As someone who uses Windows Vista practically daily, I've always wondered where all the negativity in the media comes from. Sure, Vista isn't perfect (as if any operating system is), but I just don't see where all the complaints are coming from. It runs just fine on my old (6 years) machine, all my software and hardware is compatible, and it's stable as a rock. Microsoft has been wondering the same thing, and after a little test, they may have found out why people seem to dislike Vista so much.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-11
My guess is that one of the reasons "Mojave" got positive feedback was that no one promised the users it would "revolutionize the way you work with computers".
They probably also didn't get to see this first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y to get their hopes up.
And finally, they probably didn't have to wait for a few years before getting to try it out.
Vista isn't bad, and in my opinion it's probably the best from Microsoft so far, but you're not going to make people happy with something good (a few years late) if you promised them something wonderful.
Microsoft's biggest problem with Vista is their own marketing who managed to make people upset with something that actually isn't bad.
Member since:2007-03-26
Or it might be because Microsoft controlled the experiment. Users weren't shown the daily complaints about Vista but instead were fast-tracked to the eye candy et al.
Like when I show Linux off to my mates - I don't go "look at me load a Windows wifi driver through the command line" but instead i show them Compiz-Fusion with applications popping out of a rotating cube and windows wobbling as I drag them from one side of the screen to another.
Member since:2007-09-17
IMHO Vista sucked but Vista SP1 is far better. It is not still as stable as XP SP2 but it is much better. I have only had explorer hang on me twice in 2-3 months and outlook hang once. On XP, they never hung in 2-3 years.
I was the one who was forced by my employer to upgrade and as a developer I was really skeptical. But now that I have used vista for few months, I don't think I would go back. The whole experience of Vista is better and the code is much more readable on Vista due to better fonts + rendering.
Edit: Btw one tool without which I wouldn't have liked vista is "vistaglazz". This allowed me to keep transparency enabled when applications are maximized since I always keep my apps maximized and I hated the black border original vista does. Maximized apps are one reason I never liked OSX. Why force these choices on user, I never understand.
Edited 2008-07-24 23:52 UTC
Member since:2006-08-14
Member since:2006-02-05
Who doesn't do that though? Apple's ad campeigns are made to make you feel smarter and cooler then your neighbours, hell, firefox 3 claims to give you a whole new internet.
Member since:2007-01-04
General rules of thumb:
The word "then" is always related to time.
"It happened then."
"Back then, things were better quality."
The word "than" is always related to comparisons.
"It was better than yesterday."
"Back then, things were better quality than they are today."
Edited 2008-07-25 08:27 UTC
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:2005-08-07
google_ninja said...
I was with you until you brought in Firefox....
Go ahead and download the latest Firefox. Install it and head over to addons.mozilla.org and install the following extensions:
Adblock Plus
Adblock Element Hider
No Squint
Stylish
OPTIONAL:
No Script
CustomizeGoogle
BugMeNot
After you get all that done, and selected a few basic lists for adblock Plus to use, hit up userstyles.org for some of your favorite sites to see how different they can be!
If that isn't a whole new internet, I don't know what is!
--bornagainpenguin
Member since:2006-02-05
FF3 fixed some of the most glaring of bugs in the browser, but there is absolutely nothing the least bit revolutionary in it, which is how it was billed. Like it or not, IE has a more innovative interface then firefox, Opera has a huge laundry list of innovative features that firefox doesn't have, and Safari has an incredibly clean code base and very fast rendering.
FF has above average javascript support and its plugins, but the plugins in general are very poorly written, which makes the already bloated and buggy app consume even more memory and become less stable. That leaves the javascript, which doesn't even really matter unless you are using objective-j or sproutcore apps every day.
Member since:2005-07-05
I agree with you.
I think Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot with Vista. Probably 20% of the things people hate about Vista are technological and 80% were caused by marketing. However, that 20% is stuff that stares you in the face on a daily basis.
I know this is a small thing, but the thing that pisses me off most about Vista whenever I have to use it is the sidebar disappears when you click the "Show Desktop" button in the Start bar. The Sidebar should be part of the desktop and be there when you show the desktop. The current functionality is just wrong. Maybe you can configure it somewhere, but this is the default behavior and I don't use Windows enough to want to learn how to tweak it.
There are a lot of other things like that too. Vista is a decent OS, but there's just a lot of stuff that was poorly thought out from a usability standpoint, I think.
Member since:
2005-06-30
And I'll tell you why. I've been using Vista since November the very first reason I hate Vista is the double-prompting in UAC.
I download a FOSS utility and extract it to a folder under my temp directory. After determining that I like it I want to copy it to My \Program Files\Util directory. Now windows explorer prompts me with a "You need Admin privileges" to do this. I saw OK. Now UAC darkens my screen with the actual elevation prompt.
This is just one example but there are tons of scenarios that cause this crap. You have to elevate to do this, ok or cancel? UAC here, do you want to elevate, ok or cancel? Don't harass me twice! Just skip to the UAC prompt.
Second royal PITA is there is no way to trust an unsigned utility. I've got tons of these handy FOSS utilities and every single damned time I run one Vista UAC has to darken my screen and ask me if I'm sure. Yes, for hells sake, I've used this utility 100 times now. There really needs to be a "Yes and don't ask again for this executable" option.
I have more legitimate complaints, but these two are royal PITAs.
Member since:2005-11-15
Member since:2005-06-30
Let me see if I get this right, you want me to like Vista by disabling it's main security feature? I don't want a totally unsecured OS, I just don't want to be repeatedly harassed for the same thing over and over again. I want to the option to say "yes and don't ask for this one program again". And that's not even mentioning things like file copies where it prompts me twice every action. First explorer and then UAC.
I bet the Mojave participants weren't shown repeated authorization pop-ups for the same blessed task over and over.
Member since:2006-02-05
Right click the folder, choose properties. Choose the security tab, and click "Edit". If your user is in the list, give him/her full control. If not, click "Add". Enter your user name and click "Check" to make sure it can figure it out, and it isn't ambiguous. Click OK on everything to close it.
Alternately, you can open a command prompt as admin, and type "icacls <path to folder you want access to> /grant username:F /T". If you want to run the command in a non-elevated prompt, be sure to wrap it in double quotes, and stick a "runas /user:username" in the front.
The windows security model is very powerful, but it is also incredibly complected (imo too complecated for home users). IMO it is pretty much required knowledge though for anyone who wants an even marginally secure machine.
Member since:2005-06-30
Member since:2006-12-16
Yes, but I would NOT recommend doing that - the whole point of UAC is increasing the security of the system. We shouldn't be encouraging people to turn UAC off, but rather educate them on why it's there, why it's needed, and what it does. UAC is not that bad, I get the odd prompt here and there (which mirrors everyone else that I've spoken to about Vista in my circle of friends), but it's quick, easy to approve and voila.
The *real* problem is that there are simply far too many people using computers who simply are idiots and shouldn't be allowed within cooee of one. I mean, do you let any old idiot drive a car without first getting a licence? Nope.
Dave
Member since:2006-02-15
Let me see if I got this right. Your primary reason for hating Vista is UAC, which takes a grand total of about thirty seconds and a restart to disable? People seem to be trying very hard to find a good reason to hate Vista.
What good is UAC if it's disabled? That's one of the primary selling points of Vista, if you disable it you're no better in that regards than using XP.
Member since:2005-06-30
Microsoft reassures me (through their marketing and blog posts) that all my troubles with UAC are just misunderstood. Sure it pops up a lot in the beginning, they say, but just wait a week and it will subside.
Total BS. UAC continues to prompt (often repeatedly) for actions throughout the life of the OS unless you totally disable it. You want to know why people hate Vista, well this is one reason.
Member since:2008-03-17
wrong!
You need to restart/logoff to get rid of it proper...so it does take time or is a hassle 'cos then you have to close all your programs and do the whole windows business when you change system settings.
Not to mention one shouldn't have to...
I have no beef with uac itself, just the way it presents itself:
-2 nags when 1 should do the trick
-screen frozen under the darkened tint (hello! compositing??)
-the tint is totally unecessary anyways (flickers when switching)
-no way to provide trusted programs
-no fine grained way to set uac privileges
Edited 2008-07-25 01:13 UTC
Member since:2008-02-17
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-30
I've seen that arrogant statement. But this has nothing to do with 3rd party devs requiring admin rights access. I get harassed any time I run any third-party app that hasn't been digitally signed even if no admin rights at all are in play. And I can never tell vista that I trust that particular application and to stop asking.
I think MS was more interested in annoying users to get them to shift away from F/OSS programs that don't have the infrastructure to digitally sign all their tools.
Member since:2006-12-16
The reason why you can't say "yes, and don't ask me again" is because the next time it comes up, it might be caused by something malicious.
I've been using Vista for the past 5 weeks and I love it - looks brilliant, stable, fast (very fast actually), reliable - it *just* works. And I'm using the 64 bit version, which supposedly has more problems than you can poke a stick at.
UAC is not a major issue at all, certainly no worse than dropping to a terminal in Linux and having to su or sudo to gain root access.
If you're going to whinge about something, then at least whinge about something that's worth while.
Dave
Member since:2005-06-30
Are you serious? I'm not saying it should never ask again about anything, but give me the option to say I trust this executable. It's like saying "you're trying to use an unsigned grep, do you trust it?" and then five minutes later "you're trying to use an unsigned grep, do you trust it?", and again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.
Member since:2005-07-06
[q]The reason why you can't say "yes, and don't ask me again" is because the next time it comes up, it might be caused by something malicious.[/quote]
Did you read the whole request, he wants it on a per-application basis. What is so hard about UAC running an md5 against the exe file in question, store the result of that exe so that the next time it is loaded it is just a matter of a quick check against the stored md5 to see if it is the same exe - and allow the application to run?
Geeze, I thought of a solution just then that addresses the fundamental problem and the perceived security implications in under a minute. It isn't rocket science - just good old fashioned commonsense.
Member since:2007-02-27
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!
First example:
1. user executes destroy.exe: UAC prompt, user clicks on "always consent"
2. malware executes destroy.exe, no prompt because the exe is the same.
-> you're pwned!
Second example:
1. user changes a firewall rule: UAC prompt, user clicks on "always consent"
2. malware changes a firewall rule, no prompt because the firewall configurator executable is the same.
-> you're pwned!
Third example:
1. user copies a file in c:\windows using windows explorer: UAC prompt, user clicks on "always consent"
2. malware copy a trojan in c:\windows, no prompt because the copy command executable or the explorer.exe is the same.
-> you're pwned!
Edited 2008-07-25 08:31 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!
First example:
1. user executes destroy.exe: UAC prompt, user clicks on "always consent"
2. malware executes destroy.exe, no prompt because the exe is the same.
-> you're pwned!
Incorrect. End user loads it once, knows that it is an application he or she wants to use on a constant basis - heck, it could be their very own application they've written.
If you do an md5, compare the result of the stored one to the one done at the execution of the application - if malware has through some way replaced the legitimate file with something bad - the md5 comparison will fail and a warning along the lines of "exe has failed security check, file possibly compromised, excution haulted".
1. user changes a firewall rule: UAC prompt, user clicks on "always consent"
2. malware changes a firewall rule, no prompt because the firewall configurator executable is the same.
-> you're pwned!
Third example:
1. user copies a file in c:\windows using windows explorer: UAC prompt, user clicks on "always consent"
2. malware copy a trojan in c:\windows, no prompt because the copy command executable or the explorer.exe is the same.
-> you're pwned!
If you are going to compare, don't be dishonest and quote only the first half; the issue was addressing a specific question; the specific question was a specific executable file. It didnot involve file copying, it didn't involve anything else. It involved running one piece of software and the contious asking whether its ok to run it because it isn't signed.
The issue has NOTHING to do with UAC, because it isn't UAC querying the end user. This security check exists on Windows XP to; if you choose to run something downloaded via the internet from the download window - when one clicks on 'open', one is faced with the same question.
Edited 2008-07-25 09:36 UTC
Member since:2006-12-16
Member since:
2007-03-26
It's pretty easy to "wow" your audience if you only show them the bits that work and have complete control over the hardware.
Even I initially went "wow" when I used Aero for the 1st time. However the novelty quickly wore off when when I came face-to-face with the UAC, the poor file transfer times and the completely rearraged control pannel with hyperlinks all over the place (to name but 3 of my Vista peeves).
XP and Linux both more than exceed my requirements (and do it quicker than Vista) so, thank you Microsoft, but I'll pass off this "upgrade".
Edited 2008-07-24 22:32 UTC
Member since:2006-01-06
Here's an EXCELLENT utility which allows you to interactively turn UAC on and off:
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,67530-order,1-page,1/desc...
Poor file transfers were addressed in Vista SP1:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsvista/en/library/005f921e-f706...
Switch to "Classic" view. Bring up the control panel and look on the left-hand side of the Window to toggle between views.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-08
You know. You just have to encourage people to try this new version that its SO much faster....and guess what? People will try it and say that its SO faster.
Even if theres NO change in the new version.
It's called placebo effect. Make people think that they're getting something better, and they'll think it's better. Apparently Microsoft want us to think that Vista is good trying with us the placebo effect. Except that in the real world, you can't use the placebo, only vista is left.
The fact is that vista sucks. A friend of mine did buy a new notebook. 1GB of ram. Not only he can't use Aero, the less power-hungry graphic system is also slow. Opening a explorer window can take seconds (with processor set to use the maximum performance). Many times things take ages and hit the disk like mad. And there's no extra programs installed, there's not even an antivirus installed (no, it doesn't have virus). It takes ages to bootup. Programs like paint have almost not been updated since windows 3.x (seriously, who wants to pay a license to use the same program recompiled for the new system). The usability of everything related with the new "network center" is awful. There're several dialogs with 9x usability still being used (see "Carpet Options"). The browser-paradigm (back/next arrows) of the control center and other places is ugly aswell IMO. The new features, like the integrated search, are not used in programs like notepad, which keeps the old search dialog from 9x days.
In general, you could say that they have a lot of problems related with "we-want-to-use-new-UI-conventions-but-we-won't-update-most-of-the-O S-GUI-because-people-only-knows-the-conventions-of-w9x"
Seriously, I don't see how people can like vista. I imagine that people that can handle big amounts of shit could get used to it, but I don't think many of us are like that. Vista makes me want to use Ubuntu, and dude, that's a huge problem considering how much the linux desktop still sucks.
Edited 2008-07-24 22:34 UTC
Member since:2007-11-24
RE: Indeed, a little lie
RE[2]: Indeed, a little lie
Member since:2007-08-29
I'll bite. Aside from media production and running high-end games, name one thing you can't do.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of an operating system requiring 2 (or even 1) GB to work properly. What does it do that requires that amount of memory?
Not bashing vista here -- never used it, no opinion, and yes, ram is cheap. I'm just... puzzled.
Edited 2008-07-25 04:50 UTC
RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie
Member since:2006-03-05
Member since:2007-03-26
Its not 8 years ago people, wake up and buy some ram, its cheap! REAL cheap.
That's absolute rubbish. XP runs just fine on 512MB RAM (I've even got audio sequencers and real time VJ packagers running on a 512MB XP machine).
My works XP machine runs even less RAM than that and I have a full array of Oracle database tools and MSOffice running on it.
As for Linux, that was designed to run on very little RAM. I have a file and web server running on 512MB RAM and never once needed to even consider upgrading it.
Granted you probably wouldn't want to run Compiz on a machine that old, but then most of Compiz is just eye-candy rather than genuine interface improvments. Vista wouldn't even load on 512MB RAM even with the eye-candy turned off.
So don't tell me that 1GB isn't enough for XP and Linux when both those OSs /HAD/ to survive on that little RAM not more than 4 years back.
In fact, the only part of your statement that was true was how cheap RAM is, but then I don't see that as an excuse for forced into upgrading because Microsoft release an inefficient OS. It's their cock up and you're telling me I have to foot the bill (regardless of how cheap or expensive that might be).
Member since:2005-09-21
I suppose you missed the part where I cant do much with windows or linux with less than 1gb of ram. And since the topic was about Vista, I assumed I didnt have to specify, but apparely people attack and insert thier own experience at will if you dont spell it out to them. And in linux, I compile everything, openoffice runs very healthy on system resources as it is, get java kicking with firefox, and your 512mb is looking bleak indeed. Again, I cant do much with less than 1gb, thats good for you if you can.
Edited 2008-07-25 08:43 UTC
Member since:2006-07-15
They didn't release an ineffecient operating system, they decided to include features which require more ram, since they made the call that people would probably have more ram these days..
You can't surely believe that every operating system should have the same requirements as its previous version?
I actually want something to take advantage of the hardware I bought!
Member since:2005-07-06
[q]Your friend got a new laptop, with only 1gb and that's Microsoft's fault how? Several things here - most onboard laptop video cards are weaker than wet cardboard. 1gb of RAM? XP struggled with that in all honesty, and you expect Vista to happily crawl along with that?
Let me spell-it-out-for-you - how about friggen blaming the damn well laptop manufacturer for being a tightass and ONLY giving 1gb of RAM? [/quote]
Microsoft gives out the 'compatible with Windows Vista' logo - it is based on what Microsoft demands the system to have before it can get the logo. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from upping the specifications and thus force the companies to increase the default amount of memory installed.
Microsoft could tomorrow, if they wanted, up the minimum specifications for Windows Vista compatible to 2GB if they wanted. The problem is that they're sucking on the OEM tit rather than being honest with their customer base and saying, "Windows Vista has higher system requirements, and in fairness, anything less than 2GB, the system will run like crap". The only people who would piss and moan would be the OEM's.
Member since:2006-12-16
True, but what is stopping the new potential owner from actually getting off their backsides and doing some research and getting a laptop that ships with 2gb? It's not hard. It goes back to my earlier comments in many posts that far too many people are using computers who should simply not be allowed to do so. I hear horror tales every single day in my job, and nearly all of them caused by customer stupidity. They make life hard for themselves, and a lack of computer education (or, as in most cases, no interest in learning more about computers), means that this will remain so.
Sure, Microsoft does have the vista certified logo, and they have been naughty there, I agree.
Dave
Member since:2005-09-21
Eh no use man, they will bash windows because they can. Most of em piping in even admitting to never "upgrading" to Vista, and relying on heresay. I think it bothers them so deeply that some people do like it so badly that they have to bury and hide comments to the contrary of they're opinion.
I use linux, and vista, and love them both. They both do what I want them to do. I researched and purchased my hardware to coincide with my software use. Most people dont, and want to be angry when it blows up on them. Then others think your being unrealistic when you say that requirements are they way they are.
The world exists outside your computer people, there are many factors that add to memory usage.
Your base install may use 100MB of ram less than another users based on drivers alone. Just because you say "meh my computer has less than 1gb of ram and its fine" equals nothing in the Real world. Most general computer users will find a much higher usage than you and me just because they do not trim things down, and install dozens of programs they don't use but wanted to "try" out.
Member since:2005-07-06
Many of them have used it though - when you have a demonstration done by a person who knows the system inside and out - they'll know how to make using it appear easy/effortless. How many people have gone to see a product being demonstrated, it appears to be easy, only to find that once you eventually get it home, its alot harder than it looks.
Apple is growing at record pace right now (43% unit growth) - if it were a fear of the unknown or the different interface then Apple wouldn't be growing. If people are happy to leave Windows and learn a totally new system, you really have to ask yourself whether there is merit in the 'loathing' of Windows Vista.
The world exists outside your computer people, there are many factors that add to memory usage.
Your base install may use 100MB of ram less than another users based on drivers alone. Just because you say "meh my computer has less than 1gb of ram and its fine" equals nothing in the Real world. Most general computer users will find a much higher usage than you and me just because they do not trim things down, and install dozens of programs they don't use but wanted to "try" out.
True; most importantly, people who are here don't represent mainstreet. People here maybe represent the top 5-10% of society in terms of computer knowledge and understanding. To claim that someone can do all the tweaking and get it working correctly ignores that the 90% of people out there don't have a clue.
They use what is installed on their computer - that is why Symantec want their software to be loaded, it banks on the ignorance of the end user to get scared into purchasing by the tactics of Symantec's warnings when one tries to avoid purchasing or choosing to uninstall it.
Member since:2006-12-16
The major issue with Vista is several fold:
1. Some stability issues upon initial release
2. New UI (not all of the new UI is smartly done either I do admit)
3. Very bad press - and this is the big one. Nearly all of the computer press unreasonably bagged Vista, without adequate proof or reasoning. Sadly, most people are blind idiots, and they 100% believe what the press says instead of trying themselves.
4. Exceptionally bad efforts from 3rd party software vendors on updating their existing software to use the new Vista based security model. They wanted to save money, stick to existing insecure methods of coding their crappy software, rather than do the changes as was needed.
5. Same as point 4, but with driver vendors. Even worse, many driver vendors just simply said tough shit to its loyal users and refused to produce Vista drivers at all (Creative anyone?).
You simply cannot blame Microsoft for this. I mean, let's look at it from a Linux angle. Driver vendors don't provide drivers, it's their fault. Substitute Linux with Microsoft, and suddenly it's Microsoft's fault. What idiotic lack of logical reasoning allows this type of thought process? Expecting hardware manufacturers to open up their code is absolutely unreasonable. It is THEIR product. Period.
As to the gentleman who advised me to give it up, yes, you're right - most people here will just blindly mod you down, not because the post is inaccurate, but simply because they disagree with you, or are pro Linux and like to bash anyone who writes anything good about a Microsoft product. Hey guys, Server 2008 is looking REALLY good - I'm sure that'll add to Linux' falling server numbers (yes, Server 2003 did a lot of damage to the Linux numbers in the server field, and rightly so, it's a good product). Microsoft isn't perfect, but then neither is Linux. Both have their uses, and both are good operating systems. Both have weaknesses. Ignoring one operating systems weaknesses and bagging the other one is really not right. It's not a balanced argument.
As an aside - Debian GNU/Linux install on my current PC - 10+ hours. Windows Vista? Done in under 2 hours, and that included 3rd party drivers, 3rd party software etc. Vista has so far proved to be far easier to maintain, and visually looks far nicer than Linux I might add (even with composite turned on etc).
Dave
Member since:2007-06-16
I just love reading you guys rants. It gets me going in the morning!
Regarding your friend and the laptop, I bought my son a 1GB laptop, with an underpowered processor, inbedded graphic card, (I only paid $380), and it runs Vista and Aero just fine. I have used Vista since Beta 2 and it has worked very well since then on old machines, old video cards and 1GB of memory.
So, you see, you are a liar or don't really know what you are doing.
By the way, yesterday, I booted my version of Suse 11, and it had dozens of needed updates but guess what, the wireless would not work. There is always something wrong with whatever Linux version I use that keeps it on the toy section of my house.
If you want to learn a few things, read Ed Botts article about updates in Windows and Linux. You might be surprise, but maybe you won't.
In the end, all OS's have their own problems
Member since:2007-02-17
Regarding your friend and the laptop, I bought my son a 1GB laptop, with an underpowered processor, inbedded graphic card, (I only paid $380), and it runs Vista and Aero just fine. I have used Vista since Beta 2 and it has worked very well since then on old machines, old video cards and 1GB of memory.
So, you see, you are a liar or don't really know what you are doing.
By the way, yesterday, I booted my version of Suse 11, and it had dozens of needed updates but guess what, the wireless would not work. There is always something wrong with whatever Linux version I use that keeps it on the toy section of my house.
If you want to learn a few things, read Ed Botts article about updates in Windows and Linux. You might be surprise, but maybe you won't.
In the end, all OS's have their own problems
If you buy hardware designed to have Linux pre-installed on it, you won't have these problems. Everything will work. Manufacturers shouldn't be selling you pre-installed Linux on machines with Broadcom wireless chips, for example, when an Intel wireless chip works perfectly.
Most people would only buy a machine with Vista pre-installed, they wouldn't expect to be able to roll-their-own Vista machine. Do the same courtesy for Linux and you will get similar or better results than for Vista ... every time. Guaranteed.
Member since:2005-07-06
Most people would only buy a machine with Vista pre-installed, they wouldn't expect to be able to roll-their-own Vista machine. Do the same courtesy for Linux and you will get similar or better results than for Vista ... every time. Guaranteed.
Unfortunately if you want an AMD based laptop, 9/10 you're stuck with a Broadcom wireless chip. I do remember, however, seeing an Acer Aspire with an atheros chipset in it, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
I don't want to go off on much of a tangent, but this the reason I would never purchase an AMD machine - the stupid management decision they made to team up with Broadcom instead of Atheros. If AMD really cared about opensource they wouldn't be aligning themselves with such assholes who refuse to to work with opensource developers.
Member since:2007-09-04
I found the same thing with a Vista laptop I bought (dual-core, 1 GB RAM). Ran like a turd, an all the other Vista frustrations and crashes made me phone up the mfr. (HP). They eventually told me (if you can believe this) to try installing Ubuntu (as they refused to give me XP). Installed (K)ubuntu, and no more problems.
I am sure that if Microsoft had instead told users to try the NEW IMPROVED WINDOWS MOJAVE (Ubuntu in disguise, running Compiz) they would have gotten much better testimonies from their participants.
Member since:
2006-01-07
Yeasterday I thought why not look for myself what Vista is made of. Well... It has nice face. But it is not a women I could accept all its shortages;)
It takes way too long to install and way too many reboots are needed to acomplish this task. It didn't find internet line instantly, like ALL my tested LiveCDs did. Other problems, I guess, were connected with fact, it was on VirtualBox and not on real machine. But I guess with 2GB RAM and 128MB v. video card Solitaire should not become like Quake 4 on Pentium II...
Member since:
2006-07-16
There is nothing newsworthy here. What we're seeing is a phenomenon that occurs will all manner of products every day! Why do you think so many products get new packaging every other year and the label "new and improved"? To bring back customers who might have switched due to some perceived flaw with the product. In most cases, nothing significant has changed and the product is basically the same. Furthermore, most people will believe what they're told (especially if the media tells them) without question. This is the so called "sheeple" syndrome that's rampant these days. Frankly, I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't taken advantage of this already. They could have slapped a new theme on Vista and called it Vista Second Edition - New and improved and people would have eaten it right up.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2008-04-15
"you can polish a turd but it will still be a turd"
i think the point of this experiment isn't proving that vista is okay. it's that everyone in test groups is an idiot.
i'd install vista over xp any day, people who hate vista without actually using it are going to do what they're told in any experiment.
it's like teaching a parrot how to talk. it mimics and doesn't have an understanding of what it's actually saying.
Member since:2005-07-06