windows vista, windows xp, or linux

which os are you using

  • Total voters
    118
  • Poll closed .
1) Maybe because many people of this forum really are not as technically savvy as they claim to be or would rather have something pretty than functional? Looking through the OS areas of the forum I have seen all sorts of problems with Vista here and all over the internet... so you're saying your few installs that were uneventful qualifies Vista as a stable and well built OS?
2) What is faulty... how about drivers in general. If it is not built into Vista or released by a company that is somehow partnered with MS, then it tends to have problems. From the HAL being chopped in favor of the API layer which forces sound to be handled in software instead of hardware, it causes undue stress on the CPU and memory by doubling its work when using sound related code. this has caused Creative to release hacked drivers that cuts the functionality of not only their software but the very basis of their sound cards. Or the extra coding forced by the kernel mode DRM that forces all media streams, both sound and video to go through the checksum verification process that slows down framerates and lags sound for even the most basic of games on moderate hardware. Sure it works fine on top end systems but some people cannot afford that.

Mojave was an advertising ploy from day 1. If you look at any of those sites that have those videos, where is the other half of people who even after looking at "Mojave" still didn't like it? You won't see them because Microsoft will not post them. Also did they have the person try to connect to a different network? Did they have the person try to install an older printer? No they had the systems pre-configured to make it appear as if it had zero problems and was stable...
 
Vista

Why? Because it's finally a nice OS to look at and all of me programs work on it, no problems at all.

No BSOD's either! :eek:
 
screwballl said:
Maybe because many people of this forum really are not as technically savvy as they claim to be or would rather have something pretty than functional? Looking through the OS areas of the forum I have seen all sorts of problems with Vista here and all over the internet...
Click to expand...
The more you post and try to defend your stance in these threads, the more you fall into the typical Vista basher crowd. If the readers on this forum aren't as tech savvy as they believe, why do they have perfectly stable Vista systems? Why aren't they encountering the issues you are? As for the second comment, I'm not sure where you are going with this. Surely, you'll see threads on issues, because most people wouldn't start a thread to announce that Vista is working perfectly for them. If you went to a Honda forum, you'd see people asking questions about issues with their cars....but does that mean Honda makes junk? Absolutely not. That's the nature of a support-type forum. Vista works just fine, plain and simple, and once again, just because you've had some issues, doesn't mean it is the fault of Vista.
 
screwballl said:
1) Maybe because many people of this forum really are not as technically savvy as they claim to be or would rather have something pretty than functional? Looking through the OS areas of the forum I have seen all sorts of problems with Vista here and all over the internet... so you're saying your few installs that were uneventful qualifies Vista as a stable and well built OS?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm definitely not saying few. My statistical impression (still an impression because I did not do a head count), Vista is very well received in [H]ardForum as of late. If you take into account the fact that operating system support is what mainly occurs in this forum, you can probably extrapolate that it's pretty well-received in general among users here.

2) What is faulty... how about drivers in general. If it is not built into Vista or released by a company that is somehow partnered with MS, then it tends to have problems. From the HAL being chopped in favor of the API layer which forces sound to be handled in software instead of hardware, it causes undue stress on the CPU and memory by doubling its work when using sound related code. this has caused Creative to release hacked drivers that cuts the functionality of not only their software but the very basis of their sound cards. Or the extra coding forced by the kernel mode DRM that forces all media streams, both sound and video to go through the checksum verification process that slows down framerates and lags sound for even the most basic of games on moderate hardware. Sure it works fine on top end systems but some people cannot afford that.
Click to expand...

I think you need to do some empirical analysis and benchmarking. Otherwise, your point is moot and all based on what you've read. Why don't we ask other people around here? Are you all feeling "undue stress on the CPU and memory" when it comes to audio? Are you all feeling the slowdown caused by "checksum verification process[es]" with DRM in Vista? I don't have a top-end system. Actually, my system is approximately 3 years old, with the exception of my video card which is a little more than 1 and a half years old and could be had for peanuts in this day and age. I'm not feeling this gross exaggeration that you mention, but don't take my word for it. I'm sure other people can comment for themselves.

Mojave was an advertising ploy from day 1. If you look at any of those sites that have those videos, where is the other half of people who even after looking at "Mojave" still didn't like it? You won't see them because Microsoft will not post them. Also did they have the person try to connect to a different network? Did they have the person try to install an older printer? No they had the systems pre-configured to make it appear as if it had zero problems and was stable...
Click to expand...

I agree that it was mostly advertising ploy, but my point was that Microsoft did it for good reason, since although you seem to think you're the majority, you're probably not. Well, I'll be blunt and say it straight out. I don't think you are.
 
tgrimley said:
Nope, this was an issue caused by a Debian dev changing OpenSSL code.

That said, I use Vista x64 on my desktop, dual boot Ubuntu 8.04 and Vista x64 on my laptop, run Ubuntu server (6.10 maybe), and Ubuntu 8.04 on my lab computer. I'd say Ubuntu on the desktop (particularly Xorg/compiz and Firefox/flash) is the most unstable of them all, sadly.
Click to expand...

So since I run Gentoo and Arch at home and had nothing on my system w.r.t. to that dumb patch some idiot of a dev pushed onto debian systems does that null your example?
 
Granted, the more people that drive a Ford may like it but that does not mean it is without its problems that others have. Out of 2000 exact same year/models of a Ford, many can still have problems in the vehicle without their having done anything wrong. That doesn't mean its a bad Ford but it means there are still some inherent problems.
I myself choose not to use Vista on my personal machines because of these inherent problems that I have seen on hundreds of other installs. I would rather get the info out about these inherent problems than to sit back and twiddle my thumbs letting people figure out the problems themselves.
 
screwballl said:
Granted, the more people that drive a Ford may like it but that does not mean it is without its problems that others have. Out of 2000 exact same year/models of a Ford, many can still have problems in the vehicle without their having done anything wrong. That doesn't mean its a bad Ford but it means there are still some inherent problems.
I myself choose not to use Vista on my personal machines because of these inherent problems that I have seen on hundreds of other installs. I would rather get the info out about these inherent problems than to sit back and twiddle my thumbs letting people figure out the problems themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that analysis. If you had just come in and said, "well, I know Vista doesn't run well in x configuration so you should use y instead", I would've left you alone, but since you had to go and say something like Vista being ME version 2 or Vista being completely crap, or Vista ALWAYS being less stable.... well, you can figure out the rest.

Also, you still have not mentioned specifically which configuration does not do well with Vista and specifically which printers do not do well (so we can avoid them or look for workarounds). If you want to be helpful, I'd advise you let us know. :)
 
screwballl said:
I would rather get the info out about these inherent problems
Click to expand...
And that's the part you are missing. If these problems were truly inherent to the OS, you wouldn't need to get the information out, because everyone would be aware of them, and as mentioned in another post, the major OEMs would be avoiding Vista like the plague. We may just be arguing semantics here, but the problems you listed are not inherent to the OS. Vista has been, by far, the most stable OS out of the box, of any recent Windows version, especially the Vista installs with SP1 incorporated into the install media. The problems you are having are certainly not commonplace, and most definitely are not inherent to the OS. You are likely having either a unique conflict, or a problem with a drivers.....neither of which being inherent to the OS.
 
screwballl said:
Mojave was an advertising ploy from day 1. If you look at any of those sites that have those videos, where is the other half of people who even after looking at "Mojave" still didn't like it? You won't see them because Microsoft will not post them. Also did they have the person try to connect to a different network? Did they have the person try to install an older printer? No they had the systems pre-configured to make it appear as if it had zero problems and was stable...
Click to expand...

Oh, of course it was an advertising scheme, but the point wasn't that these users used and disliked Vista, but when presented with "Mojave" they were conned into liking it, or something. It was aimed at people who wouldn't even consider Vista because they "knew" it was terrible, but once shown it without such preconceptions they thought it looked good and wanted to try it. The point they're trying to put across is not to knock it till you've tried it, which is all too common with Vista.

Maybe you have such a negative opinion of it because you were using it through the betas, when problems such as driver availability were noticeable? I didn't start using Vista until December last year, and have had minimal problems with it, no more than any other OS (because no OS is perfect). You also point out some exploits to get around some of Vista's improved security - but it's rather hard to argue that added security is a bad thing (XP, lacking these features, is easier to attack), and it's not as if individual security features not being perfect makes them worthless:
http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2006/08/24/449938.aspx
 
heh my subdued autism kicks in at times and the posts don't always come out how I intended... I apologize for that...
2 printers I know for sure that I have had issues with:
HP Photosmart 7350 and 7400 (there are others but it has been awhile since I have dealt with any printer issues with Vista, most companies have actually done very well getting them to work).
With these 2 printers, it will print but any advanced features do not work such as ink levels, flash card recognition and so on... but these are older printers, not sure if they sell them anymore.
Another one that has been hit an miss at a business I set some up at was HP LaserJet 4L
 
screwballl said:
HP Photosmart 7350 and 7400 (there are others but it has been awhile since I have dealt with any printer issues with Vista, most companies have actually done very well getting them to work).
With these 2 printers, it will print but any advanced features do not work such as ink levels, flash card recognition and so on... but these are older printers, not sure if they sell them anymore.
Click to expand...
You make this sound like Vista's fault. Are you implying that Vista is somehow written in a way that makes drivers impossible to make? Or are you simply saying that HP has no intention of making drivers, so it's HP's fault?

I'm leaning towads the latter myself.
 
Every system in my house runs Vista except my fileserver (Freenas).

Vista is awesome, get over it.
 
screwballl said:
1) Maybe because many people of this forum really are not as technically savvy as they claim to be or would rather have something pretty than functional? Looking through the OS areas of the forum I have seen all sorts of problems with Vista here and all over the internet... so you're saying your few installs that were uneventful qualifies Vista as a stable and well built OS?
Click to expand...

What the hell are you expecting? A thread saying "HELP! MY VISTA INSTALLATION IS SUCCESSFUL AND ISSUE FREE!"?

Have you even bother to stop and think that maybe.. just MAYBE.. you see a lot of request for Vista help here because this is the place to ask for help in the first place?

Do you even think at all before you speak?
 
Due to the expanded API requirements for drivers, many companies are choosing not to make any updated drivers for Vista or if they do it is at a reduced functionality. If MS had stuck with the HAL, we wouldn't be in this mess, the same thing they did with WinME.

Vista is awesome for those who only use basic functions... email, websurfing, some newer games... but those that actually get more out of the OS see that there are more problems and in most cases, it is easier and faster just to use XP and have full use of our hardware and software.
 
Do you make things up as you go along to save face? Because you're not doing it very well. Everything I've used in XP over the years work just fine in Vista at home and here at work on mine and other employee's computers - including HP Laserjets and Color Laserjet printers.

Microsoft HAD to change their driver policy to force vendors to make drivers for both 32- and 64-bit operating system because if they don't, we'll NEVER get to 64-bit. We had the ability for several years now, but driver and third party programmers are holding us back. Props to Microsoft for the change in driver policy!
 
screwballl said:
Due to the expanded API requirements for drivers, many companies are choosing not to make any updated drivers for Vista or if they do it is at a reduced functionality. If MS had stuck with the HAL, we wouldn't be in this mess, the same thing they did with WinME.

Vista is awesome for those who only use basic functions... email, websurfing, some newer games... but those that actually get more out of the OS see that there are more problems and in most cases, it is easier and faster just to use XP and have full use of our hardware and software.
Click to expand...

Which is why all of my hardware is fully functional on multiple machines, even my SCSI controllers. :rolleyes:
I do a hell of a lot more than email and web surfing. But hey, you're just regurgitating the crap you've heard about Vista elsewhere. Have you even used Vista?

Yes, a lot of older printers and scanners don't work, but you know that the companies that made them would have pulled the same crap if Vista had come out three years ago.
 
screwballl said:
Vista is awesome for those who only use basic functions... email, websurfing, some newer games... but those that actually get more out of the OS see that there are more problems.
Click to expand...
I would say it is just the opposite. The more I load up on Vista, the more I am impressed with it. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually used Vista at all, to be honest. You are basically telling a forum of power users that Vista is only good for the basics, and if you spend some time checking around in our sigs, you'll see that is anything but the truth.
 
I love how people see the n00bie title that the forum gives and starts trotting along on their high horse...
everything I say is from real life experience with close to 1000 Vista installs... I have done it for personal computers and business computers... just because it works well for you on your 2 or 3 installs does not make it the defacto standard...
and if you reread what I posted, I said there have been problems with some printers... I did not say "they don't work at all"...
I was a staff member of a prominent tech website up until recently when I had to leave due to the nasty corruption plaguing the ownership... I have tested these machines and would not say it is an OS issue if it was not..
 
I love how people direct other people's attention from their post contents to their titles in order to gain sympathy from the general readers. I don't care if you're a n00bie or an experienced user, you can still be wrong.
 
screwballl said:
everything I say is from real life experience with close to 1000 Vista installs..
Click to expand...

The irony is you use your 1000 failed Vista installs as some kind of qualification. I've installed Vista x64 on five computers and it works absolutely perfect on all of them. So far my success rate is 100%. You yourself said you only had one Vista box install properly. 1 out of 1000? .1% success?

Good resume fodder right there.

I like your API comment. Regurgitating junk from old tech sites isn't going to win you any points here. Your 15 years of tech experience isn't going to win you any points here. It also doesn't speak well of you that you have all this supposed experience but the minute you run into a problem you blame the product. I have a feeling the blame is being put in the wrong place in many cases.
 
and so can you...
remember, you're unique... just like everyone else...

and I did not say 1000 failed installs... try reading previous posts
 
screwballl said:
I was a staff member of a prominent tech website up until recently when I had to leave due to the nasty corruption plaguing the ownership.
Click to expand...
What was their nasty corruption....that they insisted on factual information from their staff? How many more times does it need to be typed? Your issues are not due to the OS. If so, they'd be reproduceable. However, you are arguing with people who are using identical systems and chipsets as you, who are running perfectly fine and stable. If that was an OS issue, those people wouldn't be able to have stable systems either.

By the way, no one, at least the vast majority of people posting here, give any thought to your title. We were all titled as noobies at some point. The people responding are basing their responses off your posts and the incorrect information found within. Many of us could trot out impressive jobs and titles from past and present jobs....but that doesn't mean anyone will take what we say as factual information....especially if it doesn't make sense. Titles, jobs, etc mean nothing on a forum board. You are only judged by what is contained in your posts. And to be honest, at this point, your posts suggest you are no different than a typical Vista basher, who when pressed, finds their platform of debate crumbling beneath their feet.
 
s simple search on the internet will tell you which website it is... MaximumPC has taken them under their corrupted wing and started the same crap at this site I was a part of...
it is one thing to bash Vista based on dislike or opinions... it is another to see a 20% failure rate based on OS inherent problems... this is after taking out the few with hardware issues or early on user errors... do I have to give everyone documented (work sensitive documents) and info showing the 50 page testing procedures used to come to these conclusions which have to be reviewed by a supervising tech?

Like I said before, 1000 people may buy a specific Ford and say they love it but do those 100-200 that have problems with it just make stuff up? Are they just lying because you and your buddies do not have problems with it? Are they not giving facts when they say that they have problems with it? So those that talk bad about this Ford are not in fact truthful but only Ford bashers?

cmon, get off the high horse please...
 
screwballl said:
and so can you...
remember, you're unique... just like everyone else...

and I did not say 1000 failed installs... try reading previous posts
Click to expand...

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032870964&postcount=31

I have built and setup many other systems with Vista and only one actually runs without a problem (although it is slow), which is my mother in laws Dell B110 with Celeron 2.53GHz, onboard video.
Click to expand...

But you do keep changing things and altering your story so maybe it's just me.
 
screwballl said:
cmon, get off the high horse please...
Click to expand...
If I was on one, I'd consider it. You still aren't getting the fact that an OS inherent problem is something built in to the OS, in which everyone would come across. That's my issue with your comments. You are blaming Vista for what is so clearly not a Vista issue. Well, maybe not that clearly, because you haven't given an ounce of actual system information, and when asked for the models of the PCs, you conveniently forgot. That alone shoots down your credibility because you insist on point the finger at the wrong suspect for your alleged troubles.
SuperSubZero said:
But you do keep changing things and altering your story so maybe it's just me.
Click to expand...
I think that sums it up right there. How many times have we seen this....that someone comes in bashing Vista, giving all kinds of "examples" of how much Vista sucks, only to have their reasoning fall apart the more they post. It's like a daily event. Hoooray Mojave!
 
Well I don't judge him by his title, but he certainly did chose a very appropriate forum name.
 
Azhar said:
Well I don't judge him by his title, but he certainly did chose a very appropriate forum name.
Click to expand...

Brevity... something this place lacks in these types of threads entirely too often. Nicely done...
 
Thank you, that is the very issue: an inherent problem is something that comes up in certain circumstances. Maybe not yours or 800 other people but it will show up in 200 other peoples setup. Looking through the number of OS related problems with Vista here is a pretty good indicator that something is not right. there are inherent problems with XP SP2 and SP3 and certain linux distros.. it is in all Operating systems... but given the percentage of current publicly available operating systems available today, Vista is the worst. That does not mean that it has to work well for everyone and that also doesn't mean that with many people it may work perfectly. Does linux work perfectly the way you want out of the box, is it perfect on your systems? Does XP run perfect on your systems? Chances are that there will be at least some problems somewhere with any given OS.
That is my very point. that when you have a group of tech savvy people, they will know how to fix problems or at least bypass them until someone fixes it. The inherant problems are ones that need to be fixed by MS and that many people will never run into here so yes their Vista install will work perfectly.
I work for a ISP that deals with systems across North America. Many of the documents and information is either sensitive private documents within the company or not accessible because they are at a different location. I cannot remember every single model of the hundred of thousands of systems I have works on in my lifetime, and I doubt you can either. I can barely remember the system models I worked on last week.
 
screwballl said:
Looking through the number of OS related problems with Vista here is a pretty good indicator that something is not right.
Click to expand...

The number of threads on an OS help forum tells you something isn't right? Did I miss the threads where we sat around and talked about how XP was the best thing since sliced bread?

The fact that Vista is easily winning the poll kind of shoots your argument down.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
The number of threads on an OS help forum tells you something isn't right? Did I miss the threads where we sat around and talked about how XP was the best thing since sliced bread?

The fact that Vista is easily winning the poll kind of shoots your argument down.
Click to expand...

so this poll with 100 votes in this little corner of cyberspace so far qualifies as the defacto standard? How many have voted Vista when they also have XP and/or linux?

Rebel44 said:
So could you be more specific about those "inherent problems" in Vista SP1 ???:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

read back through the previous posts mmmkay?
 
screwballl said:
read back through the previous posts mmmkay?
Click to expand...

You mean "Inherent problems" like this??? :

screwballl said:
Vista is crap, XP is stable with the proper security software and Linux is the most stable and mature of any OS out there. the unix/linux shell has been around long before DOS
Click to expand...


screwballl said:
Vista is WindowsME version2.....
Click to expand...

I read all posts in this thread and I dont see any reason why anyone should compare vista to ME. I use Vista 64bit for 15 months and I dont have any major problems. I also instaled Vista to 10+ PCs without any problem.
 
tgrimley said:
What example?
Click to expand...

Sorry quotefail

The stupid statement was:

ScretHate said:
Linux has it's share of freakin' HUGE security holes. For example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/21/massive_debian_openssl_hangover/
Click to expand...


THAT is a debian & derivative security hole
IF this un-educated monkey actually knew what he was on about he would of mentioned the vmslice vuln that effected all distro's (until a patch was done 30min later and then over hte coming week pushed out).
 
screwballl said:
Thank you, that is the very issue: an inherent problem is something that comes up in certain circumstances. Maybe not yours or 800 other people but it will show up in 200 other peoples setup. Looking through the number of OS related problems with Vista here is a pretty good indicator that something is not right. there are inherent problems with XP SP2 and SP3 and certain linux distros.. it is in all Operating systems... but given the percentage of current publicly available operating systems available today, Vista is the worst. That does not mean that it has to work well for everyone and that also doesn't mean that with many people it may work perfectly. Does linux work perfectly the way you want out of the box, is it perfect on your systems? Does XP run perfect on your systems? Chances are that there will be at least some problems somewhere with any given OS.
That is my very point. that when you have a group of tech savvy people, they will know how to fix problems or at least bypass them until someone fixes it. The inherant problems are ones that need to be fixed by MS and that many people will never run into here so yes their Vista install will work perfectly.
I work for a ISP that deals with systems across North America. Many of the documents and information is either sensitive private documents within the company or not accessible because they are at a different location. I cannot remember every single model of the hundred of thousands of systems I have works on in my lifetime, and I doubt you can either. I can barely remember the system models I worked on last week.
Click to expand...

You haven't actually answered any questions or provided any information, just trying to pass off more nonsequitur, conjecture and anecdote as fact and giving excuses as to why you can't provide any real facts.
 
Well, three observations
1) Slimeball has never provided ANYTHING (read: ZIP, ZILCH, NADA) to back up any of these claims.
Opinion is not proof of any kind. Give some solid evidence, until then- you are a moron, especially when you've got every other single person in this forum disagreeing with you.
2) Contradictions in here are ridiculous... IMO Sleazeball hasn't even tried Vista, can't even get his story straight.
3) Only examples that WERE given were of two old HP printers. This guy installed THOUSANDS of these things, remember? And has only installed two HP printers? Bull.



IMO let the troll die, unless he posts some proof for his ridiculous statements.
 
The other clue is "installed it on over 1000..."...

"installed"..to me..that means "cloners....frankenstein PCs, mixmatch of "motherboard of the month club" parts. Recipe for issues be it Vista, XP, 2K, 98, etc.

Opposed to "deployed it to over 1000.."

I'm not a fan of Vistas performance, but it runs rock solid, but then again...so did XP, 2K, quite frankly..I could have my 98se boxes for long periods without a reboot.
 
screwballl said:
Vista is WindowsME version2... sure Me was stable and worked well at first until people actually started using it... why do you think they dropped support for it so quickly? And with Vienna/Windows 7 due out within a year (supposedly), it looks to be the same situation.
Click to expand...

Hey genius, guess what? Windows Vienna uses the EXACT SAME base as Vista. Same driver model, same network stack, same security features, everything. It's an incremental upgrade to Vista, which is why MS is able to push it out so quickly. They're keeping all the underlying improvements made to Vista, and working on things like adding more advanced and fancy features to the UI, tweaking performance, and adding functionality. It's kind of like going from Win2k to XP, except less radical. MS wouldn't be using the Vista base if it wasn't already stable, which it certainly is. 90% of the initial Vista issues were caused by drivers (when it was introduced, more crashes were caused by nVidia drivers than any single other problem), and that was the hardware manufacturers' faults, not Microsoft's.

Plus, I don't suppose you remember what a shitstorm XP driver support was when it was released (but of course you do, Mr. 15 years of industry experience). XP was a pile of shit up until SP1 came out, and even then it didn't become particularly good until SP2.

screwballl said:
and when there is a security vulnerability that allows a hacker to completely take over Vista and bypass all security.. yeah thats nice and secure..
http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/New_Vista_Attack_to_be_Unveiled_at_Black_Hat_Conference
Click to expand...

At least MS fixes vulnerabilities when they're found. I guess you've missed all the reports about Mac OS X surpassing Windows in the number of found vulnerabilities due to its increased popularity. Linux has nothing to worry about for the moment since it's still too unpopular to be a viable target, but you can be damn sure that if it ever reaches anything near Windows' current market share, there will be a shit-ton of viruses for it.

screwballl said:
Learning curve? What learning curve... install it, open the browser and surf the internet. When was thew last time you used a modern Linux distro... they have been a hell of a lot more stable and secure than any Windows install I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

When's the last time I've used a modern Linux distro? How about Ubuntu 8.04 and Fedora 9, both of which I play around with on one of my spare boxes. Those recent enough for you? I couldn't even get desktop effects working with my nVidia video card in Fedora due to driver issues, and when I tried doing the workaround that's available on the net to regress to another compatible version, the kernel became corrupted and I had to wipe the partition and do a fresh install. Stable? Easy? Right. Plus, I do a lot more on my PCs than just internet browsing, and a lot of my commonly-used apps in Windows have no real equivalent functionality-wise in Linux. Have you ever tried to get a Windows app running in WINE? It's a pain in the ass.

screwballl said:
so I need to repeat that my 15 years experience in the tech industry plus testing Vista since it was known as Longhorn Beta for you to trust me? I am not entitled to form my own comments based on facts of hundreds of faulty Vista installs (due to the OS, not user/hardware error)?
Try asking for info rather than using some pedestal you put yourself upon to look down on the "n00bie" according to the forum title...
I may be new here but not to the industry...
Click to expand...

o wa0 i r t3h l337 i kn0ez 5o much m0rez 4boutz PCs th4n u cuz i uze PCs 4 15 yrz l0l

Spare me. I don't give a fuck how long you've been in 'the industry'. Claiming experience doesn't mean shit. I know people who have been in the industry for a lot longer than you who come to me regularly for advice. Experience is very different from knowledge and understanding, and you have no right to claim that you know any better than me, especially given my track record compared to your posts bashing Vista for no reason.

And for the record, I've also been working with PCs for 15 years. I just don't go around advertising the fact like some self-righteous asshole. I let my quality posts speak for themselves. I have no need to embellish my comments by claiming that my 'experience' makes me better.


I apologise to all the decent members of the forum for replying to a post from two pages back, but after reading the gem that was "15 years of experience in the industry", I just couldn''t let it go. And now, I will go post in some topics that are actually worth my time.
 
Mine:
XP SP2 on my primary PC
XP SP2 on my Media server (Shuttle K45 setup). Need XP for Magicjack and TVersity at this time, otherwise I'd be glad to make it a Linux box
1 Linux-based OS Nokia n800 internet tablet
XP SP2 on my work laptop since that's what my company is sticking with for now
One 333mhz box I'm going to install Linux on when I get some spare time

Wife's:
1 Linux-based (Xandros) eeePC
Vista SP1 on a Dell Vostro 1500
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top