This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Windows 7

2456

Comments

  • *sigh*.. Microsoft just keeps dominating the market because the non-technical people just won't budge, and they fall for their shrewd marketing strategies
  • I quite frequently alternate between the two (XP and Vista) due to using XP on PCs at Uni and Vista on my Laptop and there is a noticeable difference, especially when UI is concerned. Vista is superior and feels streamlined, XP is now clunky and outdated. However Vista does not in anyway do more then that of XP as there isn't anything that Vista does but XP can't.
    Windows 7 from what has been shown so far seems to be an even smaller leap forward and I'll much rather see Microsoft spend a few more years (from the scheduled release date) and over hall the entire system, the failure of Vista proves that Microsoft needs to stop glossing over the same old and actually innovate.
  • Microsoft just keeps dominating the market because the non-technical people just won't budge
    No, it's because Windows has all of the software that most non-computer-technician professionals need. I'm actually switching -back- to Windows as soon as I have the time to manage the data housekeeping on my primary box, as Linux just doesn't have the support for gaming, or audio.

    Linux is really only better for people who use a computer solely for email and web surfing (old ladies, nontechnical people, etc) and IT/CS professionals.
  • edited October 2008
    Try using it on any system that can just about run XP.
    Try running it on a 'Vista-capable' certified system.
    I do...everyday...I'm quite happy with it. Using unused RAM is not a flaw, it's a feature. Vista tries to use all the memory it can to make programs open and run faster. UAC is not a problem, it's a feature, and OS X and Ubuntu have the same damn thing.

    So what's the problem with Vista?
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • edited October 2008
    Linux is really only better for people who use a computer solely for email and web surfing (old ladies, nontechnical people, etc) and IT/CS professionals.
    But then again, I don't think many old ladies or non-technical people could use linux without running into trouble.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Let's talk about all the computers that were sold as XP-capable when it first came out, but weren't. You people just have selective memory and don't remember the issues XP had when it first came out.
    I never heard or seen any XP-capable advertised computers. They do/did not exist, at least not over here. As for XP, I don't have issues with my service pack-less installation CD.
    I do...everyday...I'm quite happy with it. Using unused RAM is not a flaw, it's a feature. Vista tries to use all the memory it can to make programs open and run faster. UAC is not a problem, it's a feature, and OS X and Ubuntu have the same damn thing.
    God, I just explained that the 'Vista-capable' machines with the fancy sticker that I'm talking about are NOT capable of running Vista properly without being pathetically slow, unresponsive and painful to use. Again, I'm not talking about your high-end shit. Stop attempting to connect me to the stuff I'm not talking about.
  • God, I just explained that the 'Vista-capable' machines with the fancy sticker that I'm talking about are NOT capable of running Vista properly without being pathetically slow, unresponsive and painful to use.
    What specific machines are you talking about? It seems to me you are just spewing the same bullshit people have been saying the past few years.
  • ......
    edited October 2008
    What specific machines are you talking about? It seems to me you are just spewing the same bullshit people have been saying the past few years.
    What I am talking about are the computers that were being sold when Vista just came out
    Perhaps you were lucky and never had these machines in the USA, but they could not run Vista if you wished to run any program that is larger than notepad. EDIT: Let me add, no more computers with a Vista-capable sticker are being sold. They were horrible.
    Post edited by ... on
  • edited October 2008
    God, I just explained that the 'Vista-capable' machines with the fancy sticker that I'm talking about are NOT capable of running Vista properly without being pathetically slow, unresponsive and painful to use. Again, I'm not talking about your high-end shit. Stop attempting to connect me to the stuff I'm not talking about.
    Perhaps you were lucky and never had these machines in the USA, but they could not run Vista if you wished to run any program that is larger than notepad. EDIT: Let me add, no more computers with a Vista-capable sticker are being sold. They were horrible.
    And you're just wrong. I have a pretty run-of-the-mill laptop that came out more than a year before Vista Launched. It has a "Vista-Capable" sticker and it runs Vista perfectly fine.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • And you're just wrong. I have a pretty run-of-the-mill laptop that came out more than a year before Vista Launched. It has a "Vista-Capable" sticker and it runs Vista perfectly fine.
    *facepalm* You even quoted the part that might explain your ass, then again, run-of-the-mill when? Now? That means it was a fucking high end laptop when Vista came out. Vista came out in 2006, affordable laptops that could run it without being horrendously unresponsive didn't come out till at least a year later.
  • All right, kids. Settle down. ^_~
  • edited October 2008
    And you're just wrong. I have a pretty run-of-the-mill laptop that came out more than a year before Vista Launched. It has a "Vista-Capable" sticker and it runs Vista perfectly fine.
    *facepalm* You even quoted the part that might explain your ass, then again, run-of-the-mill when? Now? That means it was a fucking high end laptop when Vista came out. Vista came out in 2006, affordable laptops that could run it without being horrendously unresponsive didn't come out till at least a year later.
    It was a "good" laptop when it was made, but not high end or top of the line. Today, it's run of the mill or even low-end because the graphics card is pretty weak (I don't run aero.)

    And I'm sorry I misspoke, it was made half a year before Vista. The model was by no means new then and they'd had that sticker for a while before my laptop was built.
    All right, kids. Settle down. ^_~
    Sorry, just getting a bit tired of the "OMG !!1!! Vista teh suzor" when most of these people have never used.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • Sorry, just getting a bit tired of the "OMG !!1!! Vista teh suzor" when most of these people have never used.
    To clarify to you, I never said that Vista sucks and I have used it. Just agreed that it was barely anything new and had a horrendous marketing campaign by selling computers and laptops with Vista when they couldn't really run Vista. The stuff I talked about was in the affordable range back then and would today be considered extremely low end. To me all that Vista is (or at least was when I used it), a fancy looking skin, with a continuous stream of "Are you sure?" dialogs, DirectX 10 and a boot up time of what-the-fuck-how-can-this-be-as-slow-as-XP-on-a-computer-that's-more-than-4-times-as-fast?!
  • I like the look of it, but I can do all of what 7 does in Gnome or KDE, and that's what I'm going to do.
    Except play games on Steam!
  • Sorry, just getting a bit tired of the "OMG !!1!! Vista teh suzor" when most of these people have never used.
    To clarify to you, I never said that Vista sucks and I have used it. Just agreed that it was barely anything new and had a horrendous marketing campaign by selling computers and laptops with Vista when they couldn't really run Vista. The stuff I talked about was in the affordable range back then and would today be considered extremely low end. To me all that Vista is (or at least was when I used it), a fancy looking skin, with a continuous stream of "Are you sure?" dialogs, DirectX 10 and a boot up time of what-the-fuck-how-can-this-be-as-slow-as-XP-on-a-computer-that's-more-than-4-times-as-fast?!
    And that hasn't been been my experience. And why would I care about boot times, I never shut my computer down. Stand by FTW. My computer runs for 2 weeks at a time on average, however long it is between windows updates.

    And technically speaking those machines are Vista capable, 512MB is the minimum of ram. Now I know it doesn't run well, or would even remotely be enough for me, but if you just surf the web and do a little word processing it will run and be ok. Realistically it's 1GB or get the hell out. I have 2GB, but I run a lot of virtual machines and VS2008 likes RAM too.
  • I like the look of it, but I can do all of what 7 does in Gnome or KDE, and that's what I'm going to do.
    Except play games on Steam!
    Doesn't CrossOver allow for the installation of Steam? So you should be able to play games on Steam, though at a performance hit.
    And why would I care about boot times, I never shut my computer down.
    I'm not an American that doesn't care about the environment or electricity bills. In this house all computers get shut down at night.
    I have 2GB
    From when you bought it in early 2006? Or did you upgrade the RAM at one point? If it always had that amount of RAM it was a pretty high end system.
  • I'm not an American that doesn't care about the environment or electricity bills.
    Computers don't use that much electricity. Power saving (which works much better in Windows on average) features such as spinning down hard drives and cycling down the CPU, reduce this even further, nevermind hibernation and sleep modes.
  • So who here is sticking with XP? I run it and I have an unopened copy of vista on the shelf somewhere, which was given to me as a present.
  • I would like to note that the "Vista Capable" stickers have always meant the same thing to me as the fact that I'm Capable of running long distance. I can do it, but it'll be slow as all hell, because as it stands, the hardware isn't really up to the task.
  • Computers don't use that much electricity. Power saving (which works much better in Windows on average) features such as spinning down hard drives and cycling down the CPU, reduce this even further, nevermind hibernation and sleep modes.
    This is true, but it still uses electricity, no, it still wastes energy. I used to hibernate my previous computer, but have since gotten a new one, and I run Ubuntu on it. Hibernation and Stand-by don't work that well under Linux, not to mention my crappy motherboard which has gotten somewhat ill. For example, shutting down under Windows only shuts down Windows, and then fucks up my BIOS.
  • it still wastes energy.
    It's actually a perfectly efficient space heater. So long as you are heating and not cooling your house, none of that energy is being wasted.

    Actually, I've always liked the idea of mandating that all electric space heaters be grid computers instead. You get the same heat, but you process something with the energy along the way.
  • it still wastes energy.
    It's actually a perfectly efficient space heater. So long as you are heating and not cooling your house, none of that energy is being wasted.

    Actually, I've always liked the idea of mandating that all electric space heaters be grid computers instead. You get the same heat, but you process something with the energy along the way.
    Who the heck leaves their heater up/on at night? That's an even bigger waste of energy, if you're cold just grab a blanket. Though I do like the idea of computing with a heater.
  • Who the heck leaves their heater up/on at night?
    People who live in spots where it's -17 degrees Celsius for two months of the year.
  • Who the heck leaves their heater up/on at night?
    People who live in spots where it's -17 degrees Celsius for two months of the year.
    You still turn it down at night even in those cases.
  • You still turn it down at night even in those cases.
    Keyword: down, not off
  • edited October 2008
    Who the heck leaves their heater up/on at night?
    People who live in spots where it's -17 degrees Celsius for two months of the year.
    You still turn it down at night even in those cases.
    I don't.
    Post edited by flux on
  • You still turn it down at night even in those cases.
    Keyword: down, not off
    Exactly, note how I said "Who ... leaves their heater up/on...".
    I don't.
    You're an American. Also, quoting the same thing twice with a paragraph break in between is stupid and has no use.
  • it still wastes energy.
    It's actually a perfectly efficient space heater. So long as you are heating and not cooling your house, none of that energy is being wasted.

    Actually, I've always liked the idea of mandating that all electric space heaters be grid computers instead. You get the same heat, but you process something with the energy along the way.
    This is the first winter I have only a laptop in my room an no high, heat producing desktop. My room is so cold now. I'm thinking of moving a server into my room, but don't want the noise that comes with the heat.
  • You're an American.
    Wow, already stereotyping. Someone is on the defensive...
  • You're an American.
    Wow, already stereotyping. Someone is on the defensive...
    He's implying geographical differences. Please stop picking and choosing lines to argue against when unable to disprove the bulk of the argument.
Sign In or Register to comment.