I agree.

I think it is bull**** that you have to use itunes.. to me that is just as bad as the whole ie thing. If not, worse.

Although I think Microsoft has the right to include internet explorer.. its not like they prevent you from being able to download and install firefox, opera, or safari.

I just posted this out of amusement and something to read on a friday.

Although I really hope Windows "7" will take the good stuff out of vista and make something better.. they should have stuck with windows xp and just enhanced it.

Only benefit to Vista that I can see is the support for directx 10... and even then I have not seen any reason to NEED dx10... other than crysis.. and even then you can run crysis on dx9 and still have all the coolness the dx10 has. I haven't seen or heard of any differences in game play/graphics/physics.

 

You realize if they just took "XP" and "Enhanced" it, it would simply be another Windows ME right? It's just Win98 "Enhanced".

Every thread I read about Vista is caca. It's not that bad of an operating system as it's made out to be. Yes, there are annoyances, but they're overcome easily. What exactly is it that Vista is hindering you from doing? It still runs all your applications and it has tightened security. The only reason they made UAC is to keep people from running malware accidentally - and you can switch off UAC in a number of ways.

This is the way I see it and have seen it since day one. It's the same transition that people had when they were moving from Windows 2000 to XP. Back when XP came out, everyone tossed s-bombs at XP, now after several years and 3 service packs, everyone loves XP. I very much expect the same out of Vista.

 

Yup, just like the EVO vs STI thing :rollseyes:

 

I think of hardcore mac users in the same light

 

^^I do not think if they enhanced XP that it would turn out how ME did.. XP is a great platform to run with.. add some cool features to it.. spice up the look.. and implement DX10.. bam.

Here is my issue with Vista:

1-Will use more ram than any OS should ever use (out of the box)
2-They changed control panel to work like ****..
3-It is slow an inefficient
4-Bad compatibility issues (I have seen simple USB devices that should be plugnplay not work... mainly bluetooth adapters)
5-Hard to navigate.. even for me and I consider myself very advanced with computers
6-Cost is OUTRAGEOUS.. Microsoft could learn from Apple.. one version... that offers all their features. for a very cheap price might I add.
7-Lack of hardware support for new and old devices. (drivers)
8-Security is overkill
9-All the different versions are very confusing for basic users
10-Sidebar uses WAY more resources then it should.. in Linux the sidebar widgets use about 1/4 the ram
11-No "open with" option when you right click a file.
12-Takes forever to boot "out of the box"

 

I will agree with the memory issues - but remember, Vista is HEAVY on enhanced looks. I've been using Vista since the first day it came out - I currently dual boot XP & Vista, which is kind of funny, the only thing I can think of that Vista can't do that XP can - is edit files on my WM5/6 phones.

Linux and Apple can't even edit the system files on the WM5/6 phones - but unlocking an iPhone and jail breaking it can be done on just about any OS.

As for your #11 - not sure what you're talking about, it's there. You can still right click and get a bunch of options.

As for #2 - switch to classic mode, I did the same with XP and used the classic mode.

#5 - not really, it's just a different look. It's about the same as switching from XP, Mac OSX, and a Gnome or KDE GUI. If you can't figure out how to use Vista's version of Explorer, hit the "alt" key and you can bring back the menu bar with "File, Edit, View, Tools, Help".

As for #6 - I can see how it would be, but most consumers don't use remote desktop or have the need to run everything in a 64bit mode. If I recall, there's a TomsHardware guide that shows a comparison of 64bit OS and appliations vs their 32bit counterparts - not that much of a difference. Vista Basic is pretty much XP Home - as it has no Aero, you don't get that unless you have Vista Premium, at the least. The reason most people won't need BitLocker (Only version that doesn't have it is Home Basic). Vista also comes with MediaCenter. It's very multimedia orientated.

In any case, this is a never ending debate about which is better, and honestly, it depends on the user. My honest opinion about Vista - it's okay. If you don't need DX10, you'll be fine using XP and there's no reason to upgrade, yet.

 

I don't think Vista is terrible in the sense of what its trying to do.

And yes you can switch to "classic" but then that defeats the whole way they designed vista to be.. its sad when you have to switch back to a classic style for any of it to make sense.

 

People switch to classic all the time in XP, I don't see how it's different or wrong to do so.

 

I understand that, but does switching to classic in Vista change the whole interface where if you right click on the background and goto properties will it display something similar to this:


or this:



That whole thing is one of the most frustrating changes from xp to vista for me.
Not because it looks different.. but because the vista version has that screen PLUS it opens an entirely new screen depending on what option you select instead of having it all on one screen.

 

Yeah, that screen is very different, but once you browse through it a few times, it's pretty simple. It probably makes more sense to someone who has never used a computer before than to someone who is used to XP.

 

MS is great. just simple and easy to use. i dont see what is so bad about it.

 

I guess this thread shows how well Microsoft is doing in the OS side of things.

Before, a mac user would rip and rip on win95. There wouldn't be much of an arguement. Now, mac users can try to rip and rip, but it's not as valid anymore. The products work, and are more stable than ever.

 

Its not the navigating part that bothers me.. its the fact that so many windows get opened for simple crap.


^No. OS X is much more stable than Vista. IMO always will be as long as Apple makes their OS and computers to conform with each other... Windows gets slapped on so many different brand computers and hardware there is no way to make it completely stable.

 

He wasn't necessarily saying that Vista is more stable than OS X. What he was saying though is that Vista is more stable than previous versions of Microsoft OS's. I'm not taking either side on this though as I really don't know if it is or isn't, just adding for clarification purposes.

 

^^My experience with Vista is that XP with SP2 is more stable currently.
But I also have maybe 20 hours of use on Vista. So I could be wrong.