FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Vista's biggest problem is perception





balend
Quote:
After months of searching for ways to defend its oft-maligned Windows operating system, Microsoft may just have found its best weapon: Vista's skeptics.

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.

Microsoft is still trying to figure out just how it will use the Mojave footage in its marketing, though it will clearly have a place.

In an interview Wednesday, Windows unit business chief Bill Veghte told CNET News that he wants to see his unit try new things to get the message across.

"We have a huge perception opportunity," he said, offering a glass half-full assessment of things. "We are going to try a bunch of stuff."

Much of that perception, Microsoft belatedly acknowledges, stems from Apple's successful and unchallenged anti-Vista campaign. But, after stewing over the ads on many of his morning runs, Veghte decided that it was time to strike back, even without a new version of Windows to tout. Apple, he said, has "crossed a line" from fact into fiction.


Thanks to the press, many people still think Windows Vista is this OS that everyone needs to stay away from. Many people don't realize things get fixed, and this is one of them. With the upcoming advertising campaign Microsoft is launching for Vista, people get the facts and not the lies that Apple and other press sites have been selling to people.
Flarkis
In most cases what the press says is true. Vista is the equivalent of a bloated pig when it comes to operating systems. It includes way to much completely useless stuff and has next to no security features. There is a reason why the press bashes it.
mathiaus
That's pointless though. People like the ideas of Vista, the look and feel. It is it's implementation which ruins it.
"Mojave" being Vista will also then impress people when you show a video of it, but when used and its slow, hogs memory and provides no major new benefits, it too will get a bad reputation!
balend
Flarkis wrote:
In most cases what the press says is true. Vista is the equivalent of a bloated pig when it comes to operating systems. It includes way to much completely useless stuff and has next to no security features. There is a reason why the press bashes it.


Is is really Vista that comes with the extra crapware PCs come with or is it HP, Dell, or any other PC manufacturer that loads the crapware on to the systems to make extra cash. Try running a clean install of Windows Vista and lets see what useless stuff Vista comes with. And for having next to no security features, how about if I told you Vista is safer than both Mac OS X and Linux. And go ahead and bring the issues with Viruses and Spyware. People who write these malicious codes, make money and what better way to do it than using 90% of the world's computers. And for the record, OS X has been seeing an incredible increase in malicious code written for it.

http://bink.nu/news/microsoft-windows-vista-safer-than-os-x-linux.aspx
balend
mathiaus wrote:
That's pointless though. People like the ideas of Vista, the look and feel. It is it's implementation which ruins it.
"Mojave" being Vista will also then impress people when you show a video of it, but when used and its slow, hogs memory and provides no major new benefits, it too will get a bad reputation!


They didn't show users videos, they actually had them try the product themselves.
ocalhoun
balend wrote:
Vista is safer than both Mac OS X and Linux.


Extremely hard to believe. In Linux, no system-critical changes can be made without being logged into the root account, by software or by the user. Linux is also far, far better at terminating misbehaving processes. (Vista, by my experience, fails miserably at it, even when compared to earlier windows versions. (Oh, how often I have wished, while using Vista, for the ctrl+alt+esc shortcut to Xkill... Just press the combination, click on the offending program, and it vanishes instantly 100% of the time. Far better than telling Vista to 'end process' and vainly hoping that this time it actually will.))
Wuppie
And there are more viruses for popular Operating Systems.
eznet
Paint crap golden and you still have crap - just of the shiny variety.

I have been a long time fan of Windows, but with this said, Vista is a bloated whale of an OS. Sure, they take a steamlined, finely tuned install of Vista and present it so users as a new OS and get positive feedback - wohoo! Basically this shows more about the fickle and trickable psychology of the human mind rather than its shows anything about the quality of Vista - which is still going to be too bloated to be an upgrade OS for most consumer's existing PCs.

Vista is a whale and unless you have a system capable of handling this whale, you are going to have a sluggish system. When I first received my DV600T notebook with Vista I was excited that I was getting both a power house of a machine and the latest and greatest Ultimate Vista. Boy was I let down. My new dual core 2.4ghz processor with 2GB of ram and 512mb dedicated video ran slower than my old 1.8ghz with 1gb of shared video ram running XP.

"What could be the problem?", I thought... Experimenting, first thing I did was cleared the hard drive, installed just Vista - without the HP bloatware, and still I had an incredibly sluggish machine... So I tried to take my old XP disc and load it up - of course, this new machine has 'Vista Certified' hardware - aka play hell trying to get everything working right... So frustraited, I tossed in Ubuntu, installed it to the free partition and guess what I got - a blazingly fast laptop that drastically out-boots and out performs anything I had previously owned without any major configuration tricks needed to get everything working right (i.e. easier to install the XP). Haven't looked back since... Now, I run XP virtually under Ubuntu with no problems and my machine works faster than ever before.

Not being a Linux fanboy here, by any means - there is a lot of room for improvement - but MS screwed the pooch with Vista and people will see through this 'Mojave' gimmick - unless they get a monster machine like the one they demoed, in which case they will think they have something special (not realizing they paid for a quad core box to run Vista/Mojave, when their needs would have been met with XP or Linux on half the machine) . But with this said, modern Linux outperforms Vista - despite being the underdog against the behemoth that is Microsoft. Modern Linux running XP virtually outperforms Vista on the same machine - there is a problem with that... Unless you have a top end machine, have fun waiting to Vista to boot up and then have even more fun waiting to load your apps.

Smelly, smelly, golden poo... go Vista!
balend
Please let me know, in what ways is Vista bloated. I just want to know. And for claims that Microsoft used a super computer to demo Mojave, take a look at the picture below.

Ankhanu
eznet wrote:
Paint crap golden and you still have crap - just of the shiny variety.

I have been a long time fan of Windows, but with this said, Vista is a bloated whale of an OS. Sure, they take a steamlined, finely tuned install of Vista and present it so users as a new OS and get positive feedback - wohoo! Basically this shows more about the fickle and trickable psychology of the human mind rather than its shows anything about the quality of Vista - which is still going to be too bloated to be an upgrade OS for most consumer's existing PCs.

Vista is a whale and unless you have a system capable of handling this whale, you are going to have a sluggish system. When I first received my DV600T notebook with Vista I was excited that I was getting both a power house of a machine and the latest and greatest Ultimate Vista. Boy was I let down. My new dual core 2.4ghz processor with 2GB of ram and 512mb dedicated video ran slower than my old 1.8ghz with 1gb of shared video ram running XP.

"What could be the problem?", I thought... Experimenting, first thing I did was cleared the hard drive, installed just Vista - without the HP bloatware, and still I had an incredibly sluggish machine... So I tried to take my old XP disc and load it up - of course, this new machine has 'Vista Certified' hardware - aka play hell trying to get everything working right... So frustraited, I tossed in Ubuntu, installed it to the free partition and guess what I got - a blazingly fast laptop that drastically out-boots and out performs anything I had previously owned without any major configuration tricks needed to get everything working right (i.e. easier to install the XP). Haven't looked back since... Now, I run XP virtually under Ubuntu with no problems and my machine works faster than ever before.

Not being a Linux fanboy here, by any means - there is a lot of room for improvement - but MS screwed the pooch with Vista and people will see through this 'Mojave' gimmick - unless they get a monster machine like the one they demoed, in which case they will think they have something special (not realizing they paid for a quad core box to run Vista/Mojave, when their needs would have been met with XP or Linux on half the machine) . But with this said, modern Linux outperforms Vista - despite being the underdog against the behemoth that is Microsoft. Modern Linux running XP virtually outperforms Vista on the same machine - there is a problem with that... Unless you have a top end machine, have fun waiting to Vista to boot up and then have even more fun waiting to load your apps.

Smelly, smelly, golden poo... go Vista!


That pretty much exactly mirrors my own experience with a new computer purchase with Vista installed. I was pretty stoked to try out Vista and see what it was like. Despite the system being the second best collection of hardware in the house (my MacBook has many better specs), it ran far slower than the machine it was replacing (an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ w/ 768Mb PC2100 RAM) with either XP or Ubuntu installed on it. I fought with Vista for about 5 months, dealing with its long boot time, even longer shut down time, long application loads, slow application response, and other symptoms of terrible bloat, before getting frustrated to the point that it HAD to go.

Of course, like yours, the machine is "Vista Certified"... ie. XP drivers for the hardware are hard to come by... so it took forever to get the system working under XP, but once I managed, well, it's a new machine. It runs beautifully under XP. I'm sure that if I had Ubuntu installed on it, it would also be a delight to work with... but dear gods, Vista was a nightmare to use.

Vista's bad press is mostly due to poor user experiences. AS mentioned in this and other threads, it's apparently a delight to use... IF you run it on a top of the line, rather expensive machine. MOST people don't have the sort of systems that will run Vista well. That in and of itself is why Vista fails. It was designed to work with pretty much only brand new top end systems. The average computer user can't afford that sort of upgrade/replacement. A GOOD OS replacement will run on existing hardware with minimal upgrading... most every other major OS does this, yet Vista doesn't. This is why Vista fails.
eznet
balend wrote:
Please let me know, in what ways is Vista bloated. I just want to know. And for claims that Microsoft used a super computer to demo Mojave, take a look at the picture below.



Ahh.. Well I stand corrected on my assumption about them demoing on a super machine - looks like their demo ran on less than what I am working with. Despite this, I have a hard time believing that the demo was a typical default configuration for Vista - i.e. I am betting some tweeking was done - THIS IS A MARKETING CAMPAIGN.... But if you want to believe the hype of a salesman, by all means man, go ahead.

As far as people being impressed with their 5 minute demo - so were people when they tried Vista for the first 5 minutes... It was not until they (I) adopted it as their default OS and had to use it day to day, dealing with boot times and such along the way, that the fuss began to occur. I am glad that some people like it and they they have magical machines that run it as fast as they can run XP or Linux, but I didn't get this magical machine when I bought, so I guess I am destined to dislike Vista Twisted Evil

As far as bloat - hell man, I don't know - boot it up and open your task manager to see. Its well documented around the net (by the likes of Tom's Hardware and CNet), so I will not waste time going into the specifics here. Generically speaking, by "bloat" I mean the crap (aka NEW FEATURES) that slows the system down when contrasted against another OS, say XP - here is a comparison of XP and Vista at CNet, titled "Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test", if you care to read it... Need more? goto www.google.com and in the search box (the white box that allows you to enter text into it) enter "xp vista benchmark".
balend
Do you really expect to have a new OS run as smooth and quick on a 5+ year old system than a brand new system. Let's see if you can run OS X on an iMac that was released 5 years ago and have the same results as you would when you run it on the new iMacs. That's just the nature of technology.
eznet
balend wrote:
Do you really expect to have a new OS run as smooth and quick on a 5+ year old system than a brand new system. Let's see if you can run OS X on an iMac that was released 5 years ago and have the same results as you would when you run it on the new iMacs. That's just the nature of technology.

Although that is a valid argument, it kinda side steps the issue of new systems being shipped with Vista running sluggish. My notebook, a dv6000t, was only available with Vista as the OS - Microsoft "negotiated" this arrangement with many of the leading computer manufactures, leaving consumers with no option with which MS OS they wanted. From a consumer's perspective, when you leave no choice, the OS you are forcing on consumers damn well better be definitively better than the previous one - not just shinier, but better performing. MS didn't deliver the goods in that respect...
balend
Quote:
My notebook, a dv6000t, was only available with Vista as the OS


How much Ram does your notebook have? And one more thing can'y you really blame Microsoft because computer manufacturers are too damn cheap to add an extra gig of ram or squeeze in a better processor. For example, if every PC on the market today, had a Core 2 Duo 2.4ghz, 3GBs of Ram, and a decent Video Card that's not some cheap Intel Integrated, do you really think people would complain about Vista being so sluggish? I think not. Computer manufacturers make PCs that are affordable to anyone looking to buy a new PC and because such an option is available, most people buy computers that are priced under $1000, which is the reason why people think OS X is so good. Apple, controls their own hardware so you really don't see how well that OS X runs on an eMachines running a Celeron processor.
Flarkis
balend your blatant ignorance is starting to get a bit annoying. Just look at all the processes running in the background of a vista system. These arnt installed programs instead they are little tools microsoft things you will need and wont allow you to remove without doing serious harm to your system (unless you modify a installation disk using nlite or something but we wont go there). The people who write viruses are usually trying to hit the biggest and stupidest audience and ill tell you this, linux fails in both of those. As for mac sure there are viruses for it but it basically a unix derivative and is quite protected.

Now please. go ahead and use linux for a year. With no anti virus. Do everything you would normally do like internet etc. and i would be VERY surprised if you got a virus.

Im not saying linux is the be all and end all. But look outside your narrow windows world and realize that every operating system has its ups and downs, and no operating system is the "best" for every person.
balend
Flarkis wrote:
balend your blatant ignorance is starting to get a bit annoying. Just look at all the processes running in the background of a vista system. These arnt installed programs instead they are little tools microsoft things you will need and wont allow you to remove without doing serious harm to your system (unless you modify a installation disk using nlite or something but we wont go there). The people who write viruses are usually trying to hit the biggest and stupidest audience and ill tell you this, linux fails in both of those. As for mac sure there are viruses for it but it basically a unix derivative and is quite protected.

Now please. go ahead and use linux for a year. With no anti virus. Do everything you would normally do like internet etc. and i would be VERY surprised if you got a virus.

Im not saying linux is the be all and end all. But look outside your narrow windows world and realize that every operating system has its ups and downs, and no operating system is the "best" for every person.


Just to be clear, I've used all three operating systems. I had Linux and used it for quite a while on my PC. It just wasn't my cup of tea. As for Mac OS X, I use the operating system 5 out of the 7 days of the week. However, when I'm at home, I'm using Vista on a 5 year old HP 896c. As for viruses go, I run Vista without a Spyware or a Virus program. Now when was the last time you used Vista?
snowboardalliance
With a new laptop with the Intel T9300 core 2 duo and 3gb RAM, vista isn't bad. It's improved over XP in a few ways.
I'm dual booting with Ubuntu, but I need Vista for a lot of things (Adobe products (and there is no good video replacement like the GIMP on linux), games, etc). Really it boots in well under a minute and I've only had a few crashes (though they may have been Adobe's fault when I had like After Effects, Illustrator, Photoshop, and Premiere open and a lot of multitasking).

though I'm sure Vista sucks on old machines, and if linux had the same support from software companies as Microsoft, I wouldn't waste time on Vista.
eznet
balend wrote:
Quote:
My notebook, a dv6000t, was only available with Vista as the OS


How much Ram does your notebook have? And one more thing can'y you really blame Microsoft because computer manufacturers are too damn cheap to add an extra gig of ram or squeeze in a better processor. For example, if every PC on the market today, had a Core 2 Duo 2.4ghz, 3GBs of Ram, and a decent Video Card that's not some cheap Intel Integrated, do you really think people would complain about Vista being so sluggish? I think not. Computer manufacturers make PCs that are affordable to anyone looking to buy a new PC and because such an option is available, most people buy computers that are priced under $1000, which is the reason why people think OS X is so good. Apple, controls their own hardware so you really don't see how well that OS X runs on an eMachines running a Celeron processor.


balend, if you had read my FIRST post in this discussion, you would see your argument is irrelevant - with the exception of 3GB of ram (I have 2 - IF AN OS REQUIRES 3GB, THERE IS A FREAKING PROBLEM!), I have what you describe - including dedicated video ram - So, YOU THINK WRONG. VISTA IS SLUGGISH ON THIS MACHINE! Also, my desktop is a Quad Q6600 with 4 GB of Ram and dual nVidia 8500 GTs in SLI and it takes more than TWICE AS LONG TO BOOT VISTA AS IT DOES XP - AND ALMOST 3 TIMES AS LONG TO BOOT VISTA AS IT DOES UBUNTU (WHICH I HAVE BLOATED TO THE MAX WITH EYE CANDY (EYE CANDY THAT MAKES AREO LOOK LIKE IT WAS DESIGNED BY A RETARDED 3 YEAR OLD MONKEY)).... So, yea, keep debating your illogical point - all real world tests render your argument invalid - whether you acknowledge this or not...

You argument is "If stoopid, cheap laptop manufactures installed an extra $300 worth of hardware in all the $600 laptops hitting the market with Vista (as a result of the exclusive agreements signed with Microsoft), Vista would be great! Its the cheap manufactures fault, not Microsoft's for creating a shiny piece of bloat!"

Sure, dude... Whatever you say... You like Vista - thats great... Have fun with it. But, irregardless of whether you like Vista or not, the FACTS remain, Vista IS much more bloated than XP, Vista DOES NOT bring considerable (if any) improvement to the realm of OSs, and CRAP PAINTED GOLDEN IS JUST CRAP WITH GOLD PAINT ON IT - SHINY CRAP. This is deceptive marketing and again, only shows how humans (advanced monkeys) are easily tricked by marketers... It is perception, sure, which is easily fooled... Here is an article on the matter - but as we have seen, it doesn't seem like reading is one of your strong points, so I am sure it will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes... GO VISTA!
balend
You see I tried to remain calm and keep my cool, but you continued to be an ASS and if you really have a Quad Q6600 with 4 GB of Ram and dual nVidia 8500 GTs in SLI and can't wait a few seconds for Vista to boot up, then maybe you have the problem. Oh, one more thing, if you really don't like Vista and it's too slow for you, then simply put "DON'T USE IT." All I'm saying is out of the 180 Million Vista users, you only hear less than a thousand bitching and moaning about it all over the net and therefore people get the wrong idea. But not everybody is buying a PC running Vista for hardcore stuff, many people do nothing more than play and watch videos all day on Youtube. But the thing is, with any product, you don't hear from the people who are satisfied, you only hear from the person who had to wait an extra 20 seconds for his OS to boot, the person who tried installing a program that had the UAC pop up and tell him are you sure, this might not be secure. Or the guy who couldn't get his printer that he bought back in 2000 to work with Vista. And when people do here from a person who is satisfied with the product, then those who didn't like the product do nothing more than downplay his experience with theirs.
eznet
balend wrote:
You see I tried to remain calm and keep my cool, but you continued to be an ASS and if you really have a Quad Q6600 with 4 GB of Ram and dual nVidia 8500 GTs in SLI and can't wait a few seconds for Vista to boot up, then maybe you have the problem.


Sorry man... Didn't mean to ruffle your skirt. Your fanboyish flare for Vista is inspiring - they need more customers like you - boy, do they need more customers like you...

Yes, I do in fact have a Quad system. And yes, I am an impatient twit who can't stand to suffer through lag - ON MY QUAD CORE SYSTEM.. After all, thats why I dropped $1200 when building my custom machine - needed something that would look good when I piped it out to my 52' LCD and wouldn't be lagging in the process Wink

Concerning the "I am the guy who can't..." crap, well, nope - sorry pal... I am the guy with a BS/CS, MCSE and half a dozen CompTIA Certs - so, I had no problems hooking up legacy equipment (oh, wait, I don't have any legacy equipment - well, my GBA flasher, but that was no problem) and no problems disabling UAC's annoying warnings...

Just so you know... The bashing isn't against you or your fellow Vista lovers - it is about this lame marketing campaign where a MS rep sits people, who seem as if they have barely even seen a computer, let alone actually used Vista, and guide them through a very superficial demo of some Vista highlights... They are now showing these little clips of videos to the public as if it is scientific evidence of some overlooked value in Vista - when in fact it is just a gloss job for the OS's PR...

Go to mojaveexperiment.com and just watch the videos of the users... Lack-luster to say the least... Very little in the way of praise - just a MS agent basically saying "Surprise, this is really Vista" and the person being con'd saying "Oh... really?"... I would say that of the 55 short clips they have listed there, 2/3 of them pretty much play out in this way... the majority of the rest of the clips are basically the MS rep saying "let me show you this glossy gadget" and the con'd saying "oh.. wow."

Nothing new, nothing impressive - basically, the campaign will result in a few people saying "man, I need to give Vista a try, maybe the bad I heard wasn't true" and realizing in the best case senario (if they have a beefy enough machine that they don't notice the lag) that they have a shiny OS with nothing really added or worse case scenario they will wonder why the hell their once fast (enough) machine is running like their old box that they scapped for this current machine 4 years back when they came off of $1,800 for this now slow machine...

I will just stop here.. Wasn't trying to piss you off (or maybe I was, but just for fun?)... On any account.. Good for you man... You have an OS which you like and you are willing to defend you preference - thats more than most computer users can say as they spend the majority of their time behind the keyboard cussing at the box... But again, nothing against you, just Microsoft's lame new marketing campaign to attempt to salvage sales before they drop Windows7 in your lap - mark my words, Vista is WindowsME2 and in a couple of years will be treated as such - BY Microsoft...

EDIT: "...continued to be an ASS..." Ahhhhahaha.... read that again and it makes me chuckle...
ForceRun
Vista is nothing great or wonderful, but it works just as well as XP, and overall it was much smoother transaction for me going from XP to Vista then it was Win 2000 to XP. I say if you got the hardware, and plan on moving up with direct-x ten then Vista is possible way to good. 64-bit still is not well supported though.
neji
ForceRun wrote:
Vista is nothing great or wonderful, but it works just as well as XP, and overall it was much smoother transaction for me going from XP to Vista then it was Win 2000 to XP. I say if you got the hardware, and plan on moving up with direct-x ten then Vista is possible way to good. 64-bit still is not well supported though.


2nd more or less.
I recieved my new pc a week ago.
It costed me -doing some maths ~$) 2885$ just for the hardware. (bought a new screen couple days ago and mice and keyboard + speakers I already had...)

OS on it : Vista ultimate 64bit.
CPU: Q9450
GPU: 2x ati radeon 4870 in crossfirex
mobo: asus p5q3
ram: ddr3 @ 1333mhz (4gb)
raid mirroring 1gb (2x1gb)
some extra disks...

Vista works greats on it. Untill...
Vista doesn't want the installed raid drivers anymore and downloads and installs new ones:
raid not working anymore.

The problems with 64-bit drivers are not a problem here if you don't count the raid stuff with it.
speed is ok.

loading times of programms excellent...

Vista is even stable, only had one program crashed since having the pc (hl2) but those things happened more on my xp.

Still I have a FEELING MacOSX is faster.
The Vista pc IS faster but doesn't feel like that.
eznet
neji wrote:

OS on it : Vista ultimate 64bit.
CPU: Q9450
GPU: 2x ati radeon 4870 in crossfirex
mobo: asus p5q3
ram: ddr3 @ 1333mhz (4gb)
raid mirroring 1gb (2x1gb)
some extra disks...

Exclamation Shocked Exclamation
Wow! That machine will crack the secrets of the cosmos.. You bought one hell of a machine from what it sounds like - you could not only run Vista, but crack the genomes of all the creatures of the planet with little slow down Smile Color me envious - I though I was doing good with my machine, but yours makes mine sound antique now!!!
Have you played with the DirectX 10 on those tandem ATI cards? I would imagine your box will blow just about any console out of the water on the gaming front. Although my 8500GTs will support DX10, its support is rather limited - I figure my video cards will be the first upgrade when I go to upgrade something... Well, in any case, congrats on getting you new machine - that should carry you into the next decade with no problem! Good luck on your Vista/RAID issues too - I had a hell of a time getting my old PCI RAID up and running, though no problems with the on-board raid control...
Flarkis
balend wrote:
Flarkis wrote:
balend your blatant ignorance is starting to get a bit annoying. Just look at all the processes running in the background of a vista system. These arnt installed programs instead they are little tools microsoft things you will need and wont allow you to remove without doing serious harm to your system (unless you modify a installation disk using nlite or something but we wont go there). The people who write viruses are usually trying to hit the biggest and stupidest audience and ill tell you this, linux fails in both of those. As for mac sure there are viruses for it but it basically a unix derivative and is quite protected.

Now please. go ahead and use linux for a year. With no anti virus. Do everything you would normally do like internet etc. and i would be VERY surprised if you got a virus.

Im not saying linux is the be all and end all. But look outside your narrow windows world and realize that every operating system has its ups and downs, and no operating system is the "best" for every person.


Just to be clear, I've used all three operating systems. I had Linux and used it for quite a while on my PC. It just wasn't my cup of tea. As for Mac OS X, I use the operating system 5 out of the 7 days of the week. However, when I'm at home, I'm using Vista on a 5 year old HP 896c. As for viruses go, I run Vista without a Spyware or a Virus program. Now when was the last time you used Vista?



Actually i am right now. My laptop came pre installed with it. For the pure fact the some people demand what i send them be made in microsoft office and that gaming tends to be a little faster on windows than wine. But for the most time i am using gentoo which is by far better for MY personal needs. Im not saying its better for you, im just saying it offers a more open environment to work in.
Flakky
I agree with you. The fact that people have a negative opinion towards Vista is because of the media. Even on this forum someone was pointing out the downsides of Mac, Linux but said about Vista that there is too much to talk about and didn't knew where to start. Someone not knowing how Vista is will probably not know the features or hear that the features aren't for anyone's computer with less than 2gb ram, a quad core and an nvidia 8800.
hummer010
My problem with Vista has nothing to do with the media. It has everything to do with the MS philosphy, and my experience with Vista.

I don't want a stupid integrated firewall - that's why I have a hardware firewall. I don't want some lame-ass "Security Centre" warning me about my virus protection, or my firewall. I don't want IE. I don't want MSN or live messenger or whatever it's called these days. I certainly don't want UAC asking for my permission for every mouse click I make. I don't want some pop-up telling me I have un-used icons on my desktop. I don't want Media Player.

It's like MS took everything I hated about XP, and amplified it for Vista.

I know most of this can be fixed, but I'd rather not have to spend the time. I'd rather be able to control what get's installed during the installation.

I'll stick with Debian. I can install Debian in less time than Vista takes to install, and when it's done there is far, far less configuration needed.
surdy
Quote:
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.


There is a BIG BIG differnece between watching a video about an operasting system and actually using it in real life. Infact with Windows OS's there is a huge difference in using a freshly installed and and OS installed some time ago.

I would not consider theresults of watching a video of any significance. In fact as far as microsoft is concerned it would not have been anything other than a marketing video and a marketting video of Vista would also look good.

Its more about in practise use.
eznet
hummer010 wrote:
I'll stick with Debian. I can install Debian in less time than Vista takes to install, and when it's done there is far, far less configuration needed.


It is crazy how that has happened. I had a discussion about this very fact last month with a developer friend, except that I was telling him that installing a modern Linux system is easier today than installing a XP or Vista system. Having not played in Linux for more than 5 years, he couldn't believe me. He grabbed a copy of Ubuntu and has been submerged in Linux since - despite working primarily as a .Net developer.

On a related note, I have recently been forced back into a Razz
Fire Boar
eznet wrote:
hummer010 wrote:
I'll stick with Debian. I can install Debian in less time than Vista takes to install, and when it's done there is far, far less configuration needed.


It is crazy how that has happened. I had a discussion about this very fact last month with a developer friend, except that I was telling him that installing a modern Linux system is easier today than installing a XP or Vista system. Having not played in Linux for more than 5 years, he couldn't believe me. He grabbed a copy of Ubuntu and has been submerged in Linux since - despite working primarily as a .Net developer.

On a related note, I have recently been forced back into a Razz


I quite agree. The Linux kernel now has so much hardware support that the only components you're likely to have a problem with (i.e. need extra drivers) are the wireless (which is so varied and nobody ever makes drivers for anything but Windows) and the graphics card (which often prompts you to install a non-free driver like nvidia-glx).

I was stunned on my first use of Linux on a desktop - everything just worked out of the box. Wireless was supported along with everything else, and I just had to install nvidia-glx (took about 3 seconds) to get my graphics card pumping out some awesome graphics.

Your average Windows user probably has drivers pre-installed by the OEM. For everyone else, setup is a huge pain and you never quite have all the right drivers. When I bought a laptop but opted for XP instead of Vista I found this problem.
eznet
Fire Boar wrote:
I quite agree. The Linux kernel now has so much hardware support that the only components you're likely to have a problem with (i.e. need extra drivers) are the wireless (which is so varied and nobody ever makes drivers for anything but Windows) and the graphics card (which often prompts you to install a non-free driver like nvidia-glx).

I was stunned on my first use of Linux on a desktop - everything just worked out of the box. Wireless was supported along with everything else, and I just had to install nvidia-glx (took about 3 seconds) to get my graphics card pumping out some awesome graphics.

Your average Windows user probably has drivers pre-installed by the OEM. For everyone else, setup is a huge pain and you never quite have all the right drivers. When I bought a laptop but opted for XP instead of Vista I found this problem.


It really is nuts to see how far it has come... I cut my teeth on Slackware and Gentoo - not because I am a efficiency/compilation nut, but because on my systems, setting up these distros were about as easy as doing something like a Mandrake or Redhat install/config... Now, with modern distros and their installers, you can install a fully functional system, with fully functional hardware requiring little fixing and configuration - using a GUI and a few clicks of the mouse...

I can see why MS is rolling out the PR machine in full force - if you were trying to sell something that you broke the bank on that didn't work as well as the free alternatives, you'd be in marketing overdrive too Twisted Evil
Related topics
PHP Book (Php and Mysql for Dynamic Web Sites)
phpBB transfering
me and writing
school campus
terrorism in israel
keralas biggest problem
vista booting problem
Is philosophy a science?
Serious computer problems.
downgrading to XP
About the Posting, I have a problem
speed up your windows
restart related problem
any good movie editing programs
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.