Ouch. Don't you think that was a little harsh? I understand that I may not notice it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. I guess my point was, from a consumer's point of view, if it doesn't make their computing experience notably better...why bother? I'm not going to move this particular machine to XP...but neither do I feel any compelling reason to move any of my other machines to Vista.
Well...if we're going to pick nits, to be honest, Win95 met my "requirements" just fine. Other than the fact that it was ridiculously unstable and had inscalable hardware support. If XP 64-bit had gained a foothold, and got good support from hardware & software vendors , I'd be doing that. But it didn't, so I'm not using it. Vista seems OK for the most part. I just had that one wacky experience. Otherwise, it seems to be essentially the same as XP - which is to say it's fine. Unobtrusive. And really, as a developer, to say that a product is unobtrusive is pretty high praise.
Actually, you are right... If Windows XP works great for you, there's no real need to "upgrade". I used both XP and Vista and I found that they are pretty much alike in that when they were first launched, they were buggy and unstable. Both took a Service Pack update to become stable. Feature-wise, AeroGlass, the video preview, DX10, etc. are all new features in Vista, but again, if you don't need them, there's no need to upgrade.
meh, people keep arguing between this 2 windows :/..maybe not all user will notice that some feature actually enhance the window performance though (superfetch, it works by putting most of the stuff we usually run into the ram temp. works prefectly for most games, thats what i notice when i use Vista ^-^d )Well, if you don't like Vista then by all means just use the Windows that you used to ...Dx10.1 rocks ..so does..lets see...Aero XD...(UAC kinda kick ass at times...)
The best thing that came out of Vista is UAC. But no many seems to get it. UAC should see the real light in Windows 7 if the Beta 1 is any indication.
Wait till you guys start using Linux, then you will understand why. In OpenSUSE, you have to type in the admin password everytime you change any system settings, and that includes installing software. It can help to prevent many security problems. Ubuntu is even worse, it disables 'root' access by default! That's what I heard anyway.
Well, Ubuntu sort of implements the 'sudo' way of doing things so yea, same as any linux distros today, any system change requires you to enter your password high security is never convenient, you'd just have to live with one of the other.
I found out when I installed Vista on my pc, its features are very nice but I think my system goes a slower.
Pinkycook: get more ram for Vista, it's worth it. 4GB is so CHEAP now! TBH, I personally think that Vista is the 1st worthy OS from Microsoft. Sure, launch day stability was weak, but as for intuitiveness, it's actually pretty decent. UAC is useful for regular users, and at least it's much more user friendly than Linux's Sudo or SU commands. The search capabilities for Vista is so deeply ingrained into the OS, i just can't live without it now. No more need to organize the start menu, just search. As we start to get used to the idea of tagging our files with useful taxonomies, I suspect eventually, we won't even care about organizing folders into folders! Much like storing unstructured data in a content server. As for visuals, yea, it's nowhere near where OS X, or even Compiz for Linux is. But do I really need those visuals? Maybe just to show off. No?
same here bro. same here The only time i do is to check and see if it's there. Remember the days when we'd always explorer the start menu and rearrange everything so that it's all organized? LOL.
I tried, doesn't work for me. Maybe I disabled indexing. Like I said, not a big fan. Memory consuming.
I have no use for any interface other than All Programs. Seriously, using the search feature to find a program?! I hope you're kidding. After a while Vista totally freaked out on me and was running the hard drive at 100% utilization for no reason at all...did some research and turned off ReadyBoost and one other thing, and it went back to normal. And while that was a minor annoyance for me, the chances of the average Joe figuring that out and knowing how to get to startup processes and disable them is essentially zero...I still don't get Vista. Which isn't to say that, at the moment, it isn't working fine - it is working fine. But it occasinoally does such stupid things, and provides exactly zero benefit over XP, that I can't find any reason other than large RAM support (like my other box I just built with 8Gb of RAM) to use it...and that's just out of necessity. Crossing my fingers and hoping that Windows 7 will have compelling reasons to use it.
Well, in order to effectively use search is to have indexing running and a fair amount of RAM. Searching without indexing is HELL. No point doing it at all. So, here's an argument for you. Say you have 4GB of RAM (which I'm sure you all do...some even have 8!) which would you prefer... 1. the PC maximizing all 4GB of RAM being used to perform tasks and get things running faster (let's ignore how efficient the OS can swap mem allocations around based on task priorities for now) 2. a lot of unutilized RAM = free memory available. Personally, like how we used to maximize CPU cycles to SETI@Home of fold some protiens, I'd like my RAM that I pay for to be used as much as possible ALL the time. Yes, Windows sucks when it comes to memory management and allocations. It's been pretty bad at releasing ram to other apps that needs it more and all those out-of-memory nightmares. But interestingly, although XP was an improvement (but not good enough! that's why we always want lots of free memory available), Vista is a vast improvement at this area. No I'm not saying it's perfect. But now, I don't have to worry if my ram is 98% used and I go and kick up Photoshop. It loads just fine and Vista happily allocates the required amount of RAM to Photoshop. Most of the RAM is used for putting all those indexes in memory as well as for readyboost or whatever other caching routines that's within Vista. I'm cool with that. How you ever seen a database server use less that 50% of available RAM? No way, performance is faster if more data is residing in RAM than directly being access on the disk. anyways. My argument is this. memory consumption is NOT always a bad thing. As long as it's used to speed up general usage of the system (searching especially) and does not impact loading apps that needs lots of RAM. Windows 7 would probably have more such "memory consuming" features I'm sure. Especially so if the RDB-inspired WinFS ever gets released.
I actually like the high ram usage in Vista. Superfetch is really nice. My usage at idle hovers around 40-50% with 2GB or 4GB. It does a very good job and when you run other programs, it will roll back the programs that are cached. I would much rather have my programs load faster than seeing 40-50% ram usage that is arbitrary on the desktop environment. I bought the RAM, I would like to see it used more often to benefit me. Makes sense right? View Vista with an open heart and you will never go back to XP (Windows 7 is teh awesome btw).
