SP1 really sucks. Big time

Status
Not open for further replies.
TechieSooner said:
That's besides the point. Your original argument was that cars run on the same horsepower as before :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They do. Actually they run on less horse power. Go compare the average cars of the '60's to today's average car and you will see I am correct. In the 60's it was common for cars to have 300hp or more. Today the average is 150hp. We don't need 300hp any more because the cars are designed to be more efficient and are much lighter than the tank bodies they used to use. Your analogy is just plain wrong.
 
TechieSooner said:
That is why some believe Windows 7 won't be offered in anything but 64 bit... And I would tend to agree.
Click to expand...

They initially said that it would be 64bit only, but soon after changed their minds and said it would also be 32bit.
 
brokentilez said:
I'm still running xp... waiting for more users to say it's more stable...
Click to expand...

It's rock-solid stable... more stable than XP IMHO... i might just be me but it seems to have better thread isolation... or maybe thats the core2 talking

there you go.. one more :)
 
gaspah said:
That is a load of garbage.. when i was a little kid 10-13... I used to code all sorts of little games in pascal and basic on my 80286... and through and through I'm an average user...
Click to expand...

That's not an average user! An average user is the secretary using Microsoft Office, the average user is your mum checking out cooking recipes on the web, an average user is your Dad checking out today's stock market charts. You are a computer geek.
 
brokentilez said:
I'm still running xp... waiting for more users to say it's more stable...
Click to expand...

I haven't had a problem yet. It was a little bit of a pain to setup at first due to the differences (wireless issues), but I am liking it a lot so far. I am running Ultimate 32-bit on a laptop.
 
milkweg said:
That's not an average user! An average user is the secretary using Microsoft Office, the average user is your mum checking out cooking recipes on the web, an average user is your Dad checking out today's stock market charts. You are a computer geek.
Click to expand...

ROFL geek huh :p

i was just a kid playing with a computer back then.. no training, no previous experience, I was just given a dead computer some disks with software and told if you can get it to work you can play on it... so i did... my only reference was help files contained within software... i learned a fair bit of pascal and basic like this...

I am not a genious, i'm not even that smart... i was just an average kid with a computer... just because computers have become very simple and society is progressively getting dumber.. doesnt mean i at wasn't an average user... as there were (and still are) SOOOO many levels up from where i was.. i was definately bottom floor...

back then this types of things was one of the only things you could do on a computer... there was no ebays, wikipedias, ok there was pr0n (not that i was supposed to know what that was at that age LOL), no myspace, no facebook, no 3d engines..

but maybe it's because the 'average user' wont take time to look under the hood of their machines (code isnt that scary really) that the IT industry (esp tech support) is frustrating as hell... I have been personally blamed for many peoples bad internet/computing habits...
 
Archer75 said:
They initially said that it would be 64bit only, but soon after changed their minds and said it would also be 32bit.
Click to expand...

Really... hmmm...
Look at where XP started (256/512) and where it is now (1GB/2GB).
Following logic, 4GB will be the norm by the time Windows 7 gets around... making 32 bit obsolete.

Do you have a link to their statement on this, was hoping they had a reason or something, I'm curious as to why.

DeathFromBelow said:
Vista has always been more stable than XP.
Click to expand...
Yep. Is also better in crash recovery (not just applications, but the whole OS). In XP, if you had a sudden loss of power or whatnot, you ran a risk of some corruption, rendering your computer unable to boot or work properly. With Vista, it performs alot more like *nix, in regards to running things in RAM vs. Hard Drive (which also decreases the need to reboot for updates)... But more importantly, if it crashes, you run a very very minor risk of any files getting corrupted due to suddenly getting cut off.
 
gaspah said:
but maybe it's because the 'average user' wont take time to look under the hood of their machines (code isnt that scary really)
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't look because they don't find it interesting. I rarely look under the hood of my car because it just doesn't interest me.
 
milkweg said:
Can you qualify that? Xp never crashes and Vista never crashes so how does one go about confirming one is more stable than the other without looking like they are just making it up?
Click to expand...

Maybe he meant Vista has been very stable from the get go whereas XP required 2 services packs to become as stable. However, as you said, I do think they are probably about on par at this point. It's hard to say.
 
gtg465x said:
Maybe he meant Vista has been very stable from the get go whereas XP required 2 services packs to become as stable. However, as you said, I do think they are probably about on par at this point. It's hard to say.
Click to expand...

That's pretty close for me...
XP still has bigger chances for corruption and whatnot (and is still subject to the "slow down" factor)
 
milkweg said:
Can you qualify that? Xp never crashes and Vista never crashes so how does one go about confirming one is more stable than the other without looking like they are just making it up?
Click to expand...

Just my experience. I build and repair computers for a living. I've only seen a handful of problems under Vista so far, and most were due to bad memory.

Microsoft was much more aggressive about security and getting companies to make stable drivers this time around. It shows.
 
When Vista was first released my Lgitech MX518 mouse would randomly no longer work and it turns out it was purely because it was connected to a KVM with a PS2 adapter. Had to go buy a new KVM with USB. My Uli ethernet was a real PITA on Vista so had to put in a PCI ethernet card. Never had either problem on XP, or Win2K for that matter, using the exact same hardware. Vista has it's own set of issues that depends on the hardware and configuration you use.
 
milkweg said:
When Vista was first released my Lgitech MX518 mouse would randomly no longer work and it turns out it was purely because it was connected to a KVM with a PS2 adapter. Had to go buy a new KVM with USB. My Uli ethernet was a real PITA on Vista so had to put in a PCI ethernet card. Never had either problem on XP, or Win2K for that matter, using the exact same hardware. Vista has it's own set of issues that depends on the hardware and configuration you use.
Click to expand...
For many Win9x users, there were problems with XP and hardware/software upgrades were necessary. This is nothing new.
 
crewzen said:
This has done in two of my computers now.

I just got the latest update form MS and it took a long time. When it finally re booted it BSOD and kept BSOD and now it in a loop of restarting and BSOD.

Vista 64 Ultimate was working pretty good until now. Now nothing but BSOD.
This was an auto update with MS. Pretty crapy of a SP1. This should realy impress companies since I am on a $7,000.00 work station that is only 1 year old. Not a good sign. Time for companies to run not walk away from this Vista crap. At last count it has restarted 26 times now. Without a good reboot. Can not even get safe mode to work. It just keeps cycling.

Three days of work down the tubes. What a really reliable Operating System!!!!!!
:mad::mad::(:(

Even tried to go back to last good time. Still will not go into windows Vista.... BAd BaD BAD baD
Click to expand...
I think what Microsoft is trying to tell you is to upgrade your machine.

Because you know, for only a few $$$ you can get all the features you want, and I'm sure you could spare the money since you clearly can afford to spend $7000 in the first place, what is a few $$$ more anyways?
 
Somewhere between the claims of $7000 systems with a single 8800GTS or car analogies that don't apply, this thread went downhill.

Kudos to the few people who wrote things like "If you like WinXP that's great - go use it". That's the right way to think about it...
 
My analogy that people don't look under the hood of their PC like many people don't look under the hood of their car just because they are not interested works. :)

The horse power one certainly doesn't work though.
 
LateraLex said:
Somewhere between the claims of $7000 systems with a single 8800GTS or car analogies that don't apply, this thread went downhill.

Kudos to the few people who wrote things like "If you like WinXP that's great - go use it". That's the right way to think about it...
Click to expand...


So now we judge what a computer is by the graphics card? Well top end raid cards and scsi hd's are way more expensive than a $350.00 graphics card.
 
milkweg said:
They do. Actually they run on less horse power. Go compare the average cars of the '60's to today's average car and you will see I am correct. In the 60's it was common for cars to have 300hp or more. Today the average is 150hp. We don't need 300hp any more because the cars are designed to be more efficient and are much lighter than the tank bodies they used to use. Your analogy is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Your arguement is inane.
First off, 300hp on a 1960s car is not equal to 300hp on a modern car. Why? Measurement starndards. They're very different now than they were then. 300hp now is a lot more than it used to be. Also, not every car is the 60s was a 300hp monster. Sure there were GTOs and Mustangs, but those were not the norm. Just like today... LOTS of cars have upwards of 300hp and plenty of grocery-getter family sedans easily hit 250hp.
"HP reached it peak in 2000, surpassing 1960-70 era."
That's not even counting the difference in measurement standards! Perhaps you haven't noticed the perpetual HP wars that have been going on for the last decade?

Also, cars have been getting heavier for the past several decades.

Don't need 300hp anymore? Well, we never did, but that won't stop me from wanting it.
 
this has got to be the most idiotic thread ive seen in a LONG time. vote to LOCK THREAD, potentially ban some ass's, if not for thread crapping, then for stupidity.
 
Cars are getting heavier? 300hp cars are common? Bollocks.

This whole thread is inane so am butting out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top