Why do people hate Vista?

[zach0624]

my dad's media center pc runs vista home premium with a p4 2.4ghz 1gb of ddr something ram and a radeon 9800(one of the oldest ati cards to support aero) vista runs great w/o any driver issues. It feels just as fast as xp and runs open office and ms office 2007 pro I have noticed no difference in multimedia task speeds (ripping stuff) and the uac keeps my brother from screwing up something important on the computer

 

[Laughingman12]

Well because Vista need at least 2 gigs of ram to run efficiently. I, myself have 1 gig so I am sticking to XP

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: Laughingman12
Well because Vista need at least 2 gigs of ram to run efficiently. I, myself have 1 gig so I am sticking to XP

You also can't read.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
And as far as hardware support for legacy hardware at XP's release, I'm sorry, but you're a bit off the mark. Hardware support on XP was incredibly good for the guts n glory hardware (Video/Sound/Modem/Chipset/Network). I can take my original XP Pro CD (no SP1/SP2), and install it on virtually ANY pc released '99-'01, and it will already have working drivers for it. There were very few drivers that 98se/me had that weren't in XP. Hell, XP even has generic drivers for 300 baud modems. Ditto for all the de facto chipsets of the era, Via/Sis/Intel/ALi/etc.

Vista has driver issues with a lot of recent 'in-the-box' hardware, notably the creative sound cards and Nforce2 chipsets.

This is very true. I don't think that I've ever run across a PC in which XP won't install onto.

Edit: I stand corrected. Apparently it doesn't install onto 486s.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2072148&enterthread=y

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Nope, but Vista is much more different from XP than Xp was from 2k.

You are right about XP supporting much more hardware at the time than Vista supports now, and I'd say that the major underlying changes are the cause of that.

The problem with this statement is that win2k was not marketed and sold to the home consumer. Win2k certainly helped hardware and software companies get compatible products out the door faster for XP. But most home consumer products on the market at xp's release did not come with XP support out of the box. Downloading XP drivers was a no go for most people due to the slow speeds of dial-up.

Vista is very good, but Vista is really only suitable for new/high-end systems. The rest should stick with XP until they can afford new hardware.

People said the exact same thing about XP upon it's release.

People said that because it was true then, and true now. A midrange used system when XP was released had 64 or 128mb of memory, 10-20gb hard drive, 500-800mhz cpu, etc. That kind of hardware just ran better on 2k/98se.

Today, low/midrange used systems have 256-512mb of memory, 80-160gb hard drives, and 1.6-2.4ghz processors, give or take. This kind of hardware just runs better with XP.

Of course, new systems back then, and new systems now, so long as the OEM doesn't gimp you on the ram, will run great with the new OS.

And as far as hardware support for legacy hardware at XP's release, I'm sorry, but you're a bit off the mark. Hardware support on XP was incredibly good for the guts n glory hardware (Video/Sound/Modem/Chipset/Network). I can take my original XP Pro CD (no SP1/SP2), and install it on virtually ANY pc released '99-'01, and it will already have working drivers for it. There were very few drivers that 98se/me had that weren't in XP. Hell, XP even has generic drivers for 300 baud modems. Ditto for all the de facto chipsets of the era, Via/Sis/Intel/ALi/etc.

Vista has driver issues with a lot of recent 'in-the-box' hardware, notably the creative sound cards and Nforce2 chipsets.

The only hardware upgrade you NEED for vista is a bit more RAM. Thats it.

Your CPU is idle 99.9% of the time in Vista just as it is in XP.

A slower HD will make it boot slower. Vista just has more to load, because it has more features. A slow HD will slow XP just as much as Vista when its up and running, but at least Vista can precache into your RAM unlike XP.

You dont NEED a DX9 card either. It'll run better with one (even with glass), but regular GDI video isnt any slower in Vista than it is in XP.

The bare minimum for loading a decent amount of applications before swapping like crazy in XP is 512mb. In Vista, its 1gb.

Vista requirements = XP reqs + 512mb RAM. Whatever performance youre satisfied with in XP, add 512mb, and you'll perform just the same, if not better. Its that simple. 512mb is about $25 nowadays. If you can afford $100-200+ for vista, you can afford another $25 stick of RAM.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: BD2003

The only hardware upgrade you NEED for vista is a bit more RAM. Thats it.

Your CPU is idle 99.9% of the time in Vista just as it is in XP.

A slower HD will make it boot slower. Vista just has more to load, because it has more features. A slow HD will slow XP just as much as Vista when its up and running, but at least Vista can precache into your RAM unlike XP.

You dont NEED a DX9 card either. It'll run better with one (even with glass), but regular GDI video isnt any slower in Vista than it is in XP.

The bare minimum for loading a decent amount of applications before swapping like crazy in XP is 512mb. In Vista, its 1gb.

Vista requirements = XP reqs + 512mb RAM. Whatever performance youre satisfied with in XP, add 512mb, and you'll perform just the same, if not better. Its that simple. 512mb is about $25 nowadays. If you can afford $100-200+ for vista, you can afford another $25 stick of RAM.

You don't actually have personal experience with this do you. You are just regurgitating your misunderstanding of things other people are saying. This is so inaccurate it's humorous. The only thing I am not certain of is: do you work at Best Buy perchance?

edit: and now you've made me feel dirty for bumping this thread.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: BD2003

The only hardware upgrade you NEED for vista is a bit more RAM. Thats it.

Your CPU is idle 99.9% of the time in Vista just as it is in XP.

A slower HD will make it boot slower. Vista just has more to load, because it has more features. A slow HD will slow XP just as much as Vista when its up and running, but at least Vista can precache into your RAM unlike XP.

You dont NEED a DX9 card either. It'll run better with one (even with glass), but regular GDI video isnt any slower in Vista than it is in XP.

The bare minimum for loading a decent amount of applications before swapping like crazy in XP is 512mb. In Vista, its 1gb.

Vista requirements = XP reqs + 512mb RAM. Whatever performance youre satisfied with in XP, add 512mb, and you'll perform just the same, if not better. Its that simple. 512mb is about $25 nowadays. If you can afford $100-200+ for vista, you can afford another $25 stick of RAM.

You don't actually have personal experience with this do you. You are just regurgitating your misunderstanding of things other people are saying. This is so inaccurate it's humorous. The only thing I am not certain of is: do you work at Best Buy perchance?

edit: and now you've made me feel dirty for bumping this thread.

What overall do you find so inaccruate? He's basically saying plan on at least another 512meg over your XP requirements if you want to run Vista.

 

[Smilin]

I think everytime we have some "it runs slow" performance discussion we should post the Vista performance score (and subscores) of the machine in question.

If someone is running a 5+ and having trouble I would be surprised.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Heh, I remember some of that with XP, but it wasn't nearly to the same extent with run-of-the-mill hardware. I mean, take basically any chipset/video card/sound card/modem from the old days, and load XP on the system, and it will work. Anything from ancient S3 PCI video cards to Opti Sound Cards to 14.4 modems, it all just worked 99% of the time.

That was true about 6 months or so after XP's release, which is about the same point we are at with Vista's release. Rose colored glasses and all

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: BD2003


A slower HD will make it boot slower. Vista just has more to load, because it has more features. A slow HD will slow XP just as much as Vista when its up and running, but at least Vista can precache into your RAM unlike XP.

And even then I don't find that Vista takes that much longer to boot up compared to XP (at least with 2GB of RAM).

I switch often in my main rig between Vista x64 and XP Pro since some of my Guitar Amp modeling hardware has no 64-bit drivers. And they take roughly the same to boot, with perhaps Vista taking 5-10 seconds more.

The big difference: Right after XP boots, it still feels sluggish for a few seconds and there's a lot of I/O access. Even desktop icons take a bit to load up. With Vista after explorer is up and running, the machine is already super responsive since everything is loading up from the cache.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: BD2003

The only hardware upgrade you NEED for vista is a bit more RAM. Thats it.

Your CPU is idle 99.9% of the time in Vista just as it is in XP.

A slower HD will make it boot slower. Vista just has more to load, because it has more features. A slow HD will slow XP just as much as Vista when its up and running, but at least Vista can precache into your RAM unlike XP.

You dont NEED a DX9 card either. It'll run better with one (even with glass), but regular GDI video isnt any slower in Vista than it is in XP.

The bare minimum for loading a decent amount of applications before swapping like crazy in XP is 512mb. In Vista, its 1gb.

Vista requirements = XP reqs + 512mb RAM. Whatever performance youre satisfied with in XP, add 512mb, and you'll perform just the same, if not better. Its that simple. 512mb is about $25 nowadays. If you can afford $100-200+ for vista, you can afford another $25 stick of RAM.

You don't actually have personal experience with this do you. You are just regurgitating your misunderstanding of things other people are saying. This is so inaccurate it's humorous. The only thing I am not certain of is: do you work at Best Buy perchance?

edit: and now you've made me feel dirty for bumping this thread.

Well, whats inaccurate about it then? The only other thing I should have mentioned is you'll need at least a 20GB HD to install vista, but thats so ubiquitous now it slipped my mind.

I stand by what I said. In terms of day to day usage, the only thing you *need* to upgrade to match general XP performance in Vista is another 512mb over what you had. If you were getting by fine in XP with 512mb, use 1gb. If you were squeezing by gaming in XP with 1gb, 1.5gb will be about equivalent, but seriously, you want 2gb for newer games anyway even on XP.

And no, I dont work at best buy.

 

[VirtualLarry]

(Before this gets lost, I originally attempted to post this on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, 5:37:51 AM, but because of a forum burp, I had to save it to my HD.)

Originally posted by: BD2003
Forgive me for assuming that you could actually see to the essence of what I was trying to point out, rather than to resort to picking apart semantics and calling me an idiot. The *hardware acceleration* of DS/DS3D is cut out. But you already knew that.

You're implying that the old codepaths for 3d sound are emulated, and will be slower, and thats just not the case. The apps won't be able to utilize ds3d for 3d sound, plain and simple. It doesnt talk to a stack that mimics the hardware architecture - it just wont damn work with DS3D. Trying to pick DS3D won't work - the game will say its unsupported, put it back to default, or crash - thats up to the game to handle. But it won't work. There isnt a game I know of that *requires* ds3d and hardware 3d sound support - it will fall back on regular DS or good ol waveout.

According to my documents, DirectSound and DirectSound3D are emulated on Vista.

See http://forums.creative.com/cre...=Vista&message.id=1695

Changes to Direct Sound and MME implementation

Windows ?Direct Sound? and ?MME? emulation have also radically changed. These emulation layers now sit exclusively on top of the depicted Vista audio architecture, and are basically ?Session? instances. ?Session 1? could be looked at as an MME application going through a Microsoft emulation layer, and ?Session 2? could be looked at as a DirectSound 3D application going through a Microsoft emulation layer.

See http://www.openal.org/openal_vista.html

As already stated above, Microsoft® will be removing DirectSound 3D Hardware support from Direct X with the launch of Windows Vista. DirectSound and DirectSound3D will still function; however, they will no longer use hardware acceleration.

If the DS3D API is still supported and functional in Vista, but doesn't talk to hardware anymore, then that directly implies a software emulation layer.

According to what you are saying, DS3D shouldn't even function. Wikipedia seems to suggest more along the lines of what you are saying.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectSound

DirectSound runs in emulation mode on the Microsoft software mixer. The emulator does not have hardware abstraction, so there is no hardware DirectSound acceleration, meaning hardware and software relying on DirectSound acceleration may have degraded performance, however with more powerful hardware, there may not be any performance hit. In the case of hardware 3D audio effects played using DirectSound3D, they will not be playable.

That only mentions emulation of DirectSound, and seems to indicate that DS3D doesn't work at all.

I guess the proper way to resolve this would be to run some DS3D test sample code on Vista, and see if 1) it runs, and 2) gives audio output. If it does, then there is an emulation layer in place.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if I am, but that implies that my source docs are also in error. It's possible that emulation was planned in the beta versions of Vista, but was pulled from the final. Those docs were created before Vista went gold.

Originally posted by: BD2003
And as far as the audio processing goes, DS does very, very little work. It's emulation is not going to be any sort of factor in performance of today's or yesterday's games. Hardware acceleration of 2d audio has been irrelevant for the past decade, even on 200mhz pentiums. The loss of acceleration for 2d audio is NOTHING to cry about on anything >500mhz, and since we're talking about Vista here, we can assume 1ghz+, making it a complete, total, utter non-factor.

Shrug. I guess that depends on whether or not a couple FPS in your favorite game matters to you or not. Strictly speaking, an emulated layer is going to be slower. Noticably? It would depend on your system.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Directsound is not the underlying sound system of windows XP. DS and DS3D were alternative APIs that could (and should) be used by most apps. Sound functions perfectly fine without DS or any hardware acceleration.

It's the preferred API. Apps either use DirectSound or WaveOut, from my experience. DS offers hardware sample-rate conversion, for one - at least on systems where it is hardware-accelerated, that is.

Originally posted by: BD2003
And if I add a grain of sand to a sand castle, it'll be heavier - that doesnt mean its worth getting all up in arms over.

Bloatware is generally caused by too many layers. This is just one extra layer in the pile.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Games will on Vista will probably remain slightly slower than XP for quite some time, but its not sound acceleration thats the real issue. Its graphics drivers and the added weight of the OS that is what slows it down. But at this point, even that is really becoming nothing mroe than an academic argument - the difference is less then 5-10% in most games, and if that bothers you so much, it's simple - stick with XP. No one is forcing anyone to use Vista.

A lot of us believe that newer should equal faster, and in some (many?) cases this isn't true. I'd like to see some benchmarks of how games are supposedly faster in Vista, because I've only seen benchmarks in which gaming is noticabley slower, across the board.

Originally posted by: BD2003
If you want to play older games in their old glory, using older APIs, on old hardware, you're going to have to use an old OS.

True that.

Originally posted by: BD2003
So whatever factual basis there may be in your argument, those facts are pretty much irrelvant towards actual reality.

So stop crying.

No tears involved.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
(Before this gets lost, I originally attempted to post this on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, 5:37:51 AM, but because of a forum burp, I had to save it to my HD.)

Originally posted by: BD2003
Forgive me for assuming that you could actually see to the essence of what I was trying to point out, rather than to resort to picking apart semantics and calling me an idiot. The *hardware acceleration* of DS/DS3D is cut out. But you already knew that.

You're implying that the old codepaths for 3d sound are emulated, and will be slower, and thats just not the case. The apps won't be able to utilize ds3d for 3d sound, plain and simple. It doesnt talk to a stack that mimics the hardware architecture - it just wont damn work with DS3D. Trying to pick DS3D won't work - the game will say its unsupported, put it back to default, or crash - thats up to the game to handle. But it won't work. There isnt a game I know of that *requires* ds3d and hardware 3d sound support - it will fall back on regular DS or good ol waveout.

According to my documents, DirectSound and DirectSound3D are emulated on Vista.

See http://forums.creative.com/cre...=Vista&message.id=1695

Changes to Direct Sound and MME implementation

Windows ?Direct Sound? and ?MME? emulation have also radically changed. These emulation layers now sit exclusively on top of the depicted Vista audio architecture, and are basically ?Session? instances. ?Session 1? could be looked at as an MME application going through a Microsoft emulation layer, and ?Session 2? could be looked at as a DirectSound 3D application going through a Microsoft emulation layer.

See http://www.openal.org/openal_vista.html

As already stated above, Microsoft® will be removing DirectSound 3D Hardware support from Direct X with the launch of Windows Vista. DirectSound and DirectSound3D will still function; however, they will no longer use hardware acceleration.

If the DS3D API is still supported and functional in Vista, but doesn't talk to hardware anymore, then that directly implies a software emulation layer.

According to what you are saying, DS3D shouldn't even function. Wikipedia seems to suggest more along the lines of what you are saying.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectSound

DirectSound runs in emulation mode on the Microsoft software mixer. The emulator does not have hardware abstraction, so there is no hardware DirectSound acceleration, meaning hardware and software relying on DirectSound acceleration may have degraded performance, however with more powerful hardware, there may not be any performance hit. In the case of hardware 3D audio effects played using DirectSound3D, they will not be playable.

That only mentions emulation of DirectSound, and seems to indicate that DS3D doesn't work at all.

I guess the proper way to resolve this would be to run some DS3D test sample code on Vista, and see if 1) it runs, and 2) gives audio output. If it does, then there is an emulation layer in place.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if I am, but that implies that my source docs are also in error. It's possible that emulation was planned in the beta versions of Vista, but was pulled from the final. Those docs were created before Vista went gold.

Originally posted by: BD2003
And as far as the audio processing goes, DS does very, very little work. It's emulation is not going to be any sort of factor in performance of today's or yesterday's games. Hardware acceleration of 2d audio has been irrelevant for the past decade, even on 200mhz pentiums. The loss of acceleration for 2d audio is NOTHING to cry about on anything >500mhz, and since we're talking about Vista here, we can assume 1ghz+, making it a complete, total, utter non-factor.

Shrug. I guess that depends on whether or not a couple FPS in your favorite game matters to you or not. Strictly speaking, an emulated layer is going to be slower. Noticably? It would depend on your system.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Directsound is not the underlying sound system of windows XP. DS and DS3D were alternative APIs that could (and should) be used by most apps. Sound functions perfectly fine without DS or any hardware acceleration.

It's the preferred API. Apps either use DirectSound or WaveOut, from my experience. DS offers hardware sample-rate conversion, for one - at least on systems where it is hardware-accelerated, that is.

Originally posted by: BD2003
And if I add a grain of sand to a sand castle, it'll be heavier - that doesnt mean its worth getting all up in arms over.

Bloatware is generally caused by too many layers. This is just one extra layer in the pile.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Games will on Vista will probably remain slightly slower than XP for quite some time, but its not sound acceleration thats the real issue. Its graphics drivers and the added weight of the OS that is what slows it down. But at this point, even that is really becoming nothing mroe than an academic argument - the difference is less then 5-10% in most games, and if that bothers you so much, it's simple - stick with XP. No one is forcing anyone to use Vista.

A lot of us believe that newer should equal faster, and in some (many?) cases this isn't true. I'd like to see some benchmarks of how games are supposedly faster in Vista, because I've only seen benchmarks in which gaming is noticabley slower, across the board.

Originally posted by: BD2003
If you want to play older games in their old glory, using older APIs, on old hardware, you're going to have to use an old OS.

True that.

Originally posted by: BD2003
So whatever factual basis there may be in your argument, those facts are pretty much irrelvant towards actual reality.

So stop crying.

No tears involved.

There are plenty of recent games that use EAX and DS3D acceleration (FEAR, Oblivion, Call of Duty...etc). Are they playable under Vista, sure with those features disabled, and if you don't care about your audio experience. But for the rest of us who have high end 5.1/7/1 setup and used to hearing bullets coming from left and right, why should we spend more money on a new OS that actually take away things that we used to enjoy? (I am simplifying things a bit. Creative actually just came out with alchemy project that have a workaround by translating DS3D API to OpenAL calls no thanks to MS. However, not all softwares are supported)

Your reality maybe a $20 buck speakers and onboard sound. Other people's reality maybe $300+ in speaker setup + $200 soundcard and any lost in audio quality/acceleration is a big deal. So don't judge other people's reality based on yours.

 

[BD2003]

I guess the proper way to resolve this would be to run some DS3D test sample code on Vista, and see if 1) it runs, and 2) gives audio output. If it does, then there is an emulation layer in place.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if I am, but that implies that my source docs are also in error. It's possible that emulation was planned in the beta versions of Vista, but was pulled from the final. Those docs were created before Vista went gold.

I just tried rightmark, and technically, DS3D software does play sound, but theres no positioning effects being used at all. DS3D hardware is unsupported. But its still virtually irrelevant. Theres not a single game I know of that uses software DS3D. In every game I've ever played, you usually have two choices, 2D sound or hardware 3D. 2D is often provides by miles sound system, sometimes by waveout, sometimes by directsound, sometimes they dont even tell you, but I've never, ever, ever seen an option for, or a game that actually uses software DS3D.

Not only that, but for maybe the last 10 years, theres been two options as far as sound goes - onboard sound that uses host processing for its "hardware 3d sound", effectively making it software sound, and creative audigy/X-Fi. You have hardware DS3D in Vista with those. With onboards, its almost always been software, with a few rare exceptions, and that hasnt changed.

Shrug. I guess that depends on whether or not a couple FPS in your favorite game matters to you or not. Strictly speaking, an emulated layer is going to be slower. Noticably? It would depend on your system.

Its more like fractions of a fraction of FPS. Youre making this out to be as if its emulation on the level of virtual machines and what not, as if Vista audio and XP audio is so foreign that its going to take massive effort to translate between them, when the actual processing/emulation is such a basic job you cant even measure its impact.

Besides, the first line in the creative forum post that you linked says "The Windows Vista audio engine runs faster than the Windows XP audio engine did..." Your logic of emulation/translation being slower is sound, but thats assuming that the underlying system being emulated is actually more efficient, and that apparently is quite simply not the case. This is according to creative, microsoft, and everywhere else I've read from a legitimate source.

A lot of us believe that newer should equal faster, and in some (many?) cases this isn't true. I'd like to see some benchmarks of how games are supposedly faster in Vista, because I've only seen benchmarks in which gaming is noticabley slower, across the board.

Look up some articles on firingsquad near Vista's release. Some games were indeed faster, even with premature drivers. I havent seen any recent comparisons. A lot of us do believe that newer should equal faster, but a lot of us, especially here, should know that thats never been the case with gaming on a new OS. There are a ton of ways where Vista is faster/more efficient than XP, but if you want to make an omelette you have to break some eggs. If FPS is more important to you than ANYTHING else, then obviously you should stick with XP, but I can deal with a barely perceivable loss in most games to get all the other benefits of Vista.

And performance isnt EVERYTHING. Assuming you already had a performance car, if you took the airbags, spare tire, power locks/windows, AC, virtually every non-essential item out of a car, it would certainly perform slightly better due to weight reduction. Whether or not thats a good idea would depend whether or not your on a drag strip, but I'd imagine the vast, vast, vast majority of people would prefer to have those things in, because even though it could be faster, its a worthwhile sacrifice, and the engine can handle it.

Besides, if you want DX10, as all gamers do or will, you'll need Vista. The only way that will ever happen on XP is with software emulation, and its obvious how you feel about that.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: BD2003

I guess the proper way to resolve this would be to run some DS3D test sample code on Vista, and see if 1) it runs, and 2) gives audio output. If it does, then there is an emulation layer in place.

I just tried rightmark, and technically, DS3D software does play sound, but theres no positioning effects being used at all.

So there IS an API emulation layer. Thank you for testing.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Besides, if you want DX10, as all gamers do or will, you'll need Vista. The only way that will ever happen on XP is with software emulation, and its obvious how you feel about that

If you look at AT's DX10 comparison article, you will see that, as the technology currently stands, DX10 is actually slower than DX9. Whether this is due to drivers, hardware, or Vista, I cannot say and don't want to speculate. Suffice to say, that at this point in time, sticking with DX9 wont miss much.

 

[BD2003]

If you look at AT's DX10 comparison article, you will see that, as the technology currently stands, DX10 is actually slower than DX9. Whether this is due to drivers, hardware, or Vista, I cannot say and don't want to speculate. Suffice to say, that at this point in time, sticking with DX9 wont miss much.

Well, I dont think anyone in their right mind should be expecting DX10 games to run faster. Supposedly you can use DX10 functions to do things that would have been done in DX9 faster, but thats not whats really happening, or what anyone should be expecting. Not to mention the DX10 games out now are basically just hacked and patched to support it. You wont miss much now because theres not much to see yet. You will miss something when Crysis comes out though, and I'll be my life savings DX10 will run slower than DX9 for that game, as it should, because it looks quite a bit better. But you gotta pay to play.

 

[Modelworks]

I don't hate it.
Just see it as useless.
It doesn't allow me to do anything I don't already do without using more resources to do it.
As for dx 10.
Doesn't affect me.
Mostly all of what I use is opengl.

Now if it did something major like a jump from 16 bit to 32 bit I might be interested.
But x64 already works fine in xp.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Oh geez... even Solitaire stalls out Vista.. grumbles at drivers.

 

[KoolDrew]

Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

Very true, fact is they will have to change sooner or later.XP is on its way out, just a matter of time,just like one day same thing will happen to Vista.


I have read quite a few of the posts and a lot of them are very poor excuses why they don't like or want to upgrade to Vista.

Right time for me to get back to my rock stable Vista x64 and gaming ,byebye XP there's a new king on the block .

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

I wish this situation could be stuffed into a box that small. It's almost like a rival company is pulling of a succesful viral campaign on Vista. I say almost because MS doesn't have a rival.

 

[SomethingNew71]

Man talk about a bunch of people getting all bent out of shape about something that doesn't matter that much. If you don't like it don't get it. If you do then get it. It's pretty simple. Seriously in life is an operating system really worth getting this upset about. jeeez

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

Realize that the majority of computer users are not people who research the operating system, or even read reviews on computer hardware.

The majority are people who want to turn on the pc, check there email, play some games, read some web sites or go to chat rooms.

They don't care about dx10 or even know what it is.
When operating systems started out you HAD to upgrade to use a word processor like word perfect. You had to upgrade to use a graphical browser.

Now all those task that people routinely do are supported by all the OS already out there.
So to get them to switch to something newer your either going to have to force it on them, or give them a feature that they just have to have. There are still tons of people out there that don't even care about broadband.

As the biggest thing people keep pushing with vista is dx10, thats not going to be enough.
Considering most users don't know and don't care what it is.
Ever talk to people in computer sections in the besty buy, circuit city, walmart ?

I had to laugh at best buy one day when a salesman was trying to sell vista to a family that had xp.
salesman: "its more secure ".
family : "we already have norton internet security"
salesman :"vista has dx10 "
family: "whats that ?"
salesman : "vista has the aero interface"
family: "yeah it looks nice"
salesman : " you can upgrade for 169.00"
family: "I think were going to wait"

People on forums that push vista don't realize that the majority of the public don't care about half the stuff we talk about concerning an OS. If xp allows them to do there everyday task,they are happy,and telling them its going to cost them another 150.00 + so they can do what they already do, just isn't going to work.

For vista to succed they need to come out with a killer application that people just have to have that only works on vista.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

Realize that the majority of computer users are not people who research the operating system, or even read reviews on computer hardware.

The majority are people who want to turn on the pc, check there email, play some games, read some web sites or go to chat rooms.

They don't care about dx10 or even know what it is.
When operating systems started out you HAD to upgrade to use a word processor like word perfect. You had to upgrade to use a graphical browser.

Now all those task that people routinely do are supported by all the OS already out there.
So to get them to switch to something newer your either going to have to force it on them, or give them a feature that they just have to have. There are still tons of people out there that don't even care about broadband.

As the biggest thing people keep pushing with vista is dx10, thats not going to be enough.
Considering most users don't know and don't care what it is.
Ever talk to people in computer sections in the besty buy, circuit city, walmart ?

I had to laugh at best buy one day when a salesman was trying to sell vista to a family that had xp.
salesman: "its more secure ".
family : "we already have norton internet security"
salesman :"vista has dx10 "
family: "whats that ?"
salesman : "vista has the aero interface"
family: "yeah it looks nice"
salesman : " you can upgrade for 169.00"
family: "I think were going to wait"

People on forums that push vista don't realize that the majority of the public don't care about half the stuff we talk about concerning an OS. If xp allows them to do there everyday task,they are happy,and telling them its going to cost them another 150.00 + so they can do what they already do, just isn't going to work.

For vista to succed they need to come out with a killer application that people just have to have that only works on vista.

XP succeeded because it came preloaded on PCs, and Vista will succeed for the same reason. The price of PCs hasnt gone up since Vista arrived, so why wouldnt they want the newer OS? The retail upgrade market is a tiny slice compared to the OEM.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

Realize that the majority of computer users are not people who research the operating system, or even read reviews on computer hardware.

That should be the perfect justification for not having an opinion on Vista, but it isn't. Some folks are positively venemous on the subject of what it does and doesn't do, while at the same time admitting that they've had no exposure to it. My boss, usually reasonable and not at all dumb when it comes to computers, flat out refuses to believe that I know Vista very well, even after 4-months of having it as my primary. To him it's a mess that doesn't run most SW and BSOD's at the drop of a hat, ANY hat. He even told me once that his main reasons for hating MS are because they don't price their OS's at a flat $50, that Gates stole everything he has and refuses to give his fortune to the "poor."

People in general should be smarter than this, which implies that there's something afoot here.