Jump to content

the best reason for Vista, is simply because its up-to-date


ps24eva
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've never understood that attitude in the tech world: "It's new... it must be better... I must have it!" Just because it's new doesn't mean it's any better than the version before it. Yeah, XP is now 4 years old, 2000 is over 5 years old, and my OS, 98SE is a whopping 6 years old. So what? It's old. When it comes to software, I just use what software I like using, which is usually not the newest stuff. Frankly, I hate most new software because it's bloated and does a bunch of crap I want it to do or don't need it to do. And upgrading software for a better GUI (or just upgrading the GUI for that matter) just seems like a pointless waste of time. I don't care what it looks like, as long is it runs fast, it's easy to use, and it's simplified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


While I must say that my curiosity about how Vista turns out is enormous I am just not ready to let go of XP. With community projects like nLite and MicrowinX and with the upcoming SP3 which hopefully will have a crapload of fixes and all the "pillars" of Vista being ported to XP, I dont see any reason to upgrade to Vista. Sure if I buy a new comp and Vista comes bundles with it then that is different.

I just dont see besides a few cool things the requirement to upgrade to Vista. If the improved graphics driver setup in Vista turns out to be what it is being claimed on paper, it should result in dramatic boosts in gameplay because of the driver model being way more efficient compared to what we have today. That is the only compelling reason I see for me to get a copy of Vista so I can once in a while play the latest and greatest of vdo games.

Barring the above mentioned reason, and some security enhances I dont see the reason to upgrade to Vista. Now if MS has something up its sleeves, like really high perofrmance from apps installed on Vista, then they have a Vista convert in me! And couple that with nLite for Vista or MicroVistaX haha and then I will think more about making a switch to Vista. Till then I will be happy with an ultra tweaked and smokng fast XP setup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the best reason to stay with XP...is it's not named Vista. WTF were they thinking!?!

The Whole "XP" name is just as dumb, the only difference is your use to XP. I thought the "XP" name was equally as dumb when I found out about it. Somehow I doubt you first heard of XP and thought "oh that's the best name ever".

I just prefer naming the OS after the year, it really hammers into your head how new or old your OS is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I'm sticking with XP for a while. The having to buy a new monitor/lcd thing is just crap. I'm not lettin' the man bring me down!! :realmad:
the req for new display, is as much as for xp - in other words, it'll run just fine with your current one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

best reasons not to use vista

1 - need new monitor (we'll see)

2 - opengl is completly broken (too slow to say its not and this is m$'s plan to get rid of them)

3 - uses too much memory

4 - what are really the benifits over xp (none for me, more its more like a downgrade)

but i do agree with your words, best reason to use vista is cause its upto date.

but so will sp3 be, so.

This is pure FUD.

1. - Vista will not require a new monitor. Vista will run just fine on the 800x600@60Hz POS you're using now. Playing HD content from an HD or BluRay disc might require an HDMI compatable monitor but this is Hollywood's requirement, not Vistas. Ergo, this requirement will be in all operating systems, not just Vista.

2. - OpenGL is far from broken. Full screen OpenGL apps will run at full speed. Windowed OpenGL apps get emulated via DirectX when DWM is turned on and the performance hit for doing this is tiny. If you must have your windowed OpenGL app running at full speed you can just turn DWM off (Shift + F9)

3. - What uses too much memory? As in Xp, there are bits and pieces you can turn off/disable. 128 MB seemed like a lot when Xp was released. Also, Vista is more than a year off so I would not base your opinion of the OS on the beta bits alone.

4. - The best argument yet. Oh let's see: Completely hardware accelarated GUI, completely rewritten networking stack based on IPv6, completely rewritten audio stack, per-app volume control, easier image maintenance and deployment, easier installation, stricter driver quality controls, integrated Tablet PC and Media Center functionality, PNG icons with high-quality DirectX scaling and anti-aliasing, DPI scaling of the entire desktop and all applications, XAML icons, animations, and effects, network location awareness 2.0...

Need I continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pure FUD.

Rasken, you are a voice of reason in a forum full of people with their head up their arse.

I also have to agree with everything you said, everybody said Win2000 used too much ram (128 min) and why switch when 98 only used 32meg. But what happens a couple years later, 95% of these people switched.

Many people said the same about XP, lots of mindless FUD stuff (it's not stable, it's all candy, it uses more ram) which is untrue (ok it is candy but I like candy). Guess what, a good 90% of those people switched.

Now these nimrods are at it again, "omfg Vista needs 512 ram?". I should point out that 512ram is only about $80, so price wise, it doesn't cost more than requirements of 2000 or Xp in their day.

Then when XP SP2 was getting ready, a bunch of people where saying how they won't run it. Guess what, they are now.

And guess what, after about a year they'll all switch to Vista because they'll finally realize it's so much better.

But anybody who thinks you need SP1 before an OS is stable is full of it. They obviously don't understand all of the testing MS does, which far exceeds the testing Apple does (Linux might be equal but only because the community tests it). This is the reason Apple is beating MS out on releasing features earlier, MS embraces backwards compatibility along with great new features. it's a double edge sword that's the crutch of Windows, but obviously if you guys didn't like it, you wouldn't be using Windows now. And if you don't use Windows, you're wasting your time on this forum category :P

An OS is a give and take thing people, the more it can take, the more it can give back. I'd rather buy a $30 stick of 256ram and get a superior GUI. You all realize in a few years people won't know htf we ever used a raster based UI because it will be so "pixelated" and any attempts at providing high res (aka high fidelity) meant you had to have tiny icons & graphics that don't scale with the size of the text.

I just hope that for every 1 FUD forum user, there are 100 people with their head on their shoulders and can't wait for Vista'a new features.

Edited by travisowens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the reasons for not switching to vista are quite vast... firstly XP is very reliable, and a solid OS, that runs everything you need/want very well - any new techs next year will be included in SP3. Also SP3 will include all the good bits that VISTA would bring, including things like winfs (which isnt even included in the final vista).

What else will vista bring? Well apparently it's going to bring a lot more graphics in the OS itself, which can only use more resources. I dont want a transparent taskbar thanks. Besides everything vista will be bringing as positives will be included in XP SP3, OR if you do need them, can be accomplished with 3rd party apps.

Also, vista will bring in TC and DRM.... well when that's in the OS, there's not much point even using the computer anymore (well at least for me :P). So all it does is keep the MPAA happy, uses far more resources, and has nothing of value in it, that wont be brought into XP.

So what's the point??

Oh and also to answer the people who think that everyone eventually upgraded to win2k or XP over win98, when they thought at the time that win98 was fine, and didnt eat up all ur resources. Well back then, there was actually a real need for win2k and XP. They introduced full 32bit kernels, and a lot more stability, plus the advanced features that IT Pros like from the NT series. 98 was crap, it was a GUI built on top of DOS. Vista doesnt have the same kinds of improvements.

Edited by iCEhOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wont be using either. Switch fully to OS X when intel macs are second gen.
Knowing Apple, if you wait until OS10 x86 is mature & stable they'll switch to an ARM architecture or perhaps RISC :P
Besides everything vista will be bringing as positives will be included in XP SP3, OR if you do need them, can be accomplished with 3rd party apps.
I have to play devil's advocate now. SP3 will bring the required stuff for next gen Windows programs, but what about the bells and whistles:

- What 3rd party app brings a SQL based file system into NTFS? (ok this won't be available until 2007 as an addon)

- What 3rd party app makes my UI a vector so I can get high fidelity with the newer LCDs we'll see in 2007 and beyond?

- What 3rd party app lets me run IE in a sandbox totally preventing hacks/spyware/virus? (ok the guide I recently published comes VERY close to doing this)

Also, vista will bring in TC and DRM.... well when that's in the OS, there's not much point even using the computer anymore (well at least for me :P).
Apple's OS10 already has DRM via iTunes music & video. Linux is adding it too. Get use to it, DRM has many good uses, MS Office documents and email is a great example. Edited by Rhelic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of arguing amongst each other and idle speculation and so on, why dont we just wait and see what happens when Vista comes out. If it is a bombshell in a good way then we upgrade....if not then we have alternatives...its only an OS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hrm dont care about macs, they suck, but i'm pretty sure i read an article about linux and all that TC stuff a few months ago, saying they were boycotting it, unless they have now changed their mind. Also I never use ms office, i use openoffice. And I'm thinking more along the lines of mp3z etc, which luckily i can still use an old ripper for which doesnt know about DRM.

Also in reference to your other reply, why on earth do you want those things? Also if you read my response carefully I never said 3rd party apps can do EVERYTHING vista can, just the usefull things. WinFS although I personnally cannot see any use for (how often do you really search your files? If you have to do it often enough to warrent that, then you have a very short term memory - no offence is intended by that, but that's all WinFS was made for, for faster searching); anyway, as I said winfs will be included as an upgrade for XP anyway.

And you use IE? Ok fair enough, but even so IE7 will be available in XP as well, not quite sure if this is what you meant by the sandbox thing, unless you're on about removing IE completely from the OS, which then yes I agree that's something you cannot do right now. Does it really matter that much, imo not really, but if it does to you - then I did also say that vista will have a few positive's, just nothing worth spending the money on.

And high fidelity graphics?? Jees, (again not intended at you) but how far do graphics companies want to go? My 160 quid (about 250 dollars) TV displays a perfect picture, my LCD monitor which is 18 months old or so, displays a perfect display, why do I want high fidelity graphics? I can see a point in getting better and better graphics cards, so my gaming becomes more like photo realism, however you dont need a better monitor for that, monitors can already display well beyond what the eye can actually see. So again, a pointless technology - now normally I love new technology, but some of the stuff recently seems like it's only being brought out, simply cos they think it's cool, and they CAN do it - doesnt mean they should, cos most of it's pointless.

Edited by iCEhOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy with XP. MS just released 8 critical updates, so I agree MS is still constantly working on improving. When I first installed XP, there was at least one critical update per week for about 2 months. I think Vista will be a great OS, but it would probably be better to wait about a year when a better package is available.

Of course if your a droller and have to have the latest and greatest, I don't think there's any problem with that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

microsoft is a monopoly.

there os's normally have not been worth the upgrade.

except 98 to xp, that was 100% worth it, I love how the computer doesn't crash once every 3 hours now.

but anyway. I am hoping for a google OS around the time of vista

also osx86, and maybe something like linux for a noob, thats also secure by default

Edited by gdogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand why there is this pre-hatred for other OSes built into most computer users. I say use whatever that makes you comfortabe and lets you get the job done. Linux and OS X have a lot of strengths out of the box over XP but the biggest most overriding factor I think is the lack of a wide spectrum of softwares available unlike XP.

Linux and OS X are very secure right out of the box. Linux is highly configurable since you can change your settings to the point that you can compile the kernel and even all the code you download for maximum throughput on your machine. And in Linux, you can be compiling your kernel, ripping a DVD, listening to music, surfing the web and chat all at once and wont even notice a bit of slowdown on your computer.

OS X is just Unix for the masses. It has a lot of great features and so on but IMO it is poorly written since it feels like a slug whenever I have used it but other than that it is quite innovative and Apple is constantly striving to make it better. We can expect to see quite a boost maybe after they switch their OS to run on Yonah, Conroe, Merom processors upcoming from Intel. That should definitely be something to watch out for.

XP. Well unless there were brilliant 3rd party community projects as seen here at msfn, I think a lot more people would have been unhappy. But nLite and Mindows and MicrowinX are just awesome projects that bring to us the ability to configure the OS and throw away what we really dont want! It could well end up being the most resource free and fastest OS than either Linux or Mac could achieve!

What my point of this post is, instead of dissing other OSes we should try to just find out what gives us the best experience. Thats all. If Vista floats someones boat then great...there is talk about the Google OS but I think it is going to be Solaris based...anyway enough typing...see ya later fellas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...