New windows apparently.

Why does everyone bag on Vista? It's not slow on my machine....I don't get it.
 
I ran Vista Business edition for 1 year and it ran like a charm for me but I went back to XP Pro. I decided Vista wasn't doing anything for me that XP wasn't doing and XP was a bit faster. I ran Vista with 2GB which should be the minimum, I started out with 1GB and that's not enough for my taste.
If setup properly Vista runs fine as long as you have the correct hardware. I think Windows 7 will be a streamlined version of Vista and have a smaller footprint which should be good.
 
I'm downloading the beta now, we'll see how it goes. I'm going to partition my hard drive first and I don't really know when I'll get around to installing it, but based on the site it looks like what I expected Vista to be.
 
Why does everyone bag on Vista? It's not slow on my machine....I don't get it.

Many compatibility problems with programs - a BIG problem for companies (although that got better as things went on), a big resource hog - flashy useless Aero visuals amongst others, annoying features (automatic backup that eats the HD space? Let us just use Norton Ghost and leave us our drive space ugh!) and for musicians not very friendly for those who use a computer as a DAW. And so on, and so on...

It's okay if you just use you computer for everyday stuff, but once you get specific you could/can run into some bothering stuff but again, that got a bit better as things went on.

Anyway, don't be mistaken; Windows 7 in not that new - the project has been on for quite some time now just as it won't be released until at least 2010. I only hope that they take things more seriously this time...
 
Last edited:
I'm downloading the beta now, we'll see how it goes. I'm going to partition my hard drive first and I don't really know when I'll get around to installing it, but based on the site it looks like what I expected Vista to be.

you can always use Microsoft's Virtual PC software and run Windows 7 as a virtual machine, which is what I'm doing. Eliminates the need for dual boot and all that mess. If you're not familiar with Virtual PC it lets you run multiple operatings systems at the same time. So if you want to give Linux a go wothout messing up your system that's the way to go.

Drum-Head..
I've used Norton Ghost and it works like a charm but now I prefer Acronis True Image and I won't live without it on any of my computers.
For me if there's one must-have utility, that's it!
 
Drum-Head..
I've used Norton Ghost and it works like a charm but now I prefer Acronis True Image and I won't live without it on any of my computers.
For me if there's one must-have utility, that's it!

Hey Baddstuff, I have both programs but I just stuck with Ghost because it works well for me and never felt the need for the other... Either program is a must have! Ghost has saved my life on a few occasions...
 
Anything that helps FSX would be a blessing. I'm so sick of resource hogs.

Personally, I think this is a bit too early for a new version. It's probabaly going to be a bunch of old pounded code from Vista. Any program writers here will probabaly understand why this is way too early. I doubt it's a "Ground-Up" version. They need to really clean the code if they expect any kind of performance upgrade without losing fundamental processes that the public has become so attached to.

Digging the grave.
 
Hey Baddstuff, I have both programs but I just stuck with Ghost because it works well for me and never felt the need for the other... Either program is a must have! Ghost has saved my life on a few occasions...

yeah, good move! They've saved my butt numerous times. I love 'em both but just prefer Acronis. I can't imagine having a computer without one or the other.
 
Anything that helps FSX would be a blessing. I'm so sick of resource hogs.

Personally, I think this is a bit too early for a new version. It's probabaly going to be a bunch of old pounded code from Vista. Any program writers here will probabaly understand why this is way to early. I doubt it's a "Ground-Up" version. They need to really clean the code if they expect any kind of performance progress without losing fundamental processes that the public has become so attached to.

Digging the grave.

it could be all the bitching and moaning about Vista that has MS working so quickly on 7.
I agree though, they need to slow down, clean up the code and put out a really solid OS that the public wants to embrace.
 
it could be all the bitching and moaning about Vista that has MS working so quickly on 7.
I agree though, they need to slow down, clean up the code and put out a really solid OS that the public wants to embrace.


Windows is beyond repair. That is if they keep pounding the same code. All they can hope to do is sweep the problems under the rug with more code which creates more problems that the marketing teams will have to sell the public on. Thats Microsoft's stong point! They are geniuses at fooling and convincing the ignorant. Hell, thats what they get paid to do. :)

I'm sure Microsoft will go belly-up before they focus on the resources in order to logistically stablize and create an O.S. that is new and appreciated by geeks abroad. Keep feeding the monkeys crap and they will eat it if its wrapped in pretty colors.
 
Windows is beyond repair. That is if they keep pounding the same code. All they can hope to do is sweep the problems under the rug with more code which creates more problems that the marketing teams will have to sell the public on. Thats Microsoft's stong point! They are geniuses at fooling and convincing the ignorant. Hell, thats what they get paid to do. :)

I'm sure Microsoft will go belly-up before they focus on the resources in order to logistically stablize and create an O.S. that is new and appreciated by geeks abroad. Keep feeding the monkeys crap and they will eat it if its wrapped in pretty colors.

I know what you mean but if you think about it XP came out pretty swiftly after 2000 and it's proved to be a very good operating system. On the other hand, they had 7 years to develop vista after XP came out and there's not really much good to show for it if i'm honest.

PFS, yeah i'm using vista right now it's perfectly fine for the internet but it has huge problems with games (just look at the back of game boxes, the vista specs are higher it's that slow) and professional applications such as 3d modelling, movie/picture editing suites and recording software, it's just so slow and there are big compatibility issues.
 
I'm also one who thinks that XP was a good, stable OS. Still using it on some of my computers and happy with it.
 
I know what you mean but if you think about it XP came out pretty swiftly after 2000 and it's proved to be a very good operating system. On the other hand, they had 7 years to develop vista after XP came out and there's not really much good to show for it if i'm honest.

PFS, yeah i'm using vista right now it's perfectly fine for the internet but it has huge problems with games (just look at the back of game boxes, the vista specs are higher it's that slow) and professional applications such as 3d modelling, movie/picture editing suites and recording software, it's just so slow and there are big compatibility issues.

I'm also one who thinks that XP was a good, stable OS. Still using it on some of my computers and happy with it.

I definately agree that XP is a great OS, especially with Service Pack 3 that came out last year. I have yet to upgrade to Vista or even play around with it cuz I know it will make me sick really fast.

Concering gaming Eddie, Vista was the O.S. that was designed to introduce the groundbreaking DirectX 10 technology and that was truly an EPIC FAIL. All it did was crash systems and do about 5% of what it was promised. Even the extensive self shadowing effects that were promised looked horrid.

I feel sorry for people that bought Vista for gaming cuz as you said the spec's need to be higher than with XP. FSX was released for XP.. thank god... but Vista users are having serious issues even with the 2 patches released by Aces Studios.

I feel sorry for FSXI if its not a ground up rebuild. FSX was pounded and even Phil Taylor admits it. At least its decently stable on my system. Microsoft needs to make a good product, but I don't know how well they are going to do unless they do a ground-up build for an O.S.

Code can only handle so much infusion before it finally tries to process too much information and it just seizes up completely. Microsoft is headed down that dark road quickly with O.S's. They might get lucky and end up with a fairly stable system, but a crash is innevitable if it continues the way it's going.
 
I've been running Vista here at work for about a year now and it has grown on me. Of course, I'm running 8gb of ram and that's why it's more than suitable. I'm dual-booting at home on my Inspiron between Ubuntu and Vista. I keep Ubuntu on there because I'm a Java programmer (mostly) and it's just better suited for that...my dev tools just don't run as fast on Vista or even XP.

Every generation of Windows gets a hefty new layer of cruft and thus gets more bloated and resource-hungry. To maintain backward compatibility at the level MS does - you pretty much have to. I like Vista better than XP now that they've ironed a few things out and I'm doing a lot of .NET coding again for the first time in 3 yrs...so I gotta keep moving forward!

Seriously - Windows isn't "beyond repair" and all of that noise. I have to laugh when I hear people ranking on Microsoft, claiming that their demise is just around the corner. I've been hearing that for 10 yrs. and it just ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

A friend of mine is running the Win7 Beta and says he loves it. I personally wouldn't waste my time w/ a new version of Windows until the first SP gets released. If you're running this sucker now - you won't even recognize it when they finish it 8 yrs. from now :D
 
I've been running Vista here at work for about a year now and it has grown on me. Of course, I'm running 8gb of ram and that's why it's more than suitable. I'm dual-booting at home on my Inspiron between Ubuntu and Vista. I keep Ubuntu on there because I'm a Java programmer (mostly) and it's just better suited for that...my dev tools just don't run as fast on Vista or even XP.

Every generation of Windows gets a hefty new layer of cruft and thus gets more bloated and resource-hungry. To maintain backward compatibility at the level MS does - you pretty much have to. I like Vista better than XP now that they've ironed a few things out and I'm doing a lot of .NET coding again for the first time in 3 yrs...so I gotta keep moving forward!

Seriously - Windows isn't "beyond repair" and all of that noise. I have to laugh when I hear people ranking on Microsoft, claiming that their demise is just around the corner. I've been hearing that for 10 yrs. and it just ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

A friend of mine is running the Win7 Beta and says he loves it. I personally wouldn't waste my time w/ a new version of Windows until the first SP gets released. If you're running this sucker now - you won't even recognize it when they finish it 8 yrs. from now :D

Don't get me wrong. Windows is great for web-browsing and running basic applications and I'm sure it will always be able to handle that small load of what most users do with it regardless of how bloated it gets.

If your into .NET you should know more than anyone that running anything beyond basic applications that use 100,000 K's is going to eventually lock it up. Many applications these days are using 200,000 K's and thats not even gaming. Thats basic Adobe and I.E. usage.

The average game made for Windows these days is running 400,000 to 500,000 K's and windows can't handle it. Even with a great processor and g-card w/ plenty of v-ram windows bogs down. Windows XP is only able to use 3 gigs of ram even though one might carry 4 to 6. I have heard people swear the Vista can use 16 gigs of ram. These people are literally insane. I would be happy if it acually utilizes the 8 you have in yours.

I'm sure the next version of Windows will be great for web-browsing in conjunction with IE 8 or 9 by the time it comes out and a place to store music & pics. Other than that. It will fail. But those that it will fail for are less than those it will work for. I'm speaking of geeks. :)
 
Don't get me wrong. Windows is great for web-browsing and running basic applications and I'm sure it will always be able to handle that small load of what most users do with it regardless of how bloated it gets.

If your into .NET you should know more than anyone that running anything beyond basic applications that use 100,000 K's is going to eventually lock it up. Many applications these days are using 200,000 K's and thats not even gaming. Thats basic Adobe and I.E. usage.

The average game made for Windows these days is running 400,000 to 500,000 K's and windows can't handle it. Even with a great processor and g-card w/ plenty of v-ram windows bogs down. Windows XP is only able to use 3 gigs of ram even though one might carry 4 to 6. I have heard people swear the Vista can use 16 gigs of ram. These people are literally insane. I would be happy if it acually utilizes the 8 you have in yours.

I'm sure the next version of Windows will be great for web-browsing in conjunction with IE 8 or 9 by the time it comes out and a place to store music & pics. Other than that. It will fail. But those that it will fail for are less than those it will work for. I'm speaking of geeks. :)

On any given day I'm running a combination of Visual Studio 2008, Netbeans 6.5, Adobe tools (Flash, Photoshop, etc.) as well as MS SQL Server (w/ client tools)...and so on. I've never even come close to pegging this machine on either ram or cpu. I've also never had a BSOD or failure of any kind beyond the occasional app crashing.

I run 2gb ram on my Inspiron in my home office and run all of the same software - same thing, it's never been pegged. That laptop also has a killer graphics card and I've played games on it - though I don't do it often...it seemed fine.

Seriously...it's good software. All OSs have their flaws and as a long-time Linux geek (1997) I'll be so controversial as to say the GUI quality STILL lags far behind the Windows (or Mac) experience - even as far as it has come today.

Another positive thing I'll say about Vista - I've never been inflicted with spyware, trojans, viruses, or any other major security issue, yet. The *only* thing I can honestly complain about is the slightly slower filesystem and some of the stupid default security settings. The DRM sucks too but that's ready to fall into the dustbin of history any time now.

I'm not saying you don't have anything to complain about - they certainly could have done better after 7 years of work. BUT...I think you're exaggerating just a little or have just had a bad personal experience for some reason? Are you running it on older or unusual hardware? Maybe I got lucky four installs in a row? ;)
 
Back
Top