Why do people hate Vista?

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: Seeruk

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Operating systems should be invisible. They should do only what is necessary, and get out of the way otherwise.

Vista runs contrary to this basic principle. It does unncessary things, and it gets "in your face" far too often.

Vista is the anti-OS.

You have a very specific view of an operating system. One I might share if I was talking about one of our webservers or db boxes.

What you fail to comprehend is that Windows is a consumer operating system. They want the EXACT OPPOSITE of you.
They want it to include all the features they use every day. i.e. email clients, address books, media players that dont need codecs installed for playing their mp3's and DVD's, a browser, basic photo editing, basic video editing, basic security apps such as defender, backup software, to manage all security updates for them, for it to maintain itself, the list goes on.

And in that respect Vista delivers on all counts.

Would I use it in my server room... hell no because that is exactly what it isnt designed for.

This is so weird.

At first I thought VirtualLarry was talking about Windows, until I started reading the second line.

I tend to agree more with Seeruk.

My views: AN operating system should only be invisible if that's what your requirements are.

Do I want my linux box to be transparent to me? Hell No. I want to be able to do everything under the sun that I want to do on there.

And Seeruk, hate to point this out, but sadly enough, Windows IS a rather transparent operating system to users. most folks just want something
that runs with a click and not care as to what happens next. At least that's what my version of transparent is.

 

[Seeruk]

I see where you are coming from.... I may be mis-interpreting. But either way to talk of an OS as this generic term is still misplaced as it's definition is changing (from a user perspective) all the time.

Users I deal with now see all these 'extras' as part of the operating system because it comes on the OS disc and is installed by default. To me and my fellow technicians an OS is the nuts and bolts that run the hardware and everything else is additional software (that usually we want to remove! This goes for Linux and Windows as most of linux boxes for uses are ubuntu with little in the way of software installation configuration when installing the OS).

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: bsobel

You obviously don't know what FUD is, since I simply stated a proven fact.

No Larry you didn't. You came into the middle of a conversation where person A said that 'processor intensive apps' (e.g. codecs ects based on the links he provided) are slower on Vista than XP. He was NOT discussing games which are known to be slower with some of the current drivers. You, trying to prove a point no-one made jumped on it and are now claiming he meant games when he said processor intensive programs.

I know you rarely get this technical stuff, but he's claiming the kernel scheduler isn't as effecient under Vista than as XP. If you want to have that debate, fine, otherwise don't troll and don't try to move the goal posts.

No, I got your point just fine, actually. But I think that it is you that is attempting to claim (by implication) that the kernel scheduler is (or rather, is not) the issue.

I make a different point, that MS re-did DirectSound/DS3D using a completely emulated software stack, and thus the code-paths are much longer now, thus greater overhead.
Both games and codecs use DirectX (DirectSound, therefore), and thus BOTH types of apps will now run slower (because they are running more code in total).

Originally posted by: bsobel
The game issue is a seperate isse which is resolving itself as new drivers came out. I did like how you said games will never be as fast due to video and audio and Mem pointed out direct conflicting statements from actual experts

It's not a seperate issue, and unless drivers can somehow re-enable hardware-accelerated DirectSound/DS3D under Vista, then they will always be slower than XP.

VirtualLarry:How do you explain the various benchmarks over the net showing Vista faster then XP in some games ,also did you read my previous post?..

The Windows Vista audio engine runs faster than the Windows XP audio engine did, and Vista has tighter requirements on audio buffer position accuracy than XP did.

There's a new driver architecture called Universal Audio Architecture (UAA) and a new low-level API imaginatively named "Core Audio APIs," and the whole way Windows handles audio has been changed with a set of new user-mode components for mixing and processing audio.

The motivation behind both of these changes is to provide a higher-performing, better-quality sound system in Windows. Performance is a key issue in the sound system, especially the issue of latency. Latencies in the sound system must be kept low to prevent sounds from different sources becoming unsynchronized. This is a particularly true for audio professionals playing or recording multiple audio tracks and using multiple audio devices. A system that can't provide low latencies isn't useful in such scenarios.


UAA also makes higher demands of the audio hardware; the audio must now be "high definition," supporting 96 kHz 24-bit sound, and, where possible, should support 5.1 surround sound. One benefit that UAA will provide even those who aren't audio professionals is simpler installation. Devices compliant with the UAA architecture will be able to work without the use of additional drivers, and chipsets meeting Intel's HDA specification will be automatically supported

.



I'm sorry but a lot of your posts are total crap and not valid at all.

 

[BD2003]

I make a different point, that MS re-did DirectSound/DS3D using a completely emulated software stack, and thus the code-paths are much longer now, thus greater overhead.
Both games and codecs use DirectX (DirectSound, therefore), and thus BOTH types of apps will now run slower (because they are running more code in total).

You don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, DS/DS3D isnt emulated, its completely cut out.

As far as general windows audio goes, the sound architecture in XP is ancient, with its roots back in the Win3.1 days IIRC.

Whether the new codebase is more efficient or not, I can't tell you. I can tell you its more stable, and it sounds excellent. And I can certainly tell you that the CPU usage of either the old or new audio stack is so miniscule, so minute, that its less than 0.1% on my system...your point isnt even a point worth making. The amount of cycles require to decode a simple MP3 file for playback outweigh the overhead of playback by at least one order of magnitude.

Originally posted by: bsobel
The game issue is a seperate isse which is resolving itself as new drivers came out. I did like how you said games will never be as fast due to video and audio and Mem pointed out direct conflicting statements from actual experts

It's not a seperate issue, and unless drivers can somehow re-enable hardware-accelerated DirectSound/DS3D under Vista, then they will always be slower than XP.[/quote]

It's called OpenAL. A handful of current games, and all future games will use it to have full hardware accelerated 3d sound. It's completely outside of the Vista (and XP) audio stack, and sound performance should be identical on the same hardware in OpenAL.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Funny you should say that. I guess you forgot about the server flavors of NT-derived OSes, which scale quite well to higher-end hardware. The 2K/XP architecture has no problems scaling that I'm aware of.

:roll: More VirtualLarry misinformation (doesn't it get old always being wrong?). 2k/XP certainaly scales to higher hardware than the 9x line (heck you couldn't even scale 9x past one core). That said, they are NOT optimized for many core architectures, one of the design goals for Vista. The fact that you don't know this (or understand it) comes as no great surprise to those of us who've read your post.

I guess it comes down to how many cores, which is a lot like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You love to argue those issues. I argue from a practical standpoint.

Originally posted by: bsobel
This machine is an octo-core 32gig memory system. XP32 simply can not use it's full potential. XP64 is orphaned and has a kernel scheduler (like XP32) that was really never designed for more than 4 cores.

Funny, as I recall server versions of NT that scaled to at least 16-way systems.

And I feel reasonably comfortable suggesting that your everyday PC has a long way to go before something like a 16-core system becomes a mainstream system. Perhaps at that time, there will be scalability issues, but until then, no.

Originally posted by: bsobel
Vists64 works excellent on this box, and it's an example of the type of hardware that is transitioning from high end to mainstream. Here is some backup literature AMD GDC Multicore Intro See the comments about the Vista scheduler being NUMA aware (warning, the pdf contains big words you don't understand or would never have made your post). More technical information on Vista's kernel changes (warning, more big words...)

From Arstechnica: "Windows Vista has a much-improved, NUMA-aware scheduler, and there's already evidence that this will have an impact on QuadFX. An Italian site actually benchmarked QuadFX under Windows Vista RC2, and the system saw a real boost on high-bandwidth/highly-threaded benchmarks versus XP-based runs of those same benches."

From Hothardware: "For example, Windows XP doesn't properly support NUMA due to the way its scheduler loads execution cores in a multi-processor system. With XP a single thread could bounce from core to core. Windows Vista does properly support NUMA, however, and Vista's scheduler shouldn't shift single tasks between individual cores. As you'll see later (on our SANDRA and PCMark05 pages specifically), there is a large difference in available memory bandwidth when the OS has native NUMA support. "

You do realize that the problem with XP's scheduler ping-ponging threads between cores is fixed with the MS multicore patch for XP, right?

This reminds me of the argument that we had about W2K's support for hyperthreading, and I showed you direct MS evidence of a scheduler patch in W2K SP4 specfically for that, something that ran contrary to your assertion that XP was required. There's no reason that MS couldn't likewise patch the XP scheduler in some future SP, if there were evidence of lack of scalability in the scheduler that was needed for current hardware.

For today's hardware, XP is perfectly fine. In fact, perhaps better than fine. Read this for an interesting possible Vista bug - http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2064330&enterthread=y

Originally posted by: bsobel

And you accuse me of FUD. LOL. You make lots of sweeping generalizations without any supporting evidence.

Don't ever accuse me of not having supporting evidence, you'll get owned everytime (haven't you learned yet?)

It *was* a vague sweeping generalization. If you wanted to talk about kernel sceduler performance, then say so.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: BD2003

I make a different point, that MS re-did DirectSound/DS3D using a completely emulated software stack, and thus the code-paths are much longer now, thus greater overhead.
Both games and codecs use DirectX (DirectSound, therefore), and thus BOTH types of apps will now run slower (because they are running more code in total).

You don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, DS/DS3D isnt emulated, its completely cut out.

No, YOU don't know what you're talking about. If DS/DS3D was "completely cut out", then running any game that uses the DirectSound API would result in... nothing? Originally the API talked to hardware, now the API talks to a software emulation stack that mimics the hardware architecture of DS. If it didn't, you wouldn't get any sound.

Now who's the idiot?

Originally posted by: BD2003
As far as general windows audio goes, the sound architecture in XP is ancient, with its roots back in the Win3.1 days IIRC.

(roll)
Uhm, yeah, sure, of course things like KMixer that were new to XP were present back in Win 3.1 days. Riiiight. More wonderful unsubstantiated FUD.

(For the record, audio in Win3.1 was through the WinMM APIs, not DirectSound, and there was no KMixer involved.)

But I wont let things like facts get in the way of your bashing. After all, it's cool to hate on the AT forums. Gang up some more. I love debunking idiots.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Whether the new codebase is more efficient or not, I can't tell you.

Finally! Some truth. Let me fill you in on some facts about software: more code = more execution time = slower. All other things being equal.

Originally posted by: BD2003
I can tell you its more stable, and it sounds excellent. And I can certainly tell you that the CPU usage of either the old or new audio stack is so miniscule, so minute, that its less than 0.1% on my system...your point isnt even a point worth making. The amount of cycles require to decode a simple MP3 file for playback outweigh the overhead of playback by at least one order of magnitude.

Originally posted by: bsobel
The game issue is a seperate isse which is resolving itself as new drivers came out. I did like how you said games will never be as fast due to video and audio and Mem pointed out direct conflicting statements from actual experts

It's not a seperate issue, and unless drivers can somehow re-enable hardware-accelerated DirectSound/DS3D under Vista, then they will always be slower than XP.

It's called OpenAL. A handful of current games, and all future games will use it to have full hardware accelerated 3d sound. It's completely outside of the Vista (and XP) audio stack, and sound performance should be identical on the same hardware in OpenAL.[/quote]
I'm sure that a totally seperate audio API will do wonders for hardware-acceleration of DirectSound games in Vista.

 

[eplebnista]

Originally posted by: hooterville
Because they still have XP !!

Reaction to XP when first released

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
No, YOU don't know what you're talking about. If DS/DS3D was "completely cut out", then running any game that uses the DirectSound API would result in... nothing? Originally the API talked to hardware, now the API talks to a software emulation stack that mimics the hardware architecture of DS. If it didn't, you wouldn't get any sound.
Now who's the idiot?

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.

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.

Uhm, yeah, sure, of course things like KMixer that were new to XP were present back in Win 3.1 days. Riiiight. More wonderful unsubstantiated FUD.

(For the record, audio in Win3.1 was through the WinMM APIs, not DirectSound, and there was no KMixer involved.)

But I wont let things like facts get in the way of your bashing. After all, it's cool to hate on the AT forums. Gang up some more. I love debunking idiots.

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.

Finally! Some truth. Let me fill you in on some facts about software: more code = more execution time = slower. All other things being equal.

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.

It's not a seperate issue, and unless drivers can somehow re-enable hardware-accelerated DirectSound/DS3D under Vista, then they will always be slower than XP.

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.

I'm sure that a totally seperate audio API will do wonders for hardware-acceleration of DirectSound games in Vista.

No, but if you have an X-Fi, Alchemy can translate DS3D calls into OpenAL calls, and restore that hardware acceleration to those DS3D games you know and love. Its a shame that MS couldnt have designed such a wrapper and used it system wide to hold us all over, but that was their choice.

DS3D is dead. Deal with it. Either use XP, or use an X-Fi with Alchemy if you need to have those games in 3D sound. Vista is the OS for the future, and future games will use OpenAL.

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.

If you want to play old games on a new system, your hardware will far exceed it's requirements making 2d sound acceleration a non-factor. An X-fi will restore 3d sound for those games.

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

So stop crying.

 

[bsobel]

Finally! Some truth. Let me fill you in on some facts about software: more code = more execution time = slower. All other things being equal.

You made an invalid logical assumption. That new meant more code was introduced. Since the new audio system is faster, based on your own logic that suggests less code.

"There's a new driver architecture called Universal Audio Architecture (UAA) and a new low-level API imaginatively named "Core Audio APIs," and the whole way Windows handles audio has been changed with a set of new user-mode components for mixing and processing audio."

No, YOU don't know what you're talking about. If DS/DS3D was "completely cut out", then running any game that uses the DirectSound API would result in... nothing? Originally the API talked to hardware, now the API talks to a software emulation stack that mimics the hardware architecture of DS. If it didn't, you wouldn't get any sound.

As pointed out numeous times, this magical software stack of yours doesnt exist. OpenAL exists, but it's hard to argue its code paths are longer since its there becasue the DS api was out .

Funny, as I recall server versions of NT that scaled to at least 16-way systems.

That was the claim. They never really got it working 'good' (you should look at the charts showing N way scalability on XP/2K/2003/Longhorn some times...).

d I feel reasonably comfortable suggesting that your everyday PC has a long way to go before something like a 16-core system becomes a mainstream system. Perhaps at that time, there will be scalability issues, but until then, no.

It will be mainstream during Vista lifetime. All of the vendors are moving multi-core. I sit in meetings with the CPU vendors discussing how we are going to best utilize 16, 40, 80 cores as that is the roadmap they are ALL on.

You do realize that the problem with XP's scheduler ping-ponging threads between cores is fixed with the MS multicore patch for XP, right?

You do realize that XP (32, 64 is) isn't NUMA aware, right? Your posts claiming otherwise do not make it so.

This reminds me of the argument that we had about W2K's support for hyperthreading, and I showed you direct MS evidence of a scheduler patch in W2K SP4 specfically for that,

And you remember the performance graphs posted that show HT performance on 2k wasn't the same as HT performance on XP, right?

Now who's the idiot?

That pretty much sums up your ability to debate right there. Your opinions on this arent respected, because they have been uniformally wrong. Your still the guy who claims hibernation shouldn't exist and is the work of the devil implemented to screw my grandman and grandpa when they constantly upgrade their systems without knowing to shutdown first :roll: When pointed out, you drop back name calling. Which is why you are one of the few trolls in this forum and why people don't respect your responses (well, its the name calling and the fact that they are almost 100% wrong. To be fair, I think the 100% wrong has more to do with your lack of respect than the name calling itself...)

 

[aphex]

I've been using Vista Business on my new X60 tablet for the past two weeks and I have to say, I really really dislike it.

I've had problems with Windows Media Player, problems installing programs (Adobe Elements), Issues with the Indexing System...

Its just clunky, poorly designed, and bloated (even with nearly all the Lenovo apps uninstalled). A Core 2 Duo w/ 2gb of ram shouldn't have trouble running a simple mp3 file, but sure enough, it studders all the time. I've also tried for two weeks to get Adobe Elements to install, no luck.

IMHO, Vista sucks.

 

[bsobel]

A Core 2 Duo w/ 2gb of ram shouldn't have trouble running a simple mp3 file, but sure enough, it studders all the time.

Thats not the OS, something else is wrong.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: aphex
I've been using Vista Business on my new X60 tablet for the past two weeks and I have to say, I really really dislike it.

I've had problems with Windows Media Player, problems installing programs (Adobe Elements), Issues with the Indexing System...

Its just clunky, poorly designed, and bloated (even with nearly all the Lenovo apps uninstalled). A Core 2 Duo w/ 2gb of ram shouldn't have trouble running a simple mp3 file, but sure enough, it studders all the time. I've also tried for two weeks to get Adobe Elements to install, no luck.

IMHO, Vista sucks.

Yeah, there is something seriously wrong if mp3s are studdering...could be a driver or configuration problem, but thats not a Vista specific issue.


http://www.adobe.com/support/d.../detail.jsp?ftpID=3569

Perhaps this update can help you with elements?

 

[KeithTalent]

I just upgraded to Vista Ultimate this weekend and am really liking it so far. No problems with drivers yet and the one issue there was (Creative X-Fi soundcard), was identified by the OS and they even sent me to the Creative download site to get the updated driver! :Q

The only thing I am not liking is the slow startups and shutdowns, which are significantly longer than I had in XP. I am assuming I can tweak something to help this?

Anyway, thumbs up from me. :thumbsup:

KT

 

[BD2003]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I just upgraded to Vista Ultimate this weekend and am really liking it so far. No problems with drivers yet and the one issue there was (Creative X-Fi soundcard), was identified by the OS and they even sent me to the Creative download site to get the updated driver! :Q

The only thing I am not liking is the slow startups and shutdowns, which are significantly longer than I had in XP. I am assuming I can tweak something to help this?

Anyway, thumbs up from me. :thumbsup:

KT</end quote></div>

Well, theres just more to load than XP, so its going to take a little longer no matter what, and on top of that its going to fill your RAM with its precache right after it shows the desktop - although it should be plenty usable during that time, even though your disk will be going crazy.

Its a very stable OS though - you shouldnt need to reboot unless an update, driver or program install forces you to. (Which is still far too often IMO) I'd say put it to sleep, but I doubt that'll work very well with an X-fi in the system. Hibernate should be much faster than rebooting, though.

 

[cadkison]

I've been running Ultimate on 3 machines for a little over 3 months now. Once I spent a hour(each) getting everything set up/turning off crap, I have yet to find a reason to hate it. It's a pretty XP to me, and that's pretty much it. I've never had a blue screen, errors, driver conflicts, ... the usual stuff people complain about. It's my primary OS. My brother on the other hand has had nothing but problems with it which I've seen first hand. I laughed at him until he reinstalled XP.

 

[Molondo]

The sleep command has been very buggy for me in vista. Has it been patched?
I found that if a program crashes/freezes, vista seems to recover faster than xp. I haven't yet to hold the power button with vista.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: BD2003
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I just upgraded to Vista Ultimate this weekend and am really liking it so far. No problems with drivers yet and the one issue there was (Creative X-Fi soundcard), was identified by the OS and they even sent me to the Creative download site to get the updated driver! :Q

The only thing I am not liking is the slow startups and shutdowns, which are significantly longer than I had in XP. I am assuming I can tweak something to help this?

Anyway, thumbs up from me. :thumbsup:

KT</end quote></div>

Well, theres just more to load than XP, so its going to take a little longer no matter what, and on top of that its going to fill your RAM with its precache right after it shows the desktop - although it should be plenty usable during that time, even though your disk will be going crazy.

Its a very stable OS though - you shouldnt need to reboot unless an update, driver or program install forces you to. (Which is still far too often IMO) I'd say put it to sleep, but I doubt that'll work very well with an X-fi in the system. Hibernate should be much faster than rebooting, though.

Thanks for the tip! I'm just going through your long tweak guide right now, so hopefully that should help a bit in other areas.

Cheers,
KT

 

[StopSign]

I'm having a big Vista argument on another forum as well. It's ridiculous how ignorant some people can be. Like the thread description suggests, this is a textbook case of bandwagoning. 99% of these Vista bashers have no idea what they're talking about. The 1% that do don't really hate it for reasons which convince me that Vista sucks.

 

[HopJokey]

I'm not a hater of Vista, but as of this moment I do not see a reason to upgrade to Vista ( on a powerful machine, i.e. C2D/Q 2GB+ RAM, etc. ). Maybe when I need > 2 GB of memory (and when the drivers are available on the x64 version), or maybe when I want to play a game that requires Vista ( side question: why is DX10 exclusive on Vista?).

I would definitely like to hear any other reasons to upgrade to Vista from the much more informed people.

 

[StopSign]

If you have a powerful machine, which I assume you do, Vista will be noticeably faster than XP ever was. The performance gains alone is worth the upgrade. Think of it this way: XP is bottlenecking your computer this time.

 

[Slammy1]

I went to BB to pick up one of their Acer laptop clearance deals and the CSR had a lot of horror stories about Vista. I'm not sure why he'd say all the things he did, I know some of it was BS. From the beginning, Vista will not allow you to install MS Office unless it's the most recent version. So my copy of Office 2003 will not work on Vista. OpenOffice will not install either, because it is open source and Vista sees that as illegal software (that's a big percent of the programs/apps I run...). All of the compressed songs I created myself from my own CDs will not work on Vista, I'd need to recompress them using the original CDs (not a problem, but I have ca 400 CDs). Microsoft will completely withdraw support for XP in 2 years. He said they get a lot of Vista laptop returns.

EDIT: Almost forgot. He said Vista will prevent me from installing any other OS on the laptop, so no downgrade to XP or Linux.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
I went to BB to pick up one of their Acer laptop clearance deals and the CSR had a lot of horror stories about Vista. I'm not sure why he'd say all the things he did, I know some of it was BS. From the beginning, Vista will not allow you to install MS Office unless it's the most recent version. So my copy of Office 2003 will not work on Vista. OpenOffice will not install either, because it is open source and Vista sees that as illegal software (that's a big percent of the programs/apps I run...). All of the compressed songs I created myself from my own CDs will not work on Vista, I'd need to recompress them using the original CDs (not a problem, but I have ca 400 CDs). Microsoft will completely withdraw support for XP in 2 years. He said they get a lot of Vista laptop returns.

EDIT: Almost forgot. He said Vista will prevent me from installing any other OS on the laptop, so no downgrade to XP or Linux.

Wow, thats a giant heap of bullsh*t you heard. Office 2003 works on Vista, he'll its even certified by MS to do so. (although people have some problems with outlook) The new version of openoffice also works and installs fine.

Vista doesnt see open source apps as illegal....as unsigned, maybe - but you can run them just as easily.

And all of your compressed music will work, even if its pirated.

And I dual boot vista and linux just fine.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Where do people come up with this stuff?

From riding on the same bandwagon with thousands of other Vista-hating retards out there.

 

[kalster]

to me vista takes too much memory without providing much, i was running vista basic on a system with 2 gigs of ram and it felt slowwww for no reason, it didnt look pretty, didn have anything paritculary better than xp

 

[Slammy1]

Yeah, I knew it was mostly BS even though this is my first Vista PC. I went to the BB by work and bought the PC, it's been great so far. If anyone is curious, it's an Acer Aspire 5610-4610 and cost 499.99. I'm using it right now. I guess the only thing that really concerned me was that OpenOffice might not work.