• 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

gdonovan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Evidently, computer enthusiasts are a peculiar and sensitive lot. They want the latest OS and computer hardware for no other reason than to stay on top of the technology curve. In there minds, that justifies a need. Computer "stuff" is a hobby for hardcore enthusiasts and some of them are delicate in matters pertaining to their enthusiasms.

Take Vista for example. Everybody knows XP is a robust and mature OS. It's a great OS but in their minds of enthusiasts, new = better and no amount of finely crafted arguments counter to that notion is going to register for them. It's simply a matter of interpretation when determining whether the "features" of a new OS make it a better than the previous version. Apparently, with respect to Vista, there is plenty of room for debate...

I haven't installed Vista on my primary box because I have 2 pieces of relatively expensive software that are not compatible with Vista. I don't wish to replace or expand my existing hardware to achieve the same level of performance that I am experiencing with XP. Additionally, as compelling as DX10 is, there aren't any titles currently available that impress me enough to use that as rationale for making the move to Vista:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

I can see how PC enthusiasts might interpret apathy with bashing with respect to Vista. Nevertheless, it's interesting to note Vista users passion and XP users smugness.
 
ICOM said:
Take Vista for example. Everybody knows XP is a robust and mature OS. It's a great OS but in their minds of enthusiasts, new = better and no amount of finely crafted arguments counter to that notion is going to register for them. It's simply a matter of interpretation when determining whether the "features" of a new OS make it a better than the previous version. Apparently, with respect to Vista, there is plenty of room for debate...
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but the only articles (from PC magazines and sites) that stick in my mind over the year or so before Vista came out was about how vulnerable and in need of an overhaul XP had become.

Mature != Robust in the minds of any 'expert' you would come across a mere 18 months ago.
 
ICOM said:
Evidently, computer enthusiasts are a peculiar and sensitive lot. They want the latest OS and computer hardware for no other reason than to stay on top of the technology curve. In there minds, that justifies a need. Computer "stuff" is a hobby for hardcore enthusiasts and some of them are delicate in matters pertaining to their enthusiasms.

Take Vista for example. Everybody knows XP is a robust and mature OS. It's a great OS but in their minds of enthusiasts, new = better and no amount of finely crafted arguments counter to that notion is going to register for them. It's simply a matter of interpretation when determining whether the "features" of a new OS make it a better than the previous version. Apparently, with respect to Vista, there is plenty of room for debate...

I haven't installed Vista on my primary box because I have 2 pieces of relatively expensive software that are not compatible with Vista. I don't wish to replace or expand my existing hardware to achieve the same level of performance that I am experiencing with XP. Additionally, as compelling as DX10 is, there aren't any titles currently available that impress me enough to use that as rationale for making the move to Vista:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

I can see how PC enthusiasts might interpret apathy with bashing with respect to Vista. Nevertheless, it's interesting to note Vista users passion and XP users smugness.
Click to expand...

Just like a previous poster said you can't judge/stereotype XP users because some of them have a legit need for XP or an older OS to run that special piece of hardware or software program, you shouldn't just lump everyone jumping on Vista into a stereotype of people who waste money on "the latest and greatest" either. There are many more reasons for users to buy Vista than just to be on the edge of the "technology curve." It would probably be ok for us to lump you into the XP zealot category for doing that to Vista adopters, however, because of what you say in your post. I invite you to read what I said about Vista earlier. Some of the features it brings to the table are indeed of value to many users. Just like you have valid reasons for not upgrading to XP (like being too cheap to buy 2GB of ram for $25.... the hardware cost is not a valid argument, but the cost to upgrade the OS is, to your credit), extend the same respect to people upgrading to Vista. My dad couldn't care LESS about being on the latest end of the technology curve, but he enjoys Vista much more than XP and uses many of the new features it offers.
 
TheZanderMan said:
Just like a previous poster said you can't judge/stereotype XP users because some of them have a legit need for XP or an older OS to run that special piece of hardware or software program, you shouldn't just lump everyone jumping on Vista into a stereotype of people who waste money on "the latest and greatest" either. There are many more reasons for users to buy Vista than just to be on the edge of the "technology curve." It would probably be ok for us to lump you into the XP zealot category for doing that to Vista adopters, however, because of what you say in your post. I invite you to read what I said about Vista earlier. Some of the features it brings to the table are indeed of value to many users. Just like you have valid reasons for not upgrading to XP (like being too cheap to buy 2GB of ram for $25.... the hardware cost is not a valid argument, but the cost to upgrade the OS is, to your credit), extend the same respect to people upgrading to Vista. My dad couldn't care LESS about being on the latest end of the technology curve, but he enjoys Vista much more than XP and uses many of the new features it offers.
Click to expand...

Good read. I raised many of those points to mirror the theme of the article - specifically why some people (enthusiasts in this case) are so passionate about Windows operating systems. I was arguing over the assumption that PC enthusiasts were a group more closely linked to people that would hold deep seeded feelings about the OS of their choice.

Hardware upgrades can go far beyond purchasing cheap memory. Some people may be maxed out at 2 GB of RAM (like me). Adding more might require a motherboard replacement as well as a new CPU. Don't forget that some printer manufactures don't always provide driver support for new OS. I would argue that hardware issues are a real concern and one not to be dismissed as simply being a cheapskate.
 
So XP is solid and stable, and now M$ wants to pull it from shelves? Let the public decide. Obviously there are tons of people out there that would rather use XP, so let them. It's still money. M$ would be stupid to not keep selling it. I wouldn't put it past them though. ;)

I personally can't stand Vista. If it weren't for DX10 and the new features in MCE, I would still be on WinXP. If I'm building a new computer for me or someone else, it's getting WinXP because the support calls will be non-existent.

I was happy with every new operating system that came out except for a few. Win95, WinME, and Vista all teh suck! I went from DOS/Win3.11->Win98SE->Win2K->WinXP. I'll skip Vista as my main OS if I can... I'm an early adopter as well, but I tend to try and keep my distance from turds. :p
 
ICOM said:
Good read. I raised many of those points to mirror the theme of the article - specifically why some people (enthusiasts in this case) are so passionate about Windows operating systems. I was arguing over the assumption that PC enthusiasts were a group more closely linked to people that would hold deep seeded feelings about the OS of their choice.

Hardware upgrades can go far beyond purchasing cheap memory. Some people may be maxed out at 2 GB of RAM (like me). Adding more might require a motherboard replacement as well as a new CPU. Don't forget that some printer manufactures don't always provide driver support for new OS. I would argue that hardware issues are a real concern and one not to be dismissed as simply being a cheapskate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. That comment I made wasn't necessarily made for you. I am just pointing out that if one party doesn't want to be stereotyped or misjudged, they shouldn't stereotype/misjudge the opposing party just at face value. Sometimes people have valid reasons for their opinions, even if they don't agree with yours. I wasn't making that comment for people like you, ICOM.
 
ShagnWagn said:
So XP is solid and stable, and now M$ wants to pull it from shelves? Let the public decide. Obviously there are tons of people out there that would rather use XP, so let them. It's still money. M$ would be stupid to not keep selling it. I wouldn't put it past them though. ;)

I personally can't stand Vista. If it weren't for DX10 and the new features in MCE, I would still be on WinXP. If I'm building a new computer for me or someone else, it's getting WinXP because the support calls will be non-existent.

I was happy with every new operating system that came out except for a few. Win95, WinME, and Vista all teh suck! I went from DOS/Win3.11->Win98SE->Win2K->WinXP. I'll skip Vista as my main OS if I can... I'm an early adopter as well, but I tend to try and keep my distance from turds. :p
Click to expand...

My comment was actually for people like ShagnWagn who avoid Vista because it's a "turd." That's a real rational reason to avoid it...

TheZanderMan said:
Yeah, I know. That comment I made wasn't necessarily made for you. I am just pointing out that if one party doesn't want to be stereotyped or misjudged, they shouldn't stereotype/misjudge the opposing party just at face value. Sometimes people have valid reasons for their opinions, even if they don't agree with yours. I wasn't making that comment for people like you, ICOM.
Click to expand...
 
Passionate Windows users? LeetMastah hasn't been posting in a couple months now. What passionate Windows users? ;)
 
TheZanderMan said:
My comment was actually for people like ShagnWagn who avoid Vista because it's a "turd." That's a real rational reason to avoid it...
Click to expand...

Welp, I have already posted my reasons. No reason for me to regurgitate them here. Vista isn't as big a turd as WinME was, no doubt about it. It is useable, just like WinME, for the average user. If I have to support them, I'm going to put WinXP on there unless they specifically want Vista. Even for all the "average" users I help out, none of them have liked Vista and I've had two request WinXP be put back on. That says a lot when people who barely know how to use email and browse the web want to go back to WinXP... Anyhow, not try to make an argument, just reciting what I see personally out in the real world.
 
I've got Win98 running on a celeron 433mhz. It boots faster than my c2d on xp. While there is no longer support for win98, i need it to run an old dos program. XP is win98 of yesterday. I'm amazed how 'lite' it is relative to vista and how that would prove to be useful for something like an asus eee, where space is scarce.
 
I switched to Vista primarily because I was just plain sick of XP. I really haven't had any issues that were not rectified by downloading new drivers, when the OS did not directly recognize the hardware. I like the interface for the most part. And I like that I have directx 10 functionality when it finally comes.
 
Many customers come into my store every day to buy computers. Quite a few of them complain about Vista, or ask if we have a computer that has XP. I make a point to ask them if they've personally used Vista. 97 out of 100 (and no, I'm not exaggerating, I've been keeping track!) have NEVER even personally USED Vista themselves. When I ask them why they are afraid of Vista or want a computer with XP every single one of them says "Oh I've heard this" or "My uncle who's a geek says that..." Nobody has their own opinion. I've been using it for a blitherin' full year now. I feel like I have more personal experience upon which to base an opinion than, say, someone who's used Vista for five minutes. The statement about judging a book by its cover comes to mind...

"Vista is just a pretty interface and DX10. Nothing more."

Someone looked at the cover and judged the book.

All I'm saying is, don't fall into that trap. If your Vista experience is limited, you have no place bashing the crap out of it based on what "uncle geek" or anybody else says. I'm not saying there are people who have tried Vista and it hasn't worked for them and their old peripherals that they have to use mandatorily for the jobsite, or something to that effect. There are some people who absolutely shouldn't switch to Vista. In fact, I thought my dad, who's going on 60 in a couple of years, should just stick with XP. I didn't think it was worth the time it would take to teach him a new OS. He's barely learned XP decently well! I'd rather spend hours sleeping or ANYTHING other than handholding him through a NEW operating system again.

I let him make the choice. I told him some of the benefits. He liked them and said he wanted it, so he got Vista on the computer I built for him. He loves it. He likes it better than he liked XP. Stuff just makes more sense to him. He likes the well-integrated parental controls, the instant search, and the photo organization and media center apps built natively right into the OS. No third party complications required. Everything's there for him and easy to access and use. These are very practical and usable features. What parents wouldn't like to be able to monitor or at least set time limits on gaming? Or prevent their younger children from playing M rated games?

And who wouldn't benefit from being able to hit ONE single button (the windows button) and start typing whatever you want - be it an app, game, document, picture, favorite song, favorite website, email, etc. - and have it instantly appear right there? You don't even have to use the mouse!

Some people have older devices that require older OS's to work at all. Some have special software that still runs on DOS for crying out loud. There are valid reasons for not upgrading. Just make sure that's what you put hear when you voice your concerns.
 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=1

Let's skip to the end.

Mac: In both the laptop and desktop showdowns, Apple’s computers were the winners. Oddly, the big difference didn’t come in our user ratings, where we expected the famously friendly Mac interface to shine. Our respondents liked the look and feel of both operating systems but had a slight preference toward OS X. In our speed trials, however, Leopard OS trounced Vista in all-important tasks such as boot-up, shutdown and program-launch times. We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did.

PC: Simply put, Vista proved to be a more sluggish operating system than Leopard. Our PCs installed some software faster, but in general they were slower in our time trials. Plus, both PCs showed weaker performance on third-party benchmarks than the Macs. Our biggest surprise, however, was that PCs were not the relative bargains we expected them to be. The Asus M51sr costs the same as a MacBook, while the Gateway One actually costs $300 more than an iMac. That means for the price of the Gateway you could buy an iMac, boost its hard drive to match the Gateway’s, purchase a copy of Vista to boot—and still save $100.
 
Alex - I've run Vista, XP, and OS X on the same hardware now that Macs are using Intel CPUs. There is absolutely no comparison as far as speed and performance between Windows and OS X on the same hardware; Windows gets absolutely rolled over, and this is before we get to the other advantages of OS X like the logical UI, Unix architecture, and easy maintenance.

It is a little frustrating as I still use Windows to play Valve games, but whatever. At least Service Pack 1 has helped speed things up.

As far as the XP vs Vista thing, people have to let it go now. The net amount of time I spend dealing with security with Vista is far less than with XP SP2. Throw NOD32 on top and you're done. And with Vista SP1 greatly increasing performance over how it was before, even the "slow compared to XP" game performance argument doesn't hold water with me anymore. If you are getting a new Windows PC there really is no reason to get an XP installation now.
 
Serpico said:
Alex - I've run Vista, XP, and OS X on the same hardware now that Macs are using Intel CPUs. There is absolutely no comparison as far as speed and performance between Windows and OS X on the same hardware; Windows gets absolutely rolled over, and this is before we get to the other advantages of OS X like the logical UI, Unix architecture, and easy maintenance.
Click to expand...

amen
 
Alex St. John, creator of Direct X, said this about vista...
Well, the PC--forget the operating system--is always a great platform. Modern PCs have superior graphics and memory and processing power to any next-gen console. I don't think Microsoft did anything to help the PC as a gaming platform with Vista, and that's a tremendous frustration because I take it very personally. If I would've been there, I would have made much more aggressive efforts to make sure Vista stayed out of the way of games. What you see with Microsoft is, without people at Microsoft who realize that the operating system does not add value to gaming, it gets in the way, they think they can add more value by adding in more shit that only gets in the way of making a good game. Unfortunately, Vista does that. Microsoft added more shit that impedes game development. It's certainly possible to make great games in Vista, it's just more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be. I think Vista is a missed opportunity for Microsoft to have done a better job in supporting PC gaming.
Click to expand...

An example of impediment...
The biggest foolishness is Vista's security architecture. Any time someone questions Vista's security, Microsoft accuses that person of being anti-security, or is just bummed because they can't do naughty things that they otherwise wanted to do. Vista's security is weird, it's like a house made out of concrete walls but has screen doors. It's an enormously overbuilt security system with huge, gaping holes. It's extremely intrusive, and it gets in the way of the user's experience without actually being secure. It makes it even harder for consumers to download things and play games, without actually gaining any security benefits. It basically fucks up legitimate applications while leaving holes for the bad ones to just climb on through.
Click to expand...

Vista was a mismanaged project without proper direction. Some of you may like what came out, but its nowhere near what it should have been. Thats what makes it a failure.

But then again, I didnt make Direct X, so what do I know....
 
Alex - I just read the benchmark summary at the end. What I found interesting is not only did the Macs outrun the PCs tested in OS X vs Vista, they actually posted faster Vista scores than the similarly specced PCs when running it in Boot Camp. That corroborates the reviews I read last October that called the Macbook Pro the fastest Vista notebook on the market, outrunning even the loaded Alienwares.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Alex St. John, creator of Direct X, said this about vista...

An example of impediment...

Vista was a mismanaged project without proper direction. Some of you may like what came out, but its nowhere near what it should have been. Thats what makes it a failure.

But then again, I didnt make Direct X, so what do I know....
Click to expand...

Leviathan - Very interesting. I wonder what he thinks now that SP1 is out. Is he still working at Microsoft?

As far as Vista being "nowhere near where it should have been", that was a big frustration of mine after seeing how much farther along other operating systems had come along in the same period of time, and knowing what the goals of Longhorn development were back when it started. I've called Vista a pale copy of an old version of OS X hacked on top of an old OS base several times around here. :) That said, I'm more or less over it now and hoping that given comments made regarding Windows 7 development, that Microsoft got the hint (I think they did) and that it will lead to something much stronger in another two years.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
sourcehttp://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=283&page=3
Click to expand...

Interesting article. DirectX from my standpoint is one of the biggest things that has kept people such as myself with one foot in Windows. By locking in the majority of developers into DirectX, it ensured that PC gaming would remain mostly on the Windows platform. Sure there were OpenGL holdouts like Carmack and a few others, and porting DX games to other platforms can be done with time and money, but for the most part it has meant that if you want to game on a computer, you should be running Windows.

So weird that DX started as an underground project that the higher ups just didn't get, and it ended up being so incredibly vital to both Windows and the XBox.
 
Serpico said:
Alex - I just read the benchmark summary at the end. What I found interesting is not only did the Macs outrun the PCs tested in OS X vs Vista, they actually posted faster Vista scores than the similarly specced PCs when running it in Boot Camp. That corroborates the reviews I read last October that called the Macbook Pro the fastest Vista notebook on the market, outrunning even the loaded Alienwares.
Click to expand...


Oh how it must feel to be a pc..your leading competitor's hardware runs your os faster than hardware designed for your os...
 
alexheinz said:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=1

Let's skip to the end.

Mac: In both the laptop and desktop showdowns, Apple’s computers were the winners. Oddly, the big difference didn’t come in our user ratings, where we expected the famously friendly Mac interface to shine. Our respondents liked the look and feel of both operating systems but had a slight preference toward OS X. In our speed trials, however, Leopard OS trounced Vista in all-important tasks such as boot-up, shutdown and program-launch times. We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did.

PC: Simply put, Vista proved to be a more sluggish operating system than Leopard. Our PCs installed some software faster, but in general they were slower in our time trials. Plus, both PCs showed weaker performance on third-party benchmarks than the Macs. Our biggest surprise, however, was that PCs were not the relative bargains we expected them to be. The Asus M51sr costs the same as a MacBook, while the Gateway One actually costs $300 more than an iMac. That means for the price of the Gateway you could buy an iMac, boost its hard drive to match the Gateway’s, purchase a copy of Vista to boot—and still save $100.
Click to expand...

I give that article an emphatic "nice try." They obviously gave Vista no time under normal use to develop superfetch patterns. I've seen a comparison with my own eyes of two of the same exact spec'd PC - one had been used for a week of normal use, several hours per day. Patterns of application loading were established. The other PC was taken straight out of the box, apps installed, and restarted.

PC without superfetch optimization time:

Load times -
Microsoft word: 7 sec.
Internet Explorer: 6.3 sec.
Adobe Photoshop: 8.2 sec.
C&C 3: 32 sec.

Boot time: 1:08
Shutdown time: 42 sec.

PC after one week of established use:

Load times -
Microsoft word: 2 sec.
Internet Explorer: 1.7 sec.
Adobe photoshop: 4.3 sec.
C&C 3: 19 sec.

Boot time: 45 sec.
Shutdown time: 17 sec.

In some of the times, not much improvement was gained, but every time improved after just a week of normal use.

And who the CRAP buys a Gateway One?? Spec for spec the dMac, sMac, gayMac, and hMac (Dell, Sony, Gateway, and HP's iMac clones) are all pricier than the iMac, and actually less mass produced. The iMac is a very budget friendly Mac considering its specs, monitor size/quality, and its price tag. None of the PC based all in ones are even CLOSE to budget PCs. The mainstream PC user is NOT going to buy one of the PC iMac copies. This comparison makes a few good points, but is largely invalid. What do most PC users get when they spend $1300 on a PC? I get a 22" monitor, a 500GB hard drive, 3GB of memory, a 9600GT, and a 2.6GHz dual core processor, and some change to spare.

Second, I've owned three macs, and we have several macs on display at my local Best Buy. I've never seen one shut down in four seconds, even right out of the box. Boot times usually impress, however.

I really love my Macbook, but I'm not going to go out and say it's a million times better than a "comparable PC". This article serves pretty much no purpose but to encourage mac fans' anti windows trash talk. "Hey, our most reasonably priced Mac trounces your most overpriced PC!! HAHAHA Windows SUX!"

If you want to choose your own monitor size and actually get a tower Mac, how much you gonna spend THEN??? That's what a typical PC user buys. The typical home Mac user will never buy a Mac Pro. The typical home PC user will never buy a Gateway One. this article is a silly comparison.
 
PC without superfetch optimization time slower than PC after one week of established use slower than WinXP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top