the graphics are too good

[Lemon Merchant]

Haha! I know way better than to fall for that sleezy vista trick! I'm not going to touch that nuclear software bomb even with gloves.

Ah TMIT, my love, you know not the joys of Vista!

Once you turn off the nuisance features like UAC, it's actually quite good. Especially 64 bit with all of the service packs. It does need more RAM to truly perform, but with 4GB or more, Vista really dazzles.

To each his (or her, in my case) own, but I have yet to crash Vista. I can't say the same for XP.

 

[deanej]

And you don't even need to turn off UAC. Once you have the system set up, you shouldn't see it as much (after all, who changes system settings/installs programs every day?).

The problem Vista has is that very few of the reviewers updated their reviews from the beta period, and almost all reviewers don't review a system like an ordinary user would use it - they just use it for a couple hours, check off items off a list, and post the review. This, combined with the fact that the reviews are from the beta period (some from the initial release) and don't reflect what Vista is like today now that developers have written code for it (which they hadn't because nobody pays attention to the Windows world today. The same thing is happening to IE8, I'm afraid).

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I have to agree with the review thing. I also think that a lot of people hated it at first because it was so different from XP. Along with the poor reviews, there was a lot of bad word of mouth, too. Where I work, everybody went crazy when management forced us into Vista. Now, after more than a year, most of us love it and won't go back to XP. Many of us even updated our own home PCs to Vista. Heck, even the IT guys at work like it, so it can't be all that bad.

 

[lermfish]

I can't say the same for XP.

I love XP.

But I only really like it because it's the first real operating system I used. (I don't count 95... *Shudder*)

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I love XP.

But I only really like it because it's the first real operating system I used. (I don't count 95... *Shudder*)

I love XP too. Vista is just a bit more polished and stable IMHO. I used XP for 5 years and it was like an old friend. I fought it when I had to upgrade for work. And now that I've been using Vista for over a year, there's no way I'll go back.

And nobody, but nobody ever took '95 seriously.

It was my first, and I'm too young to really remember DOS. It really had problems, but heck, it was much better than ME.

 

[PieceOfMind]

My main issue with vista is the way it deals with system resources. Why do I need my computer using 2 times as much power (I'm talking Watts here - the physics definition) to do the same job as a computer running XP instead. When I have the computer at idle I expect the CPU to be near idle too - not using 50% to 60% (whatever) as a base at all times.

I have no problems with being corrected - this is just my opinion of the system at the moment. If one has a powerful enough computer the above issues would probably go unnoticed except for someone counting their black balloons (CO2 emissions).

 

[lermfish]

And nobody, but nobody ever took '95 seriously.

It was my first, and I'm too young to really remember DOS. It really had problems, but heck, it was much better than ME.

Honestly, I used it for the first five years of my life. It was a good OS at the time, but...

 

[Arlborn]

And you don't even need to turn off UAC. Once you have the system set up, you shouldn't see it as much (after all, who changes system settings/installs programs every day?).

The problem Vista has is that very few of the reviewers updated their reviews from the beta period, and almost all reviewers don't review a system like an ordinary user would use it - they just use it for a couple hours, check off items off a list, and post the review. This, combined with the fact that the reviews are from the beta period (some from the initial release) and don't reflect what Vista is like today now that developers have written code for it (which they hadn't because nobody pays attention to the Windows world today. The same thing is happening to IE8, I'm afraid).

I do.

I will wait for the next Windows thank you very much. No need to update for Vista now anyhow, most of the games I love to play perform badly with Vista anyway(yes, I did have a computer with Vista for around 6 months 2 years ago or so).

 

[lermfish]

Arlborn, it's good to wait...

Windows 7 looks like it'll be awesome.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

My main issue with vista is the way it deals with system resources. Why do I need my computer using 2 times as much power (I'm talking Watts here - the physics definition) to do the same job as a computer running XP instead. When I have the computer at idle I expect the CPU to be near idle too - not using 50% to 60% (whatever) as a base at all times.

I have no problems with being corrected - this is just my opinion of the system at the moment. If one has a powerful enough computer the above issues would probably go unnoticed except for someone counting their black balloons (CO2 emissions).

PoM, you must have some sort of background thing running. Both of my Vista machines idle at about 2 to 4%, and my room mate's quad core idles at about 3%. We don't use those gadgets or anything. Maybe your computer was indexing your hard drive when you checked?

I agree about the powerful computer requirement, though. Vista does need more system resources to do the same thing as XP, and you need better hardware as a result. There's a very interesting article at the MS website that explains exactly why. I don't have the link, though, I'm sorry. According to the article, a straight comparison between Vista and XP is hard to do, because it's an apples to oranges kind of thing. They're significantly different, as is Windows 7 from the two of them. I'm not saying that either one is better than the other, but what I was getting at earlier was that Vista doesn't deserve the reputation that it has. Not now that they've made some improvements. XP had problems before service pack 2 as well. Remember?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It was my first, and I'm too young to really remember DOS. It really had problems, but heck, it was much better than ME.

What? I used DOS quite a bit as a kid and I'm only 25! Bit of a learning curve but I wanted to play warcraft, wolfenstein, and doom dammit! Who cares if I was only like what, 9-11 range?!

 

[Lemon Merchant]

What? I used DOS quite a bit as a kid and I'm only 25! Bit of a learning curve but I wanted to play warcraft, wolfenstein, and doom dammit! Who cares if I was only like what, 9-11 range?!

My parents thought home computers were "evil", though Dad used them at work. I didn't really get to use a computer until I moved to Canada at 18 and went to college. I did use DOS for a while, but I can hardly remember it now.

Please don't take away my mouse...

 

[Arlborn]

What? I used DOS quite a bit as a kid and I'm only 25! Bit of a learning curve but I wanted to play warcraft, wolfenstein, and doom dammit! Who cares if I was only like what, 9-11 range?!

Nah, DOS games were played already with a windows for me(and I played quite some of them, including warcraft). I think the first home computer we had came with windows 98.

 

[Bostock]

Just one word for the OP:

Roguelikes.

Hope this tip brings you some fun... and hope you come back among us once the Civ IV requirements mean a 10-year-old computer instead of a 5-year-old computer!

 

[Willem]

Just one word for the OP:

Roguelikes.

I remember playing games like that. I'm glad those days are over.

Hope this tip brings you some fun... and hope you come back among us once the Civ IV requirements mean a 10-year-old computer instead of a 5-year-old computer!

But by then Civ 5 will be out with detailed DirectX 10 graphics and he can start all over again.