Wow Vista really sucked....you will love this
Moderator: RLG MGMT Team
-
Buffalo Six
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: 11 Jul 2002, 17:26
- Location: Wichita KS
This is certainly a PR nightmare at the very least. Vista was definitely not meant for joe public to install -- and frankly, a bunch of corporate VPs at MS are more joe public that tech-head. Also, when released, it was really not ready for primetime. As big as the real problem is with dishonest marketing and sloppy tech, that article (and many other articles on many subjects) is cheap journalism. Mass-market news is sooooo shallow these days. I mean, how many corporate VPs (Steel excluded) would you want doing OS installs?
In my experience (first-hand) -- one year in, I couldn't recommend anyone who's successfully running XP to "upgrade" their system. However, a new PC with Vista pre-installed would probably not be a problem.
I installed Vista on my new-built machine more than a year ago, and at the time, drivers (audio/video) were definitely immature. Currently, I am having no Vista-related issues with my machine and couldn't be happier with it. I'm sure this is to do with the fact that I'm not running a bunch of "legacy" hardware or software. However, all my games and gaming peripherals run just fine (this was NOT true in Jan 2007).
In my experience (first-hand) -- one year in, I couldn't recommend anyone who's successfully running XP to "upgrade" their system. However, a new PC with Vista pre-installed would probably not be a problem.
I installed Vista on my new-built machine more than a year ago, and at the time, drivers (audio/video) were definitely immature. Currently, I am having no Vista-related issues with my machine and couldn't be happier with it. I'm sure this is to do with the fact that I'm not running a bunch of "legacy" hardware or software. However, all my games and gaming peripherals run just fine (this was NOT true in Jan 2007).
Silence is golden - Duct Tape is silver
-
Buffalo Six
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: 11 Jul 2002, 17:26
- Location: Wichita KS
-
PanzerMeyer
- Posts: 4795
- Joined: 10 Feb 2004, 08:54
- Location: Miami, Florida
Ok well Vista is not realy a BAD system, but in all honesty why upgrade to it is my question. Like xp its slower then the previous version mainly because its meant to run on newer hardware, but unlike XP its a lot slower then its predecessor. And even a year later driver support is heavenly lacking which even I am a little surprised over, I know as soon as it hit the marker not all driver support would be there but come on this is just nuts. And them putting vista capable stickers on everything really hurt them as a ot of low end machines just can't run it, end of story. The lawsute on the go over this is one I have been watching for some time and why we get to see the internal e mails of Microsoft.
honestly tho their is no reason to upgrade, vista relay has little over XP to the point its not worth it. Hell I think my next pc will be XP based as well, as hey I know it works. I may skip vista all together and wait for the next windows os which is sooner then you may think.
now this all said Vista is not liek the windows Me BOMB of crappy software where me was so bad no one relay ran it and was quickly replaced in the market. Now if they had not rushed vista and spent more time tweeking code for speed then it may be a great system but speed loss with little extra in features is not good enough.
honestly tho their is no reason to upgrade, vista relay has little over XP to the point its not worth it. Hell I think my next pc will be XP based as well, as hey I know it works. I may skip vista all together and wait for the next windows os which is sooner then you may think.
now this all said Vista is not liek the windows Me BOMB of crappy software where me was so bad no one relay ran it and was quickly replaced in the market. Now if they had not rushed vista and spent more time tweeking code for speed then it may be a great system but speed loss with little extra in features is not good enough.
-
PanzerMeyer
- Posts: 4795
- Joined: 10 Feb 2004, 08:54
- Location: Miami, Florida
\VEGETA wrote: but in all honesty why upgrade to it is my question.
I use my PC 95% of the time for gaming so the ONLY reason for me to upgrade to Vista is for Direct X 10. Yeah, there are a couple games I have now which can use DX 10 but its not killing me or anything just because I'm still using DX 9.0 tech. Only when several games start coming out that I want that REQUIRE DX 10 will I then consider getting Vista.
I have learned from experience that a modicum of snuff can be most efficacious - Baron Munchausen
just a note on direct x 10, its a HOG. seen comparisons of 9 to 10 games, and there is very very very little diffrence on maxed out systems yet the 9 games actually run better as the direct x10 is such a resource hog its nuts. Again microsoft tossed the idea of mating the os and components fast out the window unless you have a maxed pc.
Now that being said microsoft is most likelay doing some triming and updating to it, and with newer systems faster and faster the issue of the os and components being hogs will disapare. But its a glaring way to show bad code with poor speed, as a coder myself I have to make sure to tweek things to run smoother, especially when doing some ai and graphics classes in university. In some cases a tweek of 1 line can make a 4 hour long program run down to 3 hours, just need to tweek.
Now that being said microsoft is most likelay doing some triming and updating to it, and with newer systems faster and faster the issue of the os and components being hogs will disapare. But its a glaring way to show bad code with poor speed, as a coder myself I have to make sure to tweek things to run smoother, especially when doing some ai and graphics classes in university. In some cases a tweek of 1 line can make a 4 hour long program run down to 3 hours, just need to tweek.
-
PanzerMeyer
- Posts: 4795
- Joined: 10 Feb 2004, 08:54
- Location: Miami, Florida
The fundamental problem here is that MS pushed out a low quality product because the "product cycle" demanded it in order to satisfy the stockholders and the end result was very bad for MS and many of its customers. Only the release of Windows ME was more of a waste than this one.
I have learned from experience that a modicum of snuff can be most efficacious - Baron Munchausen
Agreed.
If you saw the original specs for vista you would have been drooling, it looked like a massive upgrade to be honest, but then someware along the line they literally scraped the thing and started over for whatever reason. the second iteration they cut a lot of things out to get it done as marketing said we need it now, so in the end it was released at least 6 months early and was a complete rush job. I realize a OS is a massive and extreamly complex beast so its hard to tweek and such but this was so rushed that its sad. Also note that M$ spin docters are saying there are less issues with vista then with xp in its first year, but from what I have seen there number work is a complete crack job.
Overall Vista is not bad just compared to XP it is not all there. Its sad that microsofts own products is its main competitor.
If you saw the original specs for vista you would have been drooling, it looked like a massive upgrade to be honest, but then someware along the line they literally scraped the thing and started over for whatever reason. the second iteration they cut a lot of things out to get it done as marketing said we need it now, so in the end it was released at least 6 months early and was a complete rush job. I realize a OS is a massive and extreamly complex beast so its hard to tweek and such but this was so rushed that its sad. Also note that M$ spin docters are saying there are less issues with vista then with xp in its first year, but from what I have seen there number work is a complete crack job.
Overall Vista is not bad just compared to XP it is not all there. Its sad that microsofts own products is its main competitor.