windows vista

[SmartRutter7]

Yep, i've had it for not even a week on my new laptop. I've gotten 2 blue screens of death already. >.<

The control panel has too many icons. It's simply retard-friendly. Not to mention it won't even let me record audio from my speakers. ._.

Anyone else have vista here?

Oh and my laptop itself is awesome. 2.0Ghz AMD dual-core processor + 3GB RAM + 200GB hard drive = WIN.

I'll have to install linux on this thing later...

[Judge Judy]

I got window vista and everything alright, though I have noticed my computer is alot slower which is annoying.

[Leonri]

Windows Vista is epic phail. Never trust Microsoft. Bill Gates kills babies.

[The Envoy of the Beginning]

I go with XP. Vista requires you to go on a limb on computer specs, which is what most people don't want to do considering they don't want to spend a lot of money on a PC.

Plus, I don't want a OS that won't let me administer my own computer.

[Doom103]

lol I wanted vista too

[Rehab]

I have it. It doesn't really matter because my computer itself sucks, but it's not particularly enjoyable or efficient from what little I can see.

[SmartRutter7]

i'd never install vista on an xp computer. Yeah, the computer specs needed would probably just make your computer run horrible. I didn't have much of a choice here since pretty much ALL new computers come with vista now. <_<

[Tino]

Vista was already installed on the PC when I bought it, so I have not experienced any problems with it.

[Wist]

Windows Vista is epic phail. Never trust Microsoft. Bill Gates kills babies.

Bill Gates is one of the most prominent philanthropists in the world, he also hasn't been credited for writing any code in a Windows operating system for nearly two decades. Disparaging Bill Gates because of the performance of Windows Vista is as unjustified as would be attacking VincentASM if the next Fire Emblem is poorly received by fans.

[Cynthia]

I don't see why people down on Vista so much. I own it, and have had it for over a year, Vista just takes time to adjust, after that it runs fairly smoothly.

I have never gotten the blue screen problem, and never had any fatal errors.

For those out there still wanting to say I have a great computer capable of running it, I most certainly do not, I have a Gateway 2007 model with a 1.66GHZ Intel Celeron M Processor, and 1.5GB of RAM, with a 64MB graphics card, pretty much the minimum for running Vista, and it runs great for me.

I actually prefer it over XP now. As stated by some of the developers Vista when you first get it, and when you install a service pack, needs time to rebuild start up files, or build them for the first time. After that it runs fine. I agree with this statement, as mine will start up in 30 seconds to 1 minute flat. The problem really isn't vista itself, it's the computers it's being put on, they aren't DESIGNING them for Vista, for example, my brother's computer has the exact same specs, and he has had four major crashes, and 2 blue screens, we have the same model as well.

I took his apart to find that all his parts are made differently from mine. He has RAM cards from non-brand name companies, and his processor is made in China, when mine is not. Not to mention they originally sold the 2 computers to us with 512MB of RAM, when Vista needs at least 1GB.

The issue isn't Vista, it's the computers they are building FOR it. They are using the right specs now, but they are using lower quality parts to build them. I recommend checking who built your parts and looking them up, cause that contributes a lot to how your computer runs.

[Leonri]

Bill Gates is one of the most prominent philanthropists in the world, he also hasn't been credited for writing any code in a Windows operating system for nearly two decades. Disparaging Bill Gates because of the performance of Windows Vista is as unjustified as would be attacking VincentASM if the next Fire Emblem is poorly received by fans.

It's a joke. Hah hah. Hee hee. Ho ho.

Perhaps not in the best taste but I'm not being serious. Vista, now that most of the bugs are gone, is a decent enough operating system and will be very good in a year or two. I'm just pretending to hate Microsoft on principle.

But.......you cannot say Bill Gates is above reproof. A man wealthier than most countries, when so many are starving is not right. This massive inequality in the standard of living , with 1% percent of the population being richer than th other 99% combined is not a system which will last or bring stability and happiness to this world.

[Serene]

I don't see why people down on Vista so much. I own it, and have had it for over a year, Vista just takes time to adjust, after that it runs fairly smoothly.

I have never gotten the blue screen problem, and never had any fatal errors.

For those out there still wanting to say I have a great computer capable of running it, I most certainly do not, I have a Gateway 2007 model with a 1.66GHZ Intel Celeron M Processor, and 1.5GB of RAM, with a 64MB graphics card, pretty much the minimum for running Vista, and it runs great for me.

I actually prefer it over XP now. As stated by some of the developers Vista when you first get it, and when you install a service pack, needs time to rebuild start up files, or build them for the first time. After that it runs fine. I agree with this statement, as mine will start up in 30 seconds to 1 minute flat. The problem really isn't vista itself, it's the computers it's being put on, they aren't DESIGNING them for Vista, for example, my brother's computer has the exact same specs, and he has had four major crashes, and 2 blue screens, we have the same model as well.

I took his apart to find that all his parts are made differently from mine. He has RAM cards from non-brand name companies, and his processor is made in China, when mine is not. Not to mention they originally sold the 2 computers to us with 512MB of RAM, when Vista needs at least 1GB.

The issue isn't Vista, it's the computers they are building FOR it. They are using the right specs now, but they are using lower quality parts to build them. I recommend checking who built your parts and looking them up, cause that contributes a lot to how your computer runs.

For somewhat the most part. I have to agree. Though my Xp was about four years old when I changed. Vista actually works better for me

[Cynthia]

The major contributor to why people don't like Vista, is because they don't like change. However if you've seen the Mojave project, you'll see that Vista is actually better than what people are saying.

For those who don't know the Mojave Project was a group of Microsoft workers taking several people who never used or saw vista, but said it was terrible from what they've been told, and they put them all on computers with Vista, and said it was a new operating system they were making called "Mojave." All of the subjects rated Vista higher than when they entered the experiment, and a majority of which ended up recommending it. None of the subjects rated it lower than what they heard about it.

[Wist]

It's a joke. Hah hah. Hee hee. Ho ho.

Perhaps not in the best taste but I'm not being serious. Vista, now that most of the bugs are gone, is a decent enough operating system and will be very good in a year or two. I'm just pretending to hate Microsoft on principle.

But.......you cannot say Bill Gates is above reproof. A man wealthier than most countries, when so many are starving is not right. This massive inequality in the standard of living , with 1% percent of the population being richer than th other 99% combined is not a system which will last or bring stability and happiness to this world.

Ah, sorry. I thought your claim was the result of blind bias; I was too presumptuous. However, while Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world, he is also one of the most prominent philanthropists. I won't support or disagree with your claims in regard to economic geography and financial stability because I don't know enough about them.

The major contributor to why people don't like Vista, is because they don't like change. However if you've seen the Mojave project, you'll see that Vista is actually better than what people are saying.

For those who don't know the Mojave Project was a group of Microsoft workers taking several people who never used or saw vista, but said it was terrible from what they've been told, and they put them all on computers with Vista, and said it was a new operating system they were making called "Mojave." All of the subjects rated Vista higher than when they entered the experiment, and a majority of which ended up recommending it. None of the subjects rated it lower than what they heard about it.

The biggest problem with the Mojave Experiment is that it was organized, and very much controlled, by Microsoft. It's difficult to determine how much merit the project deserves because there was no safeguard against Microsoft biasing against disagreeable functionality in Vista. I think it would have been much better if such a project had been carried out by an independent organization and volunteers were allowed to experiment with various aspects of the operating system themselves. Edited September 21, 2008 by Wist

[Cynthia]

Ah, sorry. I thought your claim was the result of blind bias; I was too presumptuous. However, while Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world, he is also one of the most prominent philanthropists. I won't support or disagree with your claims in regard to economic geography and financial stability because I don't know enough about them.

The biggest problem with the Mojave Experiment is that it was organized, and very much controlled, by Microsoft. It's difficult to determine how much merit the project deserves because there was no safeguard against Microsoft biasing against disagreeable functionality in Vista. I think it would have been much better if such a project had been carried out by an independent organization and volunteers were allowed to experiment with various aspects of the operating system themselves.

Take in consideration that Vista is STILL selling more than the Macontosh OS Leopard.

[Meteor]

Everything already works on XP, so I don't have any reason to change until I get a new computer.

[flarp22]

Yep, i've had it for not even a week on my new laptop. I've gotten 2 blue screens of death already. >.<

The control panel has too many icons. It's simply retard-friendly. Not to mention it won't even let me record audio from my speakers. ._.

Anyone else have vista here?

Oh and my laptop itself is awesome. 2.0Ghz AMD dual-core processor + 3GB RAM + 200GB hard drive = WIN.

I'll have to install linux on this thing later...

I've had Vista on a laptop for a longer time than you. I got 0 blue screens of death.

The control panel isn't THAT bad. <.<

Recording audio from speakers doesn't work for me either. >.<

In short: Vistta sucks. Link me to a place where I can downgrade to XP plz.

[Cynthia]

I've had Vista on a laptop for a longer time than you. I got 0 blue screens of death.

The control panel isn't THAT bad. <.<

Recording audio from speakers doesn't work for me either. >.<

In short: Vistta sucks. Link me to a place where I can downgrade to XP plz.

So wait, you say it sucks cause you can't record audio from your speakers? That's not Vista's fault.

Downgrading not only voids the warranty, and makes repair charges go up, but also increases the chances of problems occurring on your computer.

You really need to give more of a reason than "Vista sucks," because anyone can make statements with nothing to support them.

[SmartRutter7]

So wait, you say it sucks cause you can't record audio from your speakers? That's not Vista's fault.

Downgrading not only voids the warranty, and makes repair charges go up, but also increases the chances of problems occurring on your computer.

You really need to give more of a reason than "Vista sucks," because anyone can make statements with nothing to support them.

Sure it's not vista's fault? I could do it easily with XP, but with vista? Nope. There's no option for me to do so. If it's not vista's fault, then whose fault is it?

Bah, just get linux, i'd rather not pay for XP again. Linux is free anyways. As for repair charges? What could possibly go so wrong to require repairs? Unless you're messing around with the inside of the computer and fry something, i don't think anyone with a brain would need that, unless they're totally computer illerate. If XP doesn't work, get the vista disc back out or boot off of a recovery partition (like i have), and reinstall vista. You'd probably want to return XP as well but i doubt they'd let you do that.

In short, linux is free. I plan on dual-booting it with vista sometime soon. I already have linux on the desktop computer i have with XP on it. Besides, i can easily make linux look as graphically fancy as vista if wanted to.

Linux beats all.

[Cynthia]

Linux is free because it's a LOW quality OS.

As I stated before, it's the people BUILDING the COMPUTER. Not Microsoft. Faulty parts = inability to run Vista PROPERLY.

[Wist]

Linux is free because it's a LOW quality OS.

As I stated before, it's the people BUILDING the COMPUTER. Not Microsoft. Faulty parts = inability to run Vista PROPERLY.

Linux, and it's multitude of derived distributions, is free because it was founded as, and remains, an open source project. Firefox was founded with that same philosophy. Linux is not a low quality operating system. Linux users know that they will not be able to run some programs without emulators or resorting to a similar alternatives, but there exists strong community support for making viable options available. Linux most certainly has its own merits (for example, servers commonly use Linux).

Many people are averse to Vista because of its lack of reliable backwards compatibility, its noticeable system requirements, and its reduced access to security settings and other internal aspects of the computer. Driver compatibility is blotchy in Vista. Because it is more taxing on the computer's hardware, Vista runs programs slower than XP. The level of expected backwards compatibility with programs written for XP is not met by Vista, and the user has less control over how the computer operates than XP allowed for. Ultimately, Vista is comparatively slow and not as capable as was originally expected.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Wist

[Cynthia]

Linux, and it's multitude of derived distributions, is free because it was founded as, and remains, an open source project. Firefox was founded with that same philosophy. Linux is not a low quality operating system. Linux users know that they will not be able to run some programs without emulators or resorting to a similar alternatives, but there exists strong community support for making viable options available. Linux most certainly has its own merits (for example, servers commonly use Linux).

Many people are averse to Vista because of its lack of reliable backwards compatibility, its noticeable system requirements, and its reduced access to security settings and other internal aspects of the computer. Driver compatibility is blotchy in Vista. Because it is more taxing on the computer's hardware, Vista runs programs slower than XP. The level of expected backwards compatibility with programs written for XP is not met by Vista, and the user has less control over how the computer operates than XP allowed for. Ultimately, Vista is comparatively slow and not as capable as was originally expected.

The servers you are referring to are run on UNIX, not Linux.

Secondly I own Vista and experience NONE of the issues you are referring to, and I have LOW specs. In fact my XP computer takes LONGER to start up than this one, and even longer to open programs. I have not had ONE program that didn't work on Vista so far except Maple Story, and even now they are working every day to make more and more compatible.

Linux has the lowest amount of users of the 3 brands of Macintosh, Windows, and Linux. It actually was so low that a while ago ALL the store in my area actually took it off the shelves stating, "it's just not what the customers wanted."

Linux is a Unix-like OS that was developed by the same people. I'd rather have one program not work, then have to run emulators that don't always work to do pretty much anything. Most of them are using Unix, only some use Linux.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Cynthia

[Wist]

I believe you are mistaken in correcting my statement about Linux servers. 'Commonly' was perhaps not the best choice of word because it implies a majority, 'respectable' might fit better. A respectable percentage of servers implement Linux (as do a disproportionately large percentage of super computers, but that does not directly pertain to the topic at hand). Linux's popularity is in no way evaporating.

You refer to personal experiences and I refer to perceived generalizations, our arguments are too discordant in scope. It is perfectly reasonable for you to choose a more popular operating system over one that is incompatible with the programs you are familiar with, but that does not mean that your choice is inherently superior. The GameCube had the lowest market share of its generation (I am clearly ignoring the Dreamcast because Sega withdrew from the market) and had a reduced amount of software available for it, but that it was not inferior or unwanted.

Linux was first developed by a college student unaffiliated with the Unix brand. It was inspired by Unix, as you stated, but Linux was not developed by the people who developed Unix.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Wist

[SmartRutter7]

Linux is free because it's a LOW quality OS.

As I stated before, it's the people BUILDING the COMPUTER. Not Microsoft. Faulty parts = inability to run Vista PROPERLY.

Low quality huh? That's what i'd call making a startment with nothing to back it up... "anyone can make statements with nothing to support them..." You obviously never have used linux before or seem to know much about how it operates. It can do all the normal crap a windows computer can do. Word processing, internet, instant messaging, etc. It's more secure than windows is, as well as more stable. Prices of an item DOES NOT reflect on how good it is. It's free cause it's open-source. Besides, why pay for something if you can get free software that does just about the same thing?

The servers you are referring to are run on UNIX, not Linux.

Secondly I own Vista and experience NONE of the issues you are referring to, and I have LOW specs. In fact my XP computer takes LONGER to start up than this one, and even longer to open programs. I have not had ONE program that didn't work on Vista so far except Maple Story, and even now they are working every day to make more and more compatible.

Linux has the lowest amount of users of the 3 brands of Macintosh, Windows, and Linux. It actually was so low that a while ago ALL the store in my area actually took it off the shelves stating, "it's just not what the customers wanted."

Linux is a Unix-like OS that was developed by the same people. I'd rather have one program not work, then have to run emulators that don't always work to do pretty much anything. Most of them are using Unix, only some use Linux.

Go figure, my XP computer takes longer to load than vista does as well. You know why? computers that have had XP on them are generally OLDER, and have less powerful hardware.

They took linux of the shelves in a store? You can just go download linux easily. Beats having to go out somewhere and buy a cd.

Now i've used emulators before in linux. For example the WINE windows emulator isn't all that bad, works for a fair bit of programs i've thrown at it. Many other programs you could easily find a linux equivilent of it. As for microsoft office, you could use openoffice on linux instead. Perhaps even abiword for just a word processor. For AIM/MSN, pidgin works well. Xchat is great for irc, vlc media player works instead of having windows media player.

[Cynthia]

Low quality huh? That's what i'd call making a startment with nothing to back it up... "anyone can make statements with nothing to support them..." You obviously never have used linux before or seem to know much about how it operates. It can do all the normal crap a windows computer can do. Word processing, internet, instant messaging, etc. It's more secure than windows is, as well as more stable. Prices of an item DOES NOT reflect on how good it is. It's free cause it's open-source. Besides, why pay for something if you can get free software that does just about the same thing?

Go figure, my XP computer takes longer to load than vista does as well. You know why? computers that have had XP on them are generally OLDER, and have less powerful hardware.

They took linux of the shelves in a store? You can just go download linux easily. Beats having to go out somewhere and buy a cd.

Now i've used emulators before in linux. For example the WINE windows emulator isn't all that bad, works for a fair bit of programs i've thrown at it. Many other programs you could easily find a linux equivilent of it. As for microsoft office, you could use openoffice on linux instead. Perhaps even abiword for just a word processor. For AIM/MSN, pidgin works well. Xchat is great for irc, vlc media player works instead of having windows media player.

I'm sorry I should have worded that better. You see they SELL computers with Linux on them, and designed for linux, and they had to take them off the shelves, because no one was buying them. Not the CD, the entire computer line, computers made just for linux, which were around 25% cheaper, and people STILL didn't want them.