Windows Vista is Sh1t

ride_whenever

The mac vs. pc thing, i'd agree that if you've got no weird hardware or software then go for a mac, they just work. But that is because the hardware is carefully controlled, whereas windows also has to run on all sorts of tat. It is also very badly written because the development team is massively bloated.

Dual boot a mac and you'll see they are very fast machines. I do love them, but they don't make a machine to match my desktop needs or my latop needs. Currently I have a gaming pc at home, might replace it with a mac when it dies though and dual boot it. I have a netbook, but would have gladly paid 800-1000 for an apple one tbh, but they don't make a 10" laptop, which is a shame, because with a 13" i'd be worried about snapping it over my back when it is in my messenger bag

freehub

I notice how Windows 7 on a mac laptop boots pretty slow.

synchronicity

I too am fed up with Vista. I've only been using it a little over a month.

I've owned lots of PCs. First a 286, then a 486 DX2, a Pentium III, an athlon XP 1800 or something, then an Athlon XP 2600? I've actually forgotten the exact numbers. :oops:

The last recent upgrade was to a quad-core Packard Bell with 3 Gigs of ram. From day 1, it was no faster than the old computer installed with XP. Disappointing to say the least.

I spent ages turning all the bullsh¡t default 'performance' options OFF in a futile attempt to boost performance. I absolutely HATE the layout when opening & saving files. It drives me insane.

I'll definitely consider paying the premium for a Mac next time.

ride_whenever

I've just bought win7 professional premium for my netbook and pc, we'll see if it's any better than xp/vista respectively.

At some point i'd like to make a hackintosh, see how OSX would run on scummy hardware. A lot of window's problems come from the, ooooo look at what the shiney mac does, but most pc's simply aren't specced high enough for that level of software to run smoothly. There is a reason the cheapest mac is £500... (without a screen)

freehub

synchronicity wrote:

I too am fed up with Vista. I've only been using it a little over a month.

I've owned lots of PCs. First a 286, then a 486 DX2, a Pentium III, an athlon XP 1800 or something, then an Athlon XP 2600? I've actually forgotten the exact numbers. :oops:

The last recent upgrade was to a quad-core Packard Bell with 3 Gigs of ram. From day 1, it was no faster than the old computer installed with XP. Disappointing to say the least.

I spent ages turning all the bullsh¡t default 'performance' options OFF in a futile attempt to boost performance. I absolutely HATE the layout when opening & saving files. It drives me insane.

I'll definitely consider paying the premium for a Mac next time.

Did this packard bell PC come with Vista installed? I'd not be surprised if Packard themselves stuffed **** onto the OS, what AV does it use? If it's something like norton rip that crap right off.


It pains me to see people dissing Vista so much, mainly because it ran lovely for me, ok I admit, on my 3700+ AMD single core and 1gig ram it did not, it does use more ram than XP, but with 2-4gigs it's fine, and it ran good for me, I can't think of any problems apart from the picture gallery, I mean to me it seems like most people must be doing something wrong if it's running crap, or just jumping on the vista hate bandwaggon and going back to XP just cause everyone else decided to.

I was first running it with a C2D E6600 @ 2.4GHz, 2GB DDR2 800Mhz ram and an 8800GTS with a 320GB WDC SATA2 HDD, was fine.

volvicspar

Freehub are you sure you're not on microsofts payroll ? Maybe people are dissing VIsta/7 because you almost need a state of the art machine just to run an operating system that does almost exactly what win2k did 10 years ago on a 400mhz cpu with 64mb of ram. Not that I have tried Vista, or 7 but I can be fairly confident it's as useless as the rest of Microsofts products [/i]

mfin

freehub wrote:

I mean to me it seems like most people must be doing something wrong if it's running crap, or just jumping on the vista hate bandwaggon and going back to XP just cause everyone else decided to.

No, its personal experience that's way different to yours in loads of cases so don't feel you have to defend it... that's the way it is! ...no bandwagons, I for one just want efficient, fast running computers, Vista on my two machines takes this from under my feet whereas XP doesn't.

As for 'doing something wrong', no, in my case a nice clean install, I understand all the stripping out of unnecessary stuff, the main features you can disable to improve performance.

Did you read the post containing the BBC link?? Microsoft recognise how bad its been. Yes, you can say Windows 7 is 'Vista underneath' to some degree, but the reports are of the best Microsoft OS in years and this time its not (just) Microsoft that are saying it !!

Maybe I'll come back to this thread when Ive got 7 on the same computer.

freehub

volvicspar wrote:

Freehub are you sure you're not on microsofts payroll ? Maybe people are dissing VIsta/7 because you almost need a state of the art machine just to run an operating system that does almost exactly what win2k did 10 years ago on a 400mhz cpu with 64mb of ram. Not that I have tried Vista, or 7 but I can be fairly confident it's as useless as the rest of Microsofts products [/i]

State of the art? My machine easilly runs Windows Vista and it's not state of the art.

Dual core @ 4ghz
4GB PC8500 ram
4870 512mb gpu
640/320gig hdd
520W psu

It's pretty average by todays standards.

redddraggon

freehub wrote:

Dual core @ 4ghz
4GB PC8500 ram
4870 512mb gpu
640/320gig hdd
520W psu

It's pretty average by todays standards.

NO, that may be average High End or average for a serious gamer, but it's not an average computer.

Even my 3yr old desktop is above average compared to most people's computers today.

freehub

Ok, maybe the graphics card, but ram/CPU is not much, and you have to admit the graphics card does nothing for performance in Windows and loading of Windows, apart from games of course.

ride_whenever

nah a 4gig chip with 4 gig ram is well above average

that said it runs fine on mine which is basically the computer you first posted.


I hate vista because it just doesn't do stuff easily, bluetooth is a pain, networking with the rest of our house network is a pain, i mean FFS it wouldn't even format a HDD this evening.

freehub

I've not really used bluetooth in Vista but I thought it was the same as in Windows 7 which is really really easy to use. I love bluetooth, I can use me mobile phone as a remote control and sit in the kitchen and flick through me music

iainf72

volvicspar wrote:

Freehub are you sure you're not on microsofts payroll ? Maybe people are dissing VIsta/7 because you almost need a state of the art machine just to run an operating system that does almost exactly what win2k did 10 years ago on a 400mhz cpu with 64mb of ram. Not that I have tried Vista, or 7 but I can be fairly confident it's as useless as the rest of Microsofts products [/i]

Windows 7 runs very nicely on Netbooks.

Anyone ever tried using a new OSx on older Mac hardware? They're pretty resource hungry.

It's just an OS. Linux is never going to make inroads into the home. So you're left with Apple and MS. Apple good but expensive. MS OS's good but will run on everything and have the most apps available - After all, the OS just provides a platform to run the applications.

ride_whenever

win 7 is pretty nice, i'm going to pop it on my NC10 (2gig ram though) tonight.

OSX runs better further back than windows. Try vista on a machine designed for xp before sp1.... It probably wouldn't even boot!

freehub

2gig ram is fine for Windows 7, infact it'd run fine with 1gig, on boot with 4gig ram my memory useage is reported at around 24%, now this can be like Vista where the more ram you have the memory useage increases, but that's not a bad thing as Vista/7 managed ram differently. I'd say Windows 7 does not use much more ram than XP, maybe less at times.

giant_man

Of course it's $hit, it always has been. It's the sole reason I have always used a Mac. Superior OS in every way.

redddraggon

giant mancp wrote:

It's the sole reason I have always used a Mac. Superior OS in every way.

Nah......It might be superior if you only do basic stuff, but my PC will do far more stuff than a Mac will.

teagar

giant mancp wrote:

Of course it's $hit, it always has been. It's the sole reason I have always used a Mac. Superior OS in every way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ac-windows

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ment.media

balthazar

iainf72 wrote:

Anyone ever tried using a new OSx on older Mac hardware? They're pretty resource hungry.

I've been in the habit of running new releases of Mac OS X on pretty old computers: I retired my 1999 iMac last year, by which time it was running OS X 10.4 Tiger, then the current release sold with new Macs. It worked perfectly, even managing the demanding and flashy visual effects such as Exposé without obvious lag. My sister's 2001 iBook runs Leopard amazingly well, too. I think these are good overall reports of computer longevity.

Only with the recent release of 10.6 Snow Leopard has Apple stopped support for PowerPC chips, which were phased out about 4 years ago. That's not even unacceptably recent in my view, but, in any case, it is adequately justified as the last phase of a general migration from one CPU architecture to another. I think that that migration was managed with appropriate sensitivity to those who still use older machines – especially as previous iterations of Mac OS X remain passively supported.

freehub

giant mancp wrote:

Of course it's $hit, it always has been. It's the sole reason I have always used a Mac. Superior OS in every way.

Right...... Sure........