinto to have similar performance to a 2002 Ferrari if you really wanted to.
As for
[*]Performance enhancements[/list]
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915
How nice of you to only examine the area of gaming as the definitive source of information on whether or not Vista has higher performance. Did you even read the article? Once titles are released that are able to take advantage of DX10's full performance, then we will see performance increases. Just because you don't see it now doesn't mean those performance enhancements aren't built into Vista.

- Adam
phpBB Support: Welcome | Userguide | Knowledge Base | Search
Honored supporter of the phpBB Group!
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton

voyager1337
Registered User
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:18 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by voyager1337 » Fri May 18, 2007 5:57 pm

AdamR wrote:
voyager1337 wrote: Very nice but I asked for things which XP couldn't do and with addons it can do all that rubbish
You could modify a 1974 Ford Pinto to have similar performance to a 2002 Ferrari if you really wanted to.
You could but the fastest cars are also light weight something you clearly don't seem to grasp
AdamR wrote: How nice of you to only examine the area of gaming as the definitive source of information on whether or not Vista has higher performance. Did you even read the article? Once titles are released that are able to take advantage of DX10's full performance, then we will see performance increases. Just because you don't see it now doesn't mean those performance enhancements aren't built into Vista.

- Adam
Oh another snide swipe yet you seem to keep ignoring the fact that DX10 would be better still on XP because it's already a faster OS which is why MS wont release it on XP

User avatar
Jim_UK
Former Team Member
Posts: 18478
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Darwen N.West UK

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by Jim_UK » Fri May 18, 2007 6:13 pm

I predict that unless the tone changes on this topic that someone will lock it!

Jim
The truth is out there.
Unfortunately they will not let you anywhere near it!

beatme101
Registered User
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:20 am
Location: The country cold comes from; Canada.
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by beatme101 » Fri May 18, 2007 7:13 pm

AdamR wrote: Once titles are released that are able to take advantage of DX10's full performance, then we will see performance increases. Just because you don't see it now doesn't mean those performance enhancements aren't built into Vista.
This looks like a good part for me to spawn another comment from.

All games that have been made before Vista came out will run slower on Vista than on Windows XP or 2000. I'll bet there will still be many made in the future that will still be faster on Windows XP and 2000. Such happens alot between XP and 2000; everything is just faster on Windows 2000, because it's not bloated by pretty colours, shaved corners, and all these extra useless services and background tasks.



EDIT: I think this was mentioned in another thread by someone else: Alot of people hate the Playskool look of Windows XP and Vista. And it's true. My parents think the same thing. Looks like it was made for toddlers as a toy.
Last edited by beatme101 on Fri May 18, 2007 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

voyager1337
Registered User
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:18 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by voyager1337 » Fri May 18, 2007 7:18 pm

beatme101 wrote: I'll bet there will still be many made in the future that will still be faster on Windows XP and 2000. Such happens alot between XP and 2000; everything is just faster on Windows 2000, because it's not bloated by pretty colours, shaved corners, and all these extra useless services and background tasks. .
I noticed that too after upgrading to XP & running the benchmark again

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by SamG » Fri May 18, 2007 8:53 pm

AdamR wrote: …the natural course of the way technology works in the consumer market is based upon the fact that end users will upgrade their hardware in order for things to progress.
I think this is not so cut and dried. Outside of gamers, I know very few consumers who buy hardware just to encourage progress. Businesses are often no less conservative.

It's far more likely, IMHO, that as in the case of my co-worker, people who have a clue at all buy enough hardware to run the shipping OS effectively. Nobody that I know feels compelled to buy a new box or mobile just so they can invest in Office 2007.
AdamR wrote: Computing power has made utterly massive leaps from 2001 to 2007.
The “complaint” (and I'm using that term very loosely) is that system overhead effectively reduces “utterly massive” to “marginally improved.” Now, in fairness, system overhead is not only OS driven. Certainly a good deal of horsepower is consumed by the various security products most of us consumers feel obliged to support. But the point remains: We now have video cards with more muscle than yesterday's computer's, but it doesn't really feel like it.
AdamR wrote: And like I stated clearly, if you don't have the computer to handle Vista, either upgrade or stick with XP or 2000. I could care less as every person's needs, wants, and preferences are different.
I'm not sure it's fair to make this sound so much like an open choice. That kind of choice is not part of “the nature of technological progression.” It's not as if sticking with Win2K is cost free, especially within the Microsoft product family. Got a three-seat OneCare license but have the bad luck of having two XP machines and a Win2K box? Oh well. That's the nature of technological progression.

So back on topic, if I can swing that, is just the probably unavoidable fact that Vista costs money well beyond the upgrade fee. And that was what I was driving at earlier. The OS pushes the hardware envelope significantly. That may be a good thing, or that may be a bad thing, or it may be some of both. But I think people who question whether the total cost of ownership is demonstrably worth it, especially in the case of typical consumers, aren't necessarily missing the point of technical progress. They're thinking in terms of a more general kind of progress, I think.

User avatar
smithy_dll
Former Team Member
Posts: 7630
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Name: Lachlan Smith
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by smithy_dll » Sat May 19, 2007 12:32 am

Add-ons don't count because in many cases it involves forking out for extra software and/or hardware.

An example is backup. While XP has backup, the one in Vista _actually works_ zOMG.
Sync Centre - great idea
Windows Calendar - only so many ways to do a calendar, even though I use Outlook 2007, still great for families


Then there are the hugely improved features.
Windows Desktop Search, enough thought I had it on XP, it is not even in the same league as it's role in Vista is. I found I didn't use it on XP, but I can't heap but use it on Vista, and my productivity is all the better for it. I can also add tags to my files to make important files easier to find in the future. All from the windows shell further saving time.


IE7 - yes it is on XP, but it only runs in it's own special security zone on Vista

Windows Media Player 11 - yes I had it on XP, but only Vista has the Media Sharing feature (like iTunes has had for a while).

Aero (I am _not_ talking about glass, I am talking about aero). - Only vista supports the ultra stable aero desktop manager that uses the GPU. Pretty much any system can benefit from aero. For those wondering, Aero without glass looks exactly Vista Basic except aero uses the GPU for composoting.

Mobility Centre - great for presentations, makes connecting external displays easy, especially with the hotkey windows + X

Windows Photo Gallery - Brilliant, integrates with explorer tags and desktop search.

There are many other little things that just make it better, such as the new control panel. The XP simplified control panel was IMO a disaster whereas the vists one that again integrates into desktop search works brilliantly.

User avatar
AdamR
Former Team Member
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Name: Adam Reyher
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by AdamR » Sat May 19, 2007 1:28 am

SamG wrote:I think this is not so cut and dried. Outside of gamers, I know very few consumers who buy hardware just to encourage progress. Businesses are often no less conservative.
I didn't quite mean the users themselves are encouraging progress. This clearly isn't the case. However, if there were no customers, there would be no progress. The industry releasing new technology or software, and yes, forcing customers to purchase it or be left behind is what brings about progress. But in the end, without the customers, there is no technological progression.
The “complaint” (and I'm using that term very loosely) is that system overhead effectively reduces “utterly massive” to “marginally improved.” Now, in fairness, system overhead is not only OS driven. Certainly a good deal of horsepower is consumed by the various security products most of us consumers feel obliged to support. But the point remains: We now have video cards with more muscle than yesterday's computer's, but it doesn't really feel like it.
Agreed to a certain extent. As I said earlier in many cases hardware has far exceeded Moore's Law. There have been times where hardware progression has taken massive leaps. The introduction of dual-core (and now quad and octo-core) is one of these, in my opinion. The main reason we aren't seeing the effects of this in the consumer market is the software developers haven't had much of a chance to keep up with the progress that's being made in the static-free labs. This is one thing, IMO, Microsoft was trying to prevent when they released the specifications for WDDM and etc. well in advance from Vista's launch date. Moreso than any other MS OS release was Vista open information from Alpha and available to developers. The developers failed to take advantage of this (and yes, even some hardware manufactures WRT DX10 and drivers), which is why we're seeing that bit of a lag-time. This is hardly Microsoft's fault.
I'm not sure it's fair to make this sound so much like an open choice. That kind of choice is not part of “the nature of technological progression.” It's not as if sticking with Win2K is cost free, especially within the Microsoft product family. Got a three-seat OneCare license but have the bad luck of having two XP machines and a Win2K box? Oh well. That's the nature of technological progression.
Agreed. There are many transition points within progression. This happened back when Windows 95 came along and Windows switched to 32-bit computing. My point was originally that for the time being, Windows XP is a fine OS to be sticking with. However, they day will come when no software will support it and users will be forced to upgrade. Exactly like you said, that's the nature of technological progression.
Will this be Windows 7 (aka Vienna)? Who knows. Most likely it will be as Microsoft recently confirmed that it will be exclusively 64-bit.
So back on topic, if I can swing that, is just the probably unavoidable fact that Vista costs money well beyond the upgrade fee. And that was what I was driving at earlier. The OS pushes the hardware envelope significantly. That may be a good thing, or that may be a bad thing, or it may be some of both. But I think people who question whether the total cost of ownership is demonstrably worth it, especially in the case of typical consumers, aren't necessarily missing the point of technical progress. They're thinking in terms of a more general kind of progress, I think.
I agree to some extent. If we go back to the other argument that everything in Vista can be accomplished with add-ons, we need to consider exactly how much purchasing that software would cost in order to bring the two into the same plane. I could probably assure you the cost of the third-party software would 1) cost more and 2) be no where near as stable or of as high performance as these features are built into the OS itself rather than being on top as a layer. We also must realize that Vista came, what? 5.5 years after XP? How large of a cost is it really when looked at from that perspective?
beatme101 wrote: All games that have been made before Vista came out will run slower on Vista than on Windows XP or 2000. I'll bet there will still be many made in the future that will still be faster on Windows XP and 2000. Such happens alot between XP and 2000; everything is just faster on Windows 2000, because it's not bloated by pretty colours, shaved corners, and all these extra useless services and background tasks.
So disable them and revert to Windows Classic mode? It's ridiculous to say "OMG! Aero takes up more system resources!" ... well, no kidding. It's a more advanced system. You can't compare apples to oranges. Comparing Aero (and Glass) to Luna are not the same thing.
EDIT: I think this was mentioned in another thread by someone else: Alot of people hate the Playskool look of Windows XP and Vista. And it's true. My parents think the same thing. Looks like it was made for toddlers as a toy.
[/quote]

That's subjective. While I personally don't like the Luna look and feel, I certainly don't think it's that bad. Others may disagree. I personally think OS X's Aqua is hard on the eyes. The same thing with GNOME or KDE. Again, others disagree. I happen to really like Windows Classic and moreso Aero (Glass).

- Adam
phpBB Support: Welcome | Userguide | Knowledge Base | Search
Honored supporter of the phpBB Group!
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by SamG » Sat May 19, 2007 5:26 am

AdamR wrote:If we go back to the other argument that everything in Vista can be accomplished with add-ons…
This is where the discussion is breaking down, IMHO. Not surprisingly, there are people here who value Vista as a technical achievement. This very nearly completely misses the point of people, like me, who have to balance several competing priorities as we deploy and use (and dispose of) computer technology. The extended technical posts in this thread are fine and all, but they suggest to me that the practical issues that are clearly involved are very nearly failing to be heard.

User avatar
Inviz
Registered User
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:22 pm

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by Inviz » Sun May 20, 2007 10:21 pm

I recently bought a brand new acer aspiron 5610 computer with 2gigs of ram and a 1.89ghz processor which ran vista. While at first I thought vista was very nice I then realized that it wasn't a very good os. The windows firewall is a complete menace, I was transferring files from 1 account to another (both were on the same computer) and it continually asked me if I wanted to allow it to transfer the files! Also, whenever you go to download something it asks you if it's ok, then when you want to install it, and (sometimes) if you want to run it for the first time. It's very annoying. It's also not very compatible. I have a printer that's around 7 years old, is in great condition and works very well, I have to buy a brand new one because the drivers will not be made for vista ever.

If you're using xp and are happy with it I would recommend keeping it, however if you want something new I'd suggest you try linux or get a mac.
Image

User avatar
smithy_dll
Former Team Member
Posts: 7630
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Name: Lachlan Smith
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by smithy_dll » Sun May 20, 2007 10:54 pm

Inviz wrote:Also, whenever you go to download something it asks you if it's ok, then when you want to install it, and (sometimes) if you want to run it for the first time. It's very annoying.
Normal behaviour for IE6 (SP2 edition) on XP. Nothing new or unique to Vista. Same behaviour is present in firefox if you launch from the downloads manager.

beatme101
Registered User
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:20 am
Location: The country cold comes from; Canada.
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by beatme101 » Mon May 21, 2007 12:24 am

smithy_dll wrote:
Inviz wrote:Also, whenever you go to download something it asks you if it's ok, then when you want to install it, and (sometimes) if you want to run it for the first time. It's very annoying.
Normal behaviour for IE6 (SP2 edition) on XP. Nothing new or unique to Vista.
Ah, there's another thing that's ensured I would never use XP for this computer. Downloading on XP is like 20 steps, and then there's having to tell the computer it is okay to run a program after I double click on it, every single time, no matter what program it is.

sandx
Registered User
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by sandx » Mon May 21, 2007 12:27 am

Vista is too complicated. The interface "looks" great, I love the transparent stuff. But 80% of the programs that I use are not Vista compatible. Vista came with my laptop and I would much rather have xp, but Dell would not allow me to "downgrade."
:|
I have problems with
  • firefox
    avg professional
    roxio, or any other burner software that I have tried
    Dreamweaver
    Acoustica
    and the others that I have to test
I absoluteley hate the "CANCEL OR ALLOW," if anybody knows how to control it PM me, it is so annoying.

I also hate the time it takes download b/c it is "CALCULATING TIME TO DOWNOAD." Even if it's only a few seconds for download---it even freezes sometimes when doing that.

Maybe it'll get better with Service Pack 2 LMAO :lol:

holy dog
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:18 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by holy dog » Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:13 am

Well vista sux. Everyone knew that. Its copying Mac for it's 'simple design'. Never worked and it ended up all trashed up and more holes for hackers hack through then Xp etc. My friend bought for $60 and went home to find out that its sux. He quickly went back to Xp! If your not using your comp for gaming then i say Linux ubuntu. Good. Really good and its free! Free software and you hardly can get hacked. In 100 hacked comps,88 are windows,10 are Macs and 2 are linux! If you really want to install Linux, make sure you do it on a trashable hard drive, if it fails, it WILL destroy the hard drive ==".
The dog will pwn you.....

User avatar
smithy_dll
Former Team Member
Posts: 7630
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Name: Lachlan Smith
Contact:

Re: Your Opinion on Vista?

Post by smithy_dll » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:28 am

holy dog wrote:it WILL destroy the hard drive ==".
Software managed by a modern operating system cannot destroy modern consumer grade computer hardware.
Well vista sux. Everyone knew that. Its copying Mac for it's 'simple design'.
Care to backup your statements with some referenced facts?
Never worked and it ended up all trashed up and more holes for hackers hack through then Xp etc.
Again facts?
In 100 hacked comps,88 are windows,10 are Macs and 2 are linux!
How construed those statistics are. You fail to take into consideration market share. Because mac and linux are both in the single figure percentage points of market share it isn't surprising they have single figure values in your posted statistics. More so can you back up these statistics by referencing a trusted source? It's not true without a trusted reference, otherwise anybody could make stuff up, and don't think they don't.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”