Phoenix Network Forums

Ok, for the first time in months I'm using windows, in fact, the last version of windows I used was Vista when BETA 1 first came out and I must say I found that so much better than this thing.
I've had WinXP for less than 3 days and its annoying the crap out of me, I've had constant BSODs, driver issues and all sorts of other problems with it. People say Linux is irritating to use and setup, I must say I strongly disagree, linux is basic and seems to "just work" much better than this

Such a pity I'm stuck using microsoft products, at least for the next couple of months (I've got a couple of classes which require Visual Studio and I have no particular wish to get it working in a *nix environment).

I wonder if I should give Vista a shot? I remember having a much better experience with that, and far less BSOD type things

Opinions? Simillar/Different Problems with windows?

doesn't vista have RSODs ?
Also, XP SP2 seems to work wonders for me lately, it loads faster, it recognises the wireless PCI adapter immediately, so I'm on the network the moment my ocmputer tgets turned on (whilst without SP and with SP1, it would take 1 minute after laoding everything before even looking at the PCI slots)...I'm no big windows fan, but for some reason SP2 is awesome right now

I've made good experiences with Win2k. Compared to other MS-systems, it's fast and stable. I can't really recommend Vista, because it sucks a lot of RAM and CPU-power. With every Windows system, you lose at least 10% of your CPU time, but with Vista you lose like 70%.

Also Vista is like XP + graphical extensions + DRM. So in fact, you get a nicer GUI and that's it.

funman wrote:doesn't vista have RSODs ?
Also, XP SP2 seems to work wonders for me lately, it loads faster, it recognises the wireless PCI adapter immediately, so I'm on the network the moment my ocmputer tgets turned on (whilst without SP and with SP1, it would take 1 minute after laoding everything before even looking at the PCI slots)...I'm no big windows fan, but for some reason SP2 is awesome right now

RSOD is for different errors to BSOD.
SP2 thinks I have a wireless card even though I don't

mm_freak, I have much more ram and cpu power than Vista needs

Tim wrote:

funman wrote:doesn't vista have RSODs ?
Also, XP SP2 seems to work wonders for me lately, it loads faster, it recognises the wireless PCI adapter immediately, so I'm on the network the moment my ocmputer tgets turned on (whilst without SP and with SP1, it would take 1 minute after laoding everything before even looking at the PCI slots)...I'm no big windows fan, but for some reason SP2 is awesome right now

RSOD is for different errors to BSOD.
SP2 thinks I have a wireless card even though I don't

mm_freak, I have much more ram and cpu power than Vista needs

What's your box Tim?
Anyway i'll stick to XP and W2k my 2 cents
Vista too new ... w2003 erm is it even cosnidered stable? hiakz

AMD64 X2 4400
2gb Corsair RAM
320gb WD HDD
XFX Geforce 6600GT PCI-E

I think thats all you need to know :P

Windows2003 is a server OS, which I'm actually downloading right now to play around with on one of the other computers we have here.

I'm using XP MMC SP2 right now, and I don't know why It gives me error everytime i try to go to the properties on every drive.
I'm going to re-install it with the same os. However, bebore that I'm going to try Windows Vista first. If I like it I'll stick with Vista

Completely removing your OS and going to a beta OS...persoanlly I don't like the thought...I'd liek ot try vista though, but on my 2nd HDD if I do

funman wrote:Completely removing your OS and going to a beta OS...persoanlly I don't like the thought...I'd liek ot try vista though, but on my 2nd HDD if I do

Bad luck then, you had to give away your 2nd HDD
Like I said somewhere else I found Vista to be just as stable as XP it just seemed to hog alot more memory/cpu.

I heard vista was the same thing as xp, just with more eye candy?

Tim wrote:mm_freak, I have much more ram and cpu power than Vista needs ;)

That's no excuse. =)

Tim wrote:AMD64 X2 4400
2gb Corsair RAM
320gb WD HDD
XFX Geforce 6600GT PCI-E

I think thats all you need to know

Windows2003 is a server OS, which I'm actually downloading right now to play around with on one of the other computers we have here.

I actually do have the winbloze 2003 cd but i doubt i could even lend u haha ... anyway hmm dual processor and 2 gb ram pretty strong box .. anyway I'm eyeing the sun's promo offers of sun ultra 20 ... heez .. finally there's SG pricings ... Scott McNealy did keep his words haha .. and/or the Intel® Pentium® D chips based box ..
but 1 gb ram though ... budget ...

krod wrote:I heard vista was the same thing as xp, just with more eye candy?

Bill Gates was downtown sometime in early Jul for a seminar on sharing of Longhorn aka vista .. he did promised erm touch on some eye candies which basically are very very similiar to MAC-Tiger OS
Anyway .. to summarise its supposed to have Better Security Features (on malware etc..), Better Usability (spotlight variantz .. ), Better Connectivity - he was quite empathic on the net ..
Preview of Vista : http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/08/03 ... sta/1.html

I guess you could see Microsoft Codename MAX as an additional eye candy as well to work with vista technology ..

http://www.microsoft.com/max/index.html (have a look at the Win FX technology which vista uses as well ..) -- Picasa and iPhoto variantx - u decide ..

Actualy the feature that makes that vista can still work at acceptable speed rates is a feature that is available in windows xp to.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24749 explains how to do that.

Windows Vista uses too much hardware. If Microsoft thinks Vista will be out on late 2006 they are WRONG! The average PC in 2006 won't have 2GBs of DDR3 RAM (Release date: 2007 ) , nor the dual, multi-core CPU, or the SATA II HDs, etc.

Here is a text that talks about Vista Hardware Specs: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs/

psyx0th wrote:Windows Vista uses too much hardware. If Microsoft thinks Vista will be out on late 2006 they are WRONG! The average PC in 2006 won't have 2GBs of DDR3 RAM (Release date: 2007 ) , nor the dual, multi-core CPU, or the SATA II HDs, etc.

Here is a text that talks about Vista Hardware Specs: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs/

Funny, I'm almost positive that Microsoft knows the expected release date of their product, whether the majority of PCs are capable of using it is another issue. However, the average 4-5 year old PC can handle it just it gets a bit laggy from time to time.