Windows Vista is Sh1t

2

Comments

  • rapid_uphill
    rapid_uphill Posts: 841
    i was an official beta tester for vista aswell but i still cant think of anything positive to say about it. sry

    its an operating system and it does its job but its never going to be as popular as xp was/is

    none of the 4 colleges were i live have upgraded to vista that testiment to how good xp is
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    freehub wrote:
    You won't like Windows 7, it's not massivly different from Vista, but I do noticed how allot of loyal XP fanboys suddenly say how awesome Windows 7 is, it just goes to show the amount of human sheep their are.

    Well, Ive heard that the performance is better again, so more like it was under XP... The general concensus is that Vista was 20-25% slower running than XP, task-wise that is not boot and shutdown speeds.

    If performance is going to be back like XP then that's why people are happy about it, must admit, this is what Ive heard from programmers and techie-types that I work with too.

    PCPro for example are shouting about the 'responsive feel' that seems to be there that was missing with Vista, think they described Vista in comparison as 'sometimes like wading through treacle'.

    It will be interesting to see for me, I hammer my computers pretty hard, so I'll be interested to see once installed if I stick with 7 or go back to my trusted XP.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Are you going to run the x64 or x86 version mfin?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • snailracer
    snailracer Posts: 968
    mfin wrote:
    Just thought Id time the laptops before I smash this Vista one....

    Dell XPS M1330 T7500 2.20Ghz Core2Duo with 2Gb Ram - Vista SP2
    (has Microsoft Security Essentials installed as AV cos thats the quickest to load if not the best)
    160Gb 7200rpm Faster Hard Disk

    ---- vs ----

    MacBook with SnowLeopard 1.83Ghz CoreDuo (*** NOT Core2Duo ***) 2Gb Ram
    Standard 5400rpm 60Gb Hard Disk

    (NOTE: The Vista Machine is clean as a whistle, thats a fresh hard-disk with Vista installed with ALL updates and all indexing turned off with all unnecessary proprietory Dell software cr@p removed... the MacBook is not clean at all however, there's lots on it... both have OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird installed too)

    ........................................................................................Vista...........................Mac
    Time to boot whole system, all icons, ready to use ........2:20...........................0:42
    Time elapsed by the time all HD activity has stops...........7:55...........................0:49
    (that's both timed from the button on press)
    Time to shut down from 'shutdown click' ........................0:35...........................0:03

    Seeing as the PC is the MORE POWERFUL!!! that seems ridiculous... plus the fact that Vista will keep doing updates every day or so which slows all this down again dramatically !!!

    Are we getting confused with terminology here? I thought a Mac "shutdown" = Windows "hibernate, and Mac "reset" = Windows "shutdown"?

    I could be totally wrong here, would appreciate it if someone could clarify this.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    redddraggon wrote:
    It's just a shame Macs aren't as useful isn't it?

    Does everything I need and a hell of a lot more that I don't. The only way in which Macs are inferior to Windows is in games - and I really couldn't give a rat's arse about that, as the only game I want on my computer is chess.

    I agree with wheezee - getting tribal about computers is somewhat pathetic. Personally I prefer Macs, but if someone else prefers Windows, then who cares? It could well be more suitable for their needs.
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    edited October 2009
    mfin wrote:
    freehub wrote:
    You won't like Windows 7, it's not massivly different from Vista, but I do noticed how allot of loyal XP fanboys suddenly say how awesome Windows 7 is, it just goes to show the amount of human sheep their are.

    Well, Ive heard that the performance is better again, so more like it was under XP... The general concensus is that Vista was 20-25% slower running than XP, task-wise that is not boot and shutdown speeds.

    If performance is going to be back like XP then that's why people are happy about it, must admit, this is what Ive heard from programmers and techie-types that I work with too.

    PCPro for example are shouting about the 'responsive feel' that seems to be there that was missing with Vista, think they described Vista in comparison as 'sometimes like wading through treacle'.

    It will be interesting to see for me, I hammer my computers pretty hard, so I'll be interested to see once installed if I stick with 7 or go back to my trusted XP.

    Windows 7 is much faster and more responsive than XP, but with Vista, I found it much faster and more responsive than XP after disabling about 2 services, the boot up of Vista was indeed longer than XP, but that's not a deal braker, I counted the bars, it took 32 to boot up, Windows 7 is a couple of mins, that's included bios screen and logging in, I usually put my PC in standby here and it takes about 3 or 4 seconds to boot back up.
    rapid_uphill wrote:
    i was an official beta tester for vista aswell but i still cant think of anything positive to say about it. sry

    its an operating system and it does its job but its never going to be as popular as xp was/is

    none of the 4 colleges were i live have upgraded to vista that testiment to how good xp is

    People should realise when Windows XP was in the same early stages as Vista it too had it's problems, and you had people sticking to windows 98 or 2000 etc.. Windows 7 was largly problem free for me in the early beta's but that's because it's based on Vista.

    The only problem I have with Windows Vista/7 is the picture gallery appears to keep breaking and no one has an answer for it, a message comes up saying how I might not have enough memory or my HDD is full and neither is the case, so something odd is going on there.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    snailracer wrote:

    Are we getting confused with terminology here? I thought a Mac "shutdown" = Windows "hibernate, and Mac "reset" = Windows "shutdown"?

    I could be totally wrong here, would appreciate it if someone could clarify this.

    Mac shutdown = Windows shutdown (I know)
    Mac sleep = Windows hibernate (I think)
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    johnfinch wrote:
    snailracer wrote:

    Are we getting confused with terminology here? I thought a Mac "shutdown" = Windows "hibernate, and Mac "reset" = Windows "shutdown"?

    I could be totally wrong here, would appreciate it if someone could clarify this.

    Mac shutdown = Windows shutdown (I know)
    Mac sleep = Windows hibernate (I think)

    Don't you know how to configure updates so they're not automatic.............
  • rapid_uphill
    rapid_uphill Posts: 841
    i would love a mac os qualification.
  • pneumatic
    pneumatic Posts: 1,989
    Even Microsoft seem to admit that Vista is Sh1t:

    "We have learned a lot from what went wrong with Vista," is a mantra repeated by every Microsoft executive.

    quoted from

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8310867.stm

    which says it all really.

    Fast and Bulbous
    Peregrinations
    Eddingtons: 80 (Metric); 60 (Imperial)
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    johnfinch wrote:
    snailracer wrote:

    Are we getting confused with terminology here? I thought a Mac "shutdown" = Windows "hibernate, and Mac "reset" = Windows "shutdown"?

    I could be totally wrong here, would appreciate it if someone could clarify this.

    Mac shutdown = Windows shutdown (I know)
    Mac sleep = Windows hibernate (I think)

    I only gave figures for a boot-up from off state and complete shutdown. Yes, the Mac shuts down in 3 seconds flat.

    As for Hibernation, Vista has that, Mac doesn't, they do both have 'sleep' states however but I hadn't timed them as they are both quick at that.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    iainf72 wrote:
    Are you going to run the x64 or x86 version mfin?

    Probably 32bit
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    wheezee wrote:
    Each has it's place: Macs for designers, Linux for developers, Windows for gamers.

    I disagree... the only bit I can agree with is Windows for Gamers... the design part of my job I can use Mac or Windows no problem at all, all the main packages are available on both. Also, Mac and Windows both are just as capable for everyday office and web tasks, photos, videos, music etc etc... Linux you can use for all sorts, most often as a Server OS.
  • nwallace
    nwallace Posts: 1,465
    cee wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    Windows 7 better be good .

    it is....

    although if you are a mac user you will constantly be saying...thats been on a mac for ages...

    interstingly...updating to 7 from vista is a total cinch...took me about 30 minutes.

    That is because Windows 7 is just Vista tidied up.
    Just like 95 to 98 was
    Do Nellyphants count?

    Commuter: FCN 9
    Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
    Off Road: FCN 11

    +1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    nwallace wrote:
    cee wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    Windows 7 better be good .

    it is....

    although if you are a mac user you will constantly be saying...thats been on a mac for ages...

    interstingly...updating to 7 from vista is a total cinch...took me about 30 minutes.

    That is because Windows 7 is just Vista tidied up.
    Just like 95 to 98 was

    Think by saying its just Vista tidied up you're talking about the GUI??, but its much more than that.
  • wheezee
    wheezee Posts: 461
    edited October 2009
    deleted
  • nwallace
    nwallace Posts: 1,465
    No the core is essentially the same as Vista but it's also been tidied up to fix the performance issues of Vista.

    It's just a huge tidy up job.

    Some people seem to have expected MS to have gone back to the XP core.
    Do Nellyphants count?

    Commuter: FCN 9
    Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
    Off Road: FCN 11

    +1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days
  • wheezee
    wheezee Posts: 461
    mfin wrote:
    wheezee wrote:
    Each has it's place: Macs for designers, Linux for developers, Windows for gamers.

    I disagree... the only bit I can agree with is Windows for Gamers... the design part of my job I can use Mac or Windows no problem at all, all the main packages are available on both. Also, Mac and Windows both are just as capable for everyday office and web tasks, photos, videos, music etc etc... Linux you can use for all sorts, most often as a Server OS.

    That bit was a joke. (Though it's rare to find publishers, ad agencies or design groups using windows machines.)
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    This is the most interesting thread ever. :cry:
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    dmclite wrote:
    This is the most interesting thread ever. :cry:

    It's a brilliant thread.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    dmclite wrote:
    This is the most interesting thread ever. :cry:

    no it isn't
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    Linux kicks ass
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    redddraggon wrote:
    Linux kicks ass


    What's wrong with windoze?
  • Le Commentateur
    Le Commentateur Posts: 4,099
    How about this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmC7d2hM ... ature=fvwp

    That bit was a joke. (Though it's rare to find publishers, ad agencies or design groups using windows machines.)

    Oh I don't know... many design groups do websites and at least will be running Windows to test on; most publisher's authors, as well as many freelance copy-editors, are using a Windows OS of some kind.
    Un uomo solo al commando
  • northstar
    northstar Posts: 407
    This whole Vista is crap is a complete myth, by far the best Win OS so far.
    Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    iainf72 wrote:
    I've been running Windows 7 since it RTM'd with no problems.

    I'd avoid upgrading from Vista and rather rebuild.

    Easily the best MS OS in a long time.

    Same here been running 7 since the first RC came out best way is clean install as you say easily the best MS OS yet, as a heads up if you have kids at university MS are allowing you to buy Windows 7 Home or Pro for £30

    http://www.microsoft.com/uk/education/studentoffer/

    got Windows 7 Pro for £30 which is coming today (postal strike ?)


    and if you have kids at secondary then as a parent you can by the software at knock down prices. through the Software for Student programme

    http://www.software4students.co.uk/Micr ... tails.aspx

    Windows 7 Ultimate for £59 this retails at £199

    Breaks my heart to pay for software but these deals are too good too turn down
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    mfin wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Are you going to run the x64 or x86 version mfin?

    Probably 32bit

    And particular reason?

    So comparing it against something like Snow Leopard would be grossly unfair as it's an x64 OS.

    Speaking of Snow Leopard, imagine if MS had released an OS with some of the issues SL has. There would be people with pitchforks and flaming torches marching on Redmond :wink:
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    Le Commentateur wrote:
    How about this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmC7d2hM ... ature=fvwp

    That bit was a joke. (Though it's rare to find publishers, ad agencies or design groups using windows machines.)

    Oh I don't know... many design groups do websites and at least will be running Windows to test on; most publisher's authors, as well as many freelance copy-editors, are using a Windows OS of some kind.


    Most website people aren't designing on Macs, they will design on Windows then test on Macs. Design agencies for print historically have been Mac but its moving. You get little discrepancies in fonts when moving files from PC to Mac, such as Quark docs and because the Mac adoption meant it was normally a Mac that was hooked up to the imagesetter you'd have to know your stuff and be very careful checking what had happened when you moved your PC file across.

    Nowadays a lot more PCs are being used in print design, especially as the files you print are being requested as print PDFs like the PDF X1a format, hence, it doesn't matter what machine you designed it on.

    Back 10 to 15 years ago a Mac was pretty dominant in these fields.

    I do more html/web/interface design nowadays than anything else and if I could work on a Mac I would, but there's too many things that aren't easy to do, there are so many little utilities I can get for PC and its better at file management.

    Soon as I dont have to be on the PC though, Im on my MacBook like a rocket and will certainly be buying an Air or Pro soon.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    iainf72 wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Are you going to run the x64 or x86 version mfin?

    Probably 32bit

    And particular reason?

    So comparing it against something like Snow Leopard would be grossly unfair as it's an x64 OS.

    Speaking of Snow Leopard, imagine if MS had released an OS with some of the issues SL has. There would be people with pitchforks and flaming torches marching on Redmond :wink:

    Well, I thought that it will be less compatible with older pieces of software I might want to run, or is that a load of rubbish??
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    x64 works fine with older pieces of software, maybe not if you go back to Windows 98 though lol...

Categories