Posted on 02/29/2008 6:33:47 AM PST by raybbr
Any machine capable of running full-boat Vista will still run more quickly and responsively with XP or Windows 2003 on it. Vista is just a bloated, resource-intensive dog.
I’m with you (still using 98). I have one annoying problem. When I try to open movie files that I receive in e-mails, an error box appears that says, “STUDIO.EXE can not be found.” I can live with it. Whenever I see the windows logo on an attached file, I know that I cannot open it, so I just delete the message.
I’m not a Microsoft fan boy, but I agree with your assessment of this lawsuit.
“OEMs and customers themselves have some responsibility to be less dense than a rock. Minimum system requirements have never meant that if you have that system it will run that software well, and with all the features enabled.
Greedy trial lawyers have gotten way out of control under our screwed up court system.”
I have Win XP running on an Athlon 64 box I put together and I won’t go to Vista. I have multi boot and can do XP 32; XP 64 and Ubuntu. I do XP 32 most often as my apps that I use most are on that partition.
I’ve been using Vista for four months on three machines. Works just fine.
The same complaints have been made here on FR all the way back to the "new" Windows 98.
Kobe Tai couldn't make some of these guys happy.
No, but it will make your Pentium 4 into one.
I have found Vista to be rather ho-hum. The added features are no great thing. They are much ado about nothing, including the security. I still get spyware in my testing, and I have had three naturally infected Vista boxen cross my bench so far- All that with UAC and all other safety features turned on.
Likewise, While everyone seem to be howling at the moon about major troubles, I have not found many problems either. A few peripherals needing driver updates, a few networking issues, particularly with wireless connections, but no really spectacular failures whatsoever.
My biggest impression is one of irritation, particularly wrt silly rearrangements of directory structures, renaming of control panel items, and useless changes to common tasks and operations designed to be more intuitive, I suppose, but succeeding only as a sure way to piss me off, and causing a lot more help desk type calls that seriously eat up my time.
We're happy fore you Bill, but the fact remains that vast numbers of people see no advantage over XP. Throw in the fact that it is infected with DRM and there's just no reason to use it. I hope they lose a ton of money and continue suffer humiliation as people refuse to "upgrade" and get it right next time, minus the DRM.
Speaking of indescribably bad software, has anyone else had a look at the software for Zune. No words in the language are adequate. You have to see it for youself.
Debian did.
I put Vista on this machine and still no problems.
Of course it will. That's been true of most every upgrade of Windows.
Vista's Aero offers some nice features. The desktop is much more scalable to different resolutions. There are lots of ways in which it is a little more aesthetically pleasing.
However, it takes more processing power to provide those features.
For top end systems, it's not a large portion of that system's processing power. For low end systems, it is very significant.
However, the processing power of computers being sold doubles roughly every 18 months.
If you're buying a new computer and Vista's features offer benefits that you want, buy it. If you have an older computer, I would recommend sticking with XP.
If you're buying a bargain, low end laptop with integrated video, I'd recommend staying away from Vista.
Consumers need to try and figure out what is best for them by educating themselves, or by finding someone more knowledgeable to help them.
However, people shouldn't be able to sue just because they bought something that didn't suit their needs, even though information that would have helped them make a better decision was available.
If Vista doesn't suit their needs, consumers should just not buy it. If a computer that comes with Vista on it isn't the best choice for them, they should buy a different one. If the retailer loads Vista on everything they sell for simplicity sake, buy from a different retailer. If that isn't a viable option, then I guess they will have to decide if they really want that particular computer bad enough to buy it with Vista, and then load a different OS on it later.
The choice should be theirs. However, they should NOT be able to sue simply because they didn't get the particular choice they wanted for the price they wanted.
Nope.
You guy have this all wrong. This isn’t desperation. MS is offering this price reduction because the volume on Vista is so high the manufacturing costs have come down... :-)
Smartest thing anyone inflicted with Vista could do.
On the other hand, the clock works fairly well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.