• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Passionate Windows Users

T

Tim

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
May 4, 2000
Messages
5,176
Apple fans take a lot of grief over how passionate they are about their choice of computers and gear. As it turns out, people who use Windows can be just as passionate about their OS of choice.

Fans of the six-year-old operating system set to be pulled off store shelves in June have papered the Internet with blog posts, cartoons and petitions recently. They trumpet its superiority to Windows Vista, Microsoft's latest PC operating system, whose consumer launch last January was greeted with lukewarm reviews.
Click to expand...
 
Vista bashing XP fanboys! Yay!

The amusing thing is these were the same guys clinging onto Win98 when XP came out. "XP is bloated and buggy!" blah blah blah.
 
Getting excited about Windows is like getting excited about owning a Corolla.

XP was a massive upgrade from my previous version (Me). Vista? Not so much.
 
Can't believe anyone would cling to Win98,for me at least it was one long nightmare!:(
XP,on the other hand,performs very well.I can understand why some people are reluctant to let it go.
 
Hilarious.

When Vista was first released, it was shit. 8 months later it was a hell of a lot better. Now, its an excellent operating system. People that have issues with vista for the most part dont know how to configure it properly. I will never go back to xp.
 
NKDietrich said:
Vista bashing XP fanboys! Yay!
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.

The whole "Vista sucks" thing is being perpetuated by clueless people. Vista is one of Microsoft's best OS's IMHO. Sure, not every proposed feature made it, but it's a huge security overhaul.
 
I have learned a lot while using XP and it is truly a superb OS, but DX10 being Vista only left me no choice.

In its current and upcoming state, XP will still be better than Vista for a long, long time... half of a decade is my prediction... before Vista is as operable, compatible, and stable...
 
I loved Windows 98 Second Edition. I also loved Windows 2000. Windows ME made me want to kill someone, and I've yet to meet anyone who hasn't felt positive about that particular flavor of Windows. Windows XP to this day just feels like a reconfigured Win2K to me, but I do notice that in some respects it does seem to operate a bit smoother than Win2K did. I don't know what exactly makes it feel different, but it does offer something that Win2K doesn't and I can't quite figure out what.

I doubt I will take the plunge to Vista, if only because there are still things from the olden days that I adore, that most likely won't run under Vista (i.e. old games I still play)

If I do though, I will probably keep a dedicated XP box just for all that old stuff I still love.
 
The Red said:
I have learned a lot while using XP and it is truly a superb OS, but DX10 being Vista only left me no choice.

In its current and upcoming state, XP will still be better than Vista for a long, long time... half of a decade is my prediction... before Vista is as operable, compatible, and stable...
Click to expand...

Vista will be replaced before that half a decade. Windows 7 is aimed for 2010. Remember that the XP->Vista gap was the exception. MS has typically released a new version of Windows every 2-3 years or so.

Vista is fine right now. I have run into _nothing_ in the last 6 months that made me wish "Man I wish I was still using XP." I have had zero compatibility issues, every game Ive wanted to play ran in either Vista natively, a VM, or DOSBOX. All the applications I use on a daily basis worked fine. I never upgrade to the newest version of Windows until about 6 months in, this has saved me a ton of headaches.

The problems of the first 6 months of Vista are all but completely faded now. Only people who are going to have serious problems are people who use oddball hardware or software created by morons who do not know how to patch their stuff or have gone out of business.
 
Exactly my point the last 2 posts... Vista IS great if you know how to use it and you have the knowledge to know good from bad within an OS...
 
NKDietrich said:
Vista will be replaced before that half a decade. Windows 7 is aimed for 2010. Remember that the XP->Vista gap was the exception. MS has typically released a new version of Windows every 2-3 years or so.

Vista is fine right now. I have run into _nothing_ in the last 6 months that made me wish "Man I wish I was still using XP." I have had zero compatibility issues, every game Ive wanted to play ran in either Vista natively, a VM, or DOSBOX. All the applications I use on a daily basis worked fine. I never upgrade to the newest version of Windows until about 6 months in, this has saved me a ton of headaches.

The problems of the first 6 months of Vista are all but completely faded now. Only people who are going to have serious problems are people who use oddball hardware or software created by morons who do not know how to patch their stuff or have gone out of business.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Dell, HP, and Gateway? .. those machines have integrated hardware from companies that dont even have websites, just to save a buck on video, audio, or north bridge or ram or storage... I mean seriously, do you recognize the names of half the companies their hardware is labeled by when you open their desktops or laptops?
 
Vista costs money so until I have money, 4gb+ ram and after I rma my 8800gs.
Then maybe, but the bang for buck isn't really there.
 
This is exactly what most people said when Windows XP "Experience" first came out. Most shunned it away and said it was bloated and buggy. Much like Vista was, when it first came out. The only real thing holding Vista back is the lack of driver support, but its getting better as the days pass. e.g. - the patch to "bring gaming to XP speeds" patch. As we all know - MS operating systems need time to mature and blend with existing hardware and standards before it will be a completely viable OS for all to use - power users and technophobics alike.
 
I must say, my belief is that the people clinging to XP either have very specific needs... eg a certain app or hardware not avail in Vista, or more comonly are extreamly clueless.

One of my firends was ranting about vista.... he was over at my house looking at my box and didnt realize that I was runing vista thought it was XP.

Ya it looks a little diferant... but not really.

The vista 32 driver issues are for the large part dead... that was the only thing holding me back... Not that Vista is perfect the user control feature is anoying and City Of Heroes still has some vista quirks... HELLO Cryptic...can you get with the new program?
 
The way that I look at it Elf Boy, is why does one Need or want Vista? What features do you really have to use that Windows XP does not already have. The only reason I will be "upgrading" to Vista in the foreseeable future is for DX10 games. At this moment in time there are so few games that actually support the full feature set of DX10 that it makes the upgrade path not so viable to me; that is my opinion.
 
I don't know why people want to find errors in Vista. Also, I can't stop laughing at people who keep saying how horrific the UAC is. If these people used linux only once, then ... they are stupid not to see the similarity. I think if they could make Windows as secure and stable as Linux then it would be perfect. But c'mon, if it would be flawless it would be soo dull! At least we can still make fun of Windows, while Linux is too dull.

Windows is like a rockstar who can perform songs like nobody else, but he usually drinks himself under table, while Linux is the guy from the office, who does the same thing every day, he learns and has hobbies, yet only those few know him who have to know him, because he is dull, yet if they knew everything about him maybe they would find out that he can be absolutely fantastic.

OMG it's 0:14 here, sorry if it doesn't make any sense at all, maybe I'll delete it in the morning.
 
mufcfan said:
I don't know why people want to find errors in Vista. Also, I can't stop laughing at people who keep saying how horrific the UAC is. If these people used linux only once, then ... they are stupid not to see the similarity. I think if they could make Windows as secure and stable as Linux then it would be perfect. But c'mon, if it would be flawless it would be soo dull! At least we can still make fun of Windows, while Linux is too dull.

Windows is like a rockstar who can perform songs like nobody else, but he usually drinks himself under table, while Linux is the guy from the office, who does the same thing every day, he learns and has hobbies, yet only those few know him who have to know him, because he is dull, yet if they knew everything about him maybe they would find out that he can be absolutely fantastic.

OMG it's 0:14 here, sorry if it doesn't make any sense at all, maybe I'll delete it in the morning.
Click to expand...

LOL, good read here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ecurity-prompt-was-designed-to-annoy-you.html
 
I thought the part about people switching to Linux was funny. What hardware/app are they using that would work under Linux and not Vista? I thought about running Linux, dual booting, but don't really see a point in it. There's nothing in Linux that I would rather use than in Windows. Windows has a huge amount of awesome freeware, more so than Linux I would bet. Also, I wasn't aware that Apple gave people an option to use an older O/S when a new one came out. Steep requirements for Vista? What the hell is soo steep about the requirements? You can get 2 gigs of ram for $25, integrated graphics that will run Aero, dual core processors under $90. You can get a Dell with 20" LCD for $400. Apple doesn't have anything that could touch that price/performance wise. I'm not a Vista fanboy, I'd buy a Mac just to mess around with if I could get a tower with room to upgrade for less than $400. The mini may look sweet and all, but $600 with poor specs, can't upgrade video, etc. totally not worth it. This subject has been beaten to death, not sure why the [H] keeps posting it on the front page. I guess it's fun to bitch back and forth.
 
It so happens I do use Dx 10.

I also like having the latest greatest... Early adopter kinda person. I am not bashing anyone for not upgrading... That’s about budget, hardware, etc.

If anything, I am lightly amused by people who, without any specific need, like hardware/software compatibility cling to XP like a drowning person to the lifeguard. Ok those people more then lightly amuse me.

The aforementioned friend finally had to agree that Vista was, maybe, something he would be able to use... But dug in his heels, stating that in no way shape or form would his mother be able to figure it out. Come on people… at least so far as the UI, its just a different flavor of the same thing, its like getting black cherry ice cream instead of cherry. For the bulk of computer users out there the UI is really all that matters, only a select few dig into the machine underneath. Or at least that’s how I see things.
 
lathode said:
I thought the part about people switching to Linux was funny. What hardware/app are they using that would work under Linux and not Vista? I thought about running Linux, dual booting, but don't really see a point in it. There's nothing in Linux that I would rather use than in Windows. Windows has a huge amount of awesome freeware, more so than Linux I would bet. Also, I wasn't aware that Apple gave people an option to use an older O/S when a new one came out. Steep requirements for Vista? What the hell is soo steep about the requirements? You can get 2 gigs of ram for $25, integrated graphics that will run Aero, dual core processors under $90. You can get a Dell with 20" LCD for $400. Apple doesn't have anything that could touch that price/performance wise. I'm not a Vista fanboy, I'd buy a Mac just to mess around with if I could get a tower with room to upgrade for less than $400. The mini may look sweet and all, but $600 with poor specs, can't upgrade video, etc. totally not worth it. This subject has been beaten to death, not sure why the [H] keeps posting it on the front page. I guess it's fun to bitch back and forth.
Click to expand...

QFT. Read it all people. :p

:rolleyes:
 
lathode said:
I'd buy a Mac just to mess around with if I could get a tower with room to upgrade for less than $400. The mini may look sweet and all, but $600 with poor specs, can't upgrade video, etc. totally not worth it.
Click to expand...

Apple needs to release a headless Core 2 Duo Mac that isn't compromised in specs in order to cram slower components into a tiny tiny enclosure. It might make for a nice HTPC running XBMC, but IMO not much else. To add insult to injury you add a monitor to that Mini and you get to the roughly same price as a baseline iMac, except the iMac has better internal specs (plus it takes up less desk space since it is an all-in-one, nullifying one of the design goals of the mini). So yeah, compared to the rest of the Mac lineup it is a pretty poor value. Too bad because in general the hardware is great and the OS is IMO the best mainstream OS with wide application support out right now, its just that the cost of entry on decent hardware is higher than it should be due to the misguided design goals of the mini.
 
Where's the article about passionate Linux users? They are worse than the Mac+Windows users combined and raised to the tenth power. :rolleyes:
 
I have no problem with loyalty to one OS over another...so long as both were given a fair chance. Admittedly, I was one of the OSX haters until I recently tried it out and have since grown to love it. Give Vista a shot, then form your own opinion.
 
I'm so tired of the Vista vs XP bullshit. People want to hold on to an old operating system with every new release. Same goes for anything 'new', really. I think this time with the large gap in between the OS releases, a lot more small brained people were forced into buying XP to get rid of Windows 95 or Windows 3.1. I keep reading posts from all the idiots in the comments sections of articles moaning like complete retards, about how they upgraded their XP installation to Vista and they lost all of their work when it didn't work out, or how some 10 year old printer doesn't work. Fuck normal people who are too stupid to back up their important files, or too cheap to spend a hundered bucks to replace a printer that barely works.

Takes so goddamn long to learn anything new, ugh jesus what is this technology crap, fuck this shit. Complain, complain, complain some more. Where's my ipod, supersized big mac value meal, and the Wal-Mart ad. I love being stuck into the masses, and unable to think for myself. So much easier.

Just take a look at this forum, and other places where truely smart and intelligent people roam. You won't see the same sentiments as you do elsewhere. There are some valid complaints about Vista, but not at the level being proclaimed by every site dying to get readers to visit their pages and click an ad.
 
I really don't consider objecting to being cut off from an operating system's support structure of an operating system that does not have ANY need to be upgraded as being "Passionate about an OS"

Seriously Vista is eye candy and DX10, nothing more but a whole lot less.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
I doubt I will take the plunge to Vista, if only because there are still things from the olden days that I adore, that most likely won't run under Vista (i.e. old games I still play)

If I do though, I will probably keep a dedicated XP box just for all that old stuff I still love.
Click to expand...

I've found Vista's backwards compatibility to be excellent.

With 32-bit Vista and Dosbox you can run just about anything. With 64-bit Vista you won't be able to run 16-bit apps (unless they run in Dosbox).
 
Straight from MS;

WinXP faster than Win2K and Win98SE

..."Windows XP to be overall the fastest version of the Windows operating system ever created for a wide range of desktop computing tasks..."
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx

When MS issues a similar report for a version of their OS that is faster than WinXP; I'll take a look at it. So far MS has only said there about the same.

..."Overall, Windows Vista SP1 and Windows XP performed comparably on most test operations. ..."
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...led-technologies-tests-windows-vista-sp1.aspx
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I've found Vista's backwards compatibility to be excellent.

With 32-bit Vista and Dosbox you can run just about anything. With 64-bit Vista you won't be able to run 16-bit apps (unless they run in Dosbox).
Click to expand...

I run XP x64 and currently Dosbox won't run or even install older 16bit software that I have on CD in any of My PCs, So to Me 16bit DOS software CDs are just nearly useless coasters to Me, As I used 59 (and 1/3 of another) useless CDs to keep the birds from nesting under My carport as they were pooping on My car and the CDs are perfectly sized for that and their secured with Walters Goo forever. :) So I'm finally getting some use out of Tomb Raider and a few other CDs and the Birds are gone too.
 
I went from windows ME, upgrade, (Absolute, without a shadow of a doubt, worst operating system that has ever been, or that will ever exist, RC betas included) to windows 2000, that was a leap. I went to XP when SP1 came out, went back to windows 2000 because I thought it was more streamline, it was more stable. I went back to XP because the difference was negotiable, and the xp style alone was worth it. Then I bought vista in may last year, first put it on my laptop, I wasn't really happy with it, but I could deal with it, and it felt like a better OS for my laptop atleast than XP, because speed wasn't important, style, and stability was, and vista was mostly stable.

Then I finally put it on my main box, their were some issues starting off, I still can't get DVDs to play thru windows media player, games load up slower, and up untill SP1, network transfer speeds SUCKED, but right now, I have 22 days 8 hours uptime on vista, thats with 4/5ths of the time running folding@home, overclocked, with my cpu and PSU constantly at 50+ c I had never gotten more than 12 days uptime w/o needing to reboot in XP on this system.

I know 22 days uptime isn't alot, my download box has about 80 days running XP, but it sits there and leeches the internet all day, but this is my main system, with two hard drives full of programs and files, and it just don't quit.
 
hmm. Well, neither of my computers have Vista. But I have gotten to play around on a friend's computer who has had Vista for some time now. He likes it, but told me he actually likes XP Pro better and has that on an older computer. I didn't spend that much time on the Vista machine, but I wasn't really overly impressed *shrug*

I've been through 3.1, 95, 98SE (which I really liked), a brief foray into ME (Microsoft's cruel joke on all of us), back to 98SE and then when that computer died skipped over 2000 and made the leap to XP. I LOVE XP, I'll admit it. I liked it from day 1. SP1 drove me insane, but I was on dial-up (a 3 day d/l that kept getting interrupted - yeah, that'll work great!). Then Microsoft released it on CD and I learned how to slipstream it. It was a beautiful thing. SP2? absolutely no problems. The upcoming SP3? I don't really see the need personally - I keep up with my updates and the "enhancements" that are allegedly being added are making it sound almost like "vista lite".

My other reason for staying with XP, besides cost of new O/S are there are some programs I use that don't play well with Vista, same with a couple peripherals that are about a year old (tops).

So I'm one of the people who will be staying with XP until there's either absolutely no choice or Windows 7 comes out and is amazing - which I'm hoping for. There is going to be support until I think 2014 for XP ... not full support maybe, but Microsoft isn't just dropping all the XP users.
 
I had to laugh my head off when I was at a Microsoft training in Boise ID for the new Office 2007 (when it was first coming out.) The presenter gave us a brief history of Windows before getting started into the history of Office and the benefits to 2007.

He started of course with some DOS info, then how they came out with Windows 3.0, and then 3.1 for workgroups. He progressed to Windows 95, which of course had people staying over night camping out in order to be the first to pick it up. Ah, the birth of "Start"... Then He went to Windows 98 and explained some if its benefits. He finished with 98 and hit the next slide, which was ME, and immediately hit the "next" button on the remote again, "skipping" ME altogether. He started right into the next OS, but of course everyone was laughing (except those few who were remembering ME woes with great disdain). He stopped and went back saying, "Ok ok. We have to be able to admit to our mistakes. Everyone has a chance to learn and become better. We definitely learned how NOT to do things with ME."

For someone to call Vista an ME repeat is purely uneducated. I hate seeing people post crap like "Vista is DX10 and eye candy, nothing more" and the like. I'm not some stupid MS fan. I went to the training for the free copy of Office 2007 professional! But Vista brings some serious firepower to the table. On my main performance rig I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 bit. With 8GB of ram fully enabled and a quad core, I find myself decoding video on one or two of my cores, downloading steam games, and playing the latest in DX10 at the same time. Vista comes with built in spyware protection, a first for Windows-based OS's. While not the best or strongest, it can work in conjunction with another 3rd party app to provide much more solid protection than just the 3rd party app alone.

Instant search works amazingly well. So what if they copied mac or spotlight or linux or w/e. Isn't that what making a better OS is all about? You take what others do well that people like, and try to do it better and integrate it into your own software. The customer will never lose as long as the companies they buy from always try to do this. Apple does it, and Windows does it.

Another thing that works very well is the new Photo Album built right into Vista. I've never seen another integrated program on a mac or otherwise that is so flexible at organizing all your photos. As a photographer, I appreciate being able to stack/group/sort and tag/rate all the photos I have, instantly, by date, megapixel, resolution, what camera they were taken with, file size, etc. Eliminating duplicate photos is a snap. I would never use its enhancement tools, but for organizing, previewing, and backing up your images, it works amazingly well. You can even get an MS provided raw camera plugin for it to help you sort all those raw Nikon/Canon files right into your albums. For once an OS has true raw previewing and sorting capabilities.

Plug your xbox HD DVD player into XP and what happens? Pretty much nothing. You've gotta download the drivers for it manually. In Vista in a few minutes you're watching DVD's providing you have a software program capable of decoding them. Too bad HD DVD lost the war....

I have Vista now running on all three of my computers, including my Mac. It runs fine, all my hardware works just fine, and all my old programs and games (except C&C generals) work just fine. I was using Office 2003 w/o issue until I finally upgraded to 2007. In fact, on my HTPC, I did an upgrade install from XPMCE, instead of the recommended clean install. For the first time ever I broke one of my own computer rules, and a year later, the stupid thing is still working just fine, recording TV shows, web browsing, light gaming, and media sharing over my network, all on the same unrecommended upgrade install. Most of the programs that worked on it when it had XP didnt even need reinstalled to work in Vista!

Maybe I'm just lucky, but 3 out of 3 computers working just fine with Vista, including a stupid Mac, seems better than luck. Yeah, I know a little more about computers than the next guy, but my latest Vista install could've been done by half a monkey. I didn't have to do any of my magical guru stuff to get my old HP printer working, firefox to work just dandy, the internet to get set up, my ipod to plug in and copy songs and charge, office to run, etc. I did exactly what I would've had to do in XP, maybe with one or two less restarts perhaps. Anybody could've done it.

I could go on and on about the benefits of Vista, but to the die hard XP fans, they won't care or open up their eyes to give it an honest try on new (but cheap) hardware. My 58 year old DAD is loving Vista, now that he knows how to use some of the parental controls and the instant search feature. He wants it on his work computer, and he's afraid of computers in general! I thought he would freak out with Vista, but he gave it half a chance. He has less computer knowhow in his whole body than most of you have in your left pinky's nail, and Vista has been fine for him. I'm not even in Wyoming to show him how to use it. He likes the Vista MCE better than XP's, and it hooked up to the 360 like a charm.

After using Vista for over a year now, when I go back to XP I feel like I've gone back in time. Organization, backup, search, and customization options that I know use in Vista to make me more effective and more in control of my computing experience are completely lacking in XP. It feels clunky and inefficient. Bottom line. And this is coming from someone who first loved XP, and officially beta tested it. I got a certificate and everything. I loved XP and used it for years. MCE was a godsend for an HTPC, another platform I've grown to love. But Vista does even more, and does many things better/easier than XP did.
 
zoom314 said:
I run XP x64 and currently Dosbox won't run or even install older 16bit software that I have on CD in any of My PCs, So to Me 16bit DOS software CDs are just nearly useless coasters to Me, As I used 59 (and 1/3 of another) useless CDs to keep the birds from nesting under My carport as they were pooping on My car and the CDs are perfectly sized for that and their secured with Walters Goo forever. :) So I'm finally getting some use out of Tomb Raider and a few other CDs and the Birds are gone too.
Click to expand...

For 16bit games/programs I have Win 95, Win98, 2000 and XP in VMware ;)
 
I find the whole Vista Vs Xp thing amusing.

It seems some folks like to swap over just because Vista is the "latest and greatest" and diss others totally disregarding the other persons needs.

The need could be corporate network specs, older hardware required, budgets etc.

Maybe XP (or even Win98 or what ever) simply does what they need it to do and they see no reason to upgrade.

It's one thing to rebut someone with no clue spreading FUD about Vista, quite another to claim anothers needs are not a valid point.

I work in a place the uses certain software that is DOS based and requires a non-usb printer. Replacing the software isn't even remoutely an option- So the OS the runs the software stays & the printer stays too. No Vista.

Look beyond your single point of view.

At the moment I have no need for Vista so won't be upgrading.

When I *need* Vista I'll buy it.

It's a tool not a religion.
 
Have none of the people that claim programs dont work heard of compatability mode? You would think doing some research would uncover that. Also if people are whining about xp not being available anymore then why dont they just go buy xp licences now? seems like a smart idea to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top