Phoenix Network Forums

What do you think about the “next generation” OS? M$ promises that it will be twice faster and stable than XP (can you believe it?:)) I tried the beta version and it was veeeery slow… 100% CPU using only… Do you think that all the millions of computers running XP will stop using it because of the vista (just like they stopped using win 98 )?

No, its not a big enough leap from XP for the majority of users to stop, I did find it more stable but because my PC only meets the minimum specs I also found it could get rather slow at times.
As an operating system it was very nice, sleek, user friendly and all the usual shit you expect from a MS OS. I seriously doubt it will be worth the ammount MS will charge for it and unless vendors, distributors and manufacturers suddenly cut off all support and dev for XP it won't go down quite as largely as XP did.

XP Is fine for me, until it becomes obsolete, it was really their first good OS to me, I booted up my other pc the other to find it was running Windows ME and I almost cried cuz it was just so crippled lol

windows are mode to be broken. simple fact. Will Bill Gates get it right? I doubt it (only if he could steal it from someone else). Linux rules for stability and control!

I have installed vista (longhorn) few weeks ago... It is quite stable and fast (if I disable the themes and visual styles ofcourse ) but I can not wdm on my soundcard to get to work so it is not very supported maybe in the first stable version

I have win2k, 800mhz, 384 (256+128) memory.
do you suggest me to switch on vista or xp, finally

topolab, don't use vista. Its minimum spec is like 1.5ghz, 512mb ram and requires 4gb hdd space. XP on the other hand runs on pretty much any crap you have lieing around, though 500mhz+ is a good range to work in.

Well, most people forget that XP and Vista are going to be operating systems. Those two are more of a game than that. MS even employed game developers for XP and I guess, those same developers are working on Vista now. Why would an operating system need 1.5 GHz? Even XP was better on that, and XP alone needs like 300 MHz and 128 MB RAM to be usable.

Microsoft is exaggerating. I've got much better use for my CPU/GPU power. Like XP was the same as Win2k + more graphics, Vista is going to be the same as XP + more graphics, I think. And even if there are any new features besides TCPA compliance and DRM, I still waste most of my CPU time for the OS itself. Where is the point?

One more thing: the user will not own Vista. Vista will own the user. Holy TCPA/DRM. Have fun with it.

mm_freak, have you actually used Vista? Because the minimum spec microsoft published was most definetly accurate. I found my system (1.7ghz, 512mb ram) became very laggy at various points when I had vista installed, this was both with and without those funny effects that they've put in (I've forgotten what they were called).

Nope, I haven't used it. I'm not going to do so either. I've not used Microsoft products for about 2 years now. And if I had to, I would use Win2k anyway.

However, your real-life experience with Vista just confirms my expectations about Vista, and I don't think that MS is going to correct this, since this always was their marketing strategy. It's not the end-user, who made Bill Gates rich. He just gives him the power.

I think newest is better..
they solved the problem from the past I think vista will be popular.. soon

mm_freak wrote:It's not the end-user, who made Bill Gates rich. He just gives him the power.

I quite agree, I can personally say I havn't paid for a Microsoft product since 1999 and I know a hell of alot of people who havn't either.

Tim wrote:

mm_freak wrote:It's not the end-user, who made Bill Gates rich. He just gives him the power.

I quite agree, I can personally say I havn't paid for a Microsoft product since 1999 and I know a hell of alot of people who havn't either.

lol .. I'm trying to be a reformist

The rich gets richer and poor get poorer theory?
Actually to be frank I haven't been very enthusitically in catching up with vista becuase its just all about the same after awhile ... but I did hear vista have alot of stuffs in Its all a market competition eventually ... So tiring to catch up with them ... I'm much too old ..

mm_freak wrote:Like XP was the same as Win2k + more graphics

Nope. Opening multimedia files in W2K is damn slow. And there are million problems while playing games on 2K.

I don't care if it's lame to use Windows. It's good for me (I'm using cracked copy and I don't think that I can expect something more from a produnct that I use for free).

Boso wrote:Nope. Opening multimedia files in W2K is damn slow. And there are million problems while playing games on 2K.

That's simply not true (or at least differs from system to system). I've had those problems in WinXP rather than on Win2k.

Boso wrote:I don't care if it's lame to use Windows.

I've never said that.