|
tnetech
Jul 1, 2008 5:45 PM
|
Doesn't matter how many times i try out Vista I always go back to XP. Even with SP1 installed, on a Core2Duo machine with 2GB RAM it just feels slow. On this pc XP feels faster, Ubuntu feels super fast. By far the fastest of the lot
News & Views, Installation Guides and How To's
http://tnetech.net
Comment made about the PC Authority article:
Come back XP... all is forgiven?
Aged OS shuffles off clutching P45
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
Nat.W¿LL¿
Jul 10, 2008 7:22 PM
|
again my thoughts are the same. If MS had bothered to spend more time on developing their products then maybe vista would be decent. But they're to money hungry to wait a little longer. I'd rather a quality over quantity type thing.... |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Jul 10, 2008 7:54 PM
|
Wasn't 7 years long enough? They need to make money, they're a company, that being said, Vista is an improvement. I think Windows 7 is where it's all going to come together - at least the drivers will be mature by then. |
|
bbjai
Jul 10, 2008 8:23 PM
|
Office 2007 seems to be chugging along fine to be honest
I think Vista was just stupid I don't know how they managed to screw it up like they did |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Jul 10, 2008 8:34 PM
|
They didn't screw it up, the critics did. From the start people were bashing it to pieces. This then caused device manufacturers to create half-baked drivers which just, well, sucked. Vista itself is fine, the hardware and software manufacturers are just lazy. And Vista shouldn't be on a laptop unless it's a high-end XPS IMHO. |
|
totoaus
Jul 16, 2008 9:59 PM
|
XP vs. Vista - the latest perennial version war. I have both it & XP on different machines, for the first time ever.
When my XP laptop died (Apr 2007) I ruched out and bought the first suitable laptop I could find: with Vista Home Premium. A crisis is not the time to be confronted with a new version of Windows and for a long time, I was very critical of Vista mostly because I was forced into it and missed the familarities of XP. In May 2008, I got what I wanted then, a powerful desktop running my old favorite (XP Pro), so I chop and change between them. Guess what, as expected; with either operating system I find things the other does differently that I miss. One example is that XP gives more precise information when copying (i.e. file names) which Vista does not, Wifi is another example XP can show me the internet is live with its packet count, while Vista just blinks at me and takes a couple of minutes to discover my router has crashed (frequent in Tasmania's wet weather).
It reminds me of my early days with minicomputers and mainframes when software updates came with phone book thick manuals describing every change, and UI changes were implemented slowly so people could keep up. This was because business needs to manage change. Windows seems to delight in causing panic with radical new UI concepts every version or two.
But hey, sometimes I still miss the ease of using Windows File Manager in Windows 3.1 all those years ago. |
|
totoaus
Jul 16, 2008 9:59 PM
|
XP vs. Vista - the latest perennial version war. I have both it & XP on different machines, for the first time ever.
When my XP laptop died (Apr 2007) I ruched out and bought the first suitable laptop I could find: with Vista Home Premium. A crisis is not the time to be confronted with a new version of Windows and for a long time, I was very critical of Vista mostly because I was forced into it and missed the familarities of XP. In May 2008, I got what I wanted then, a powerful desktop running my old favorite (XP Pro), so I chop and change between them. Guess what, as expected; with either operating system I find things the other does differently that I miss. One example is that XP gives more precise information when copying (i.e. file names) which Vista does not, Wifi is another example XP can show me the internet is live with its packet count, while Vista just blinks at me and takes a couple of minutes to discover my router has crashed (frequent in Tasmania's wet weather).
It reminds me of my early days with minicomputers and mainframes when software updates came with phone book thick manuals describing every change, and UI changes were implemented slowly so people could keep up. This was because business needs to manage change. Windows seems to delight in causing panic with radical new UI concepts every version or two.
But hey, sometimes I still miss the ease of using Windows File Manager in Windows 3.1 all those years ago. |
|
Slatts
Jul 16, 2008 10:34 PM
|
Why is anyone surprised when a new OS runs slower on a given piece of hardware than an older OS?
I would be surprised if it was otherwise. A new OS should push the latest hardware. Running newer, more demanding software.
Aero anyone?
Win 98 ran like a freight train on computers spec'ed for win 2000.
2000 made XP look like it was standing still on a machine with 256 meg of RAM. |