Oh noes XP users! If you hate Vista, you'll hate Windows 7

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

mark_n_b:

God... "New versions of Windows are too hard to learn." My eyes roll.

Not really what I said. I like to have a system that I can mold to my specifications, not Microsoft's.

Hell, I'd still be using MSDOS and .bat files if I had the basic drivers; I like my OS to work for me, not against me.

I didn't upgrade to vista because spending £200 to make my hardware stop working wasn't an attractive idea and the statment that these were the same complaints leveled at XP have failed to take into account that XP got better over time due to service pack 2.
Windows 7 is built on the same system as Vista but will now have hardware/program compatability at launch so effectivly it is a re-release of Vista but without the teething problems i.e no drivers for Nvidia Sli.
Even at release I won't be getting Windows 7 because their is no benefit to being an early adopter because the tweaks and locations of those files/folders Microsoft really like to hide are still undiscovered.

I've cozied up to Vista lately, once i figured out hat installing games directly into programs files is a bad idea everthing else went along fine. I've had no problems (Besides with Graphics tablet) since getting a Vista Machine but i do miss XP, Vista was a pain in the arse to figure out, but now i've done it i just want my simplicity back that XP provided.

I hope they include DOS.
For the lulz.

Eggo:
Yeah, this program isn't real at all. Nope.

(Removed picture of a lot of program)

And shift-ctrl-esc is a lot easier to use to get to the task manager than ctrl-alt-del. But hey, that goes back to the very first point in this thread, eh?

Hmm. I never knew about ctrl+shift+esc. Nice! And after all these years of using Windows I still learn stuff.

With regards to Vista: I still run XP as I haven't had the money to buy a new computer. So I use XP, not out of spite or sheer stubbornness as it seems many do, but out of poverty. :)
If and when my new computer happens I'll be a happy Vista user. I've used XP in many years, but I see no reason to stick with it out of tradition. I'm personally looking forward to something new. It's why I try so many Linx distros. I want to see what is out there and not get stuck.
I personally remember when XP hit the street. I was furious and bitched and moaned at Microsofts new bloat ware as the moron I were. I complained about unintuitive GUI and what not. Sound familiar much? It turned out to be a solid system. But now I wanna move on.

Also, Windows 7 and release cycles. Do people expect Vista to have the same long life as XP? Really? That was an anomaly. Every other OS (or close to) has a much shorter release cycle. Ubuntu is only 6 months for crying out loud. It's only natural that Microsoft i working on something new.

J-Man:
Vista message I recently got:

"To update windows updater, you must download an update for windows updater."

Fuck.me.

Yo dawg, we heard you like updates; so we made an update for your updater so you can update while you update.

superbleeder12:

J-Man:
Vista message I recently got:

"To update windows updater, you must download an update for windows updater."

Fuck.me.

Yo dawg, we heard you like updates; so we made an update for your updater so you can update while you update.

Holy shit! There's an updater on my frickin updater, which I can use to update while I update! Dawg, I'm gonna update you!

I don't understand why so many people are having problems at upgrading their systems and going forward. I mean there used to be new Windowses in every 2-3 years and it was just normal back then.

For some reason, many people just don't want to leave XP. I've been thinking that maybe it's because they're fairly new computer users and XP is the first Windows they've used or something. And then they think that they just can't learn anything new once they've mastered XP.

I've been using Vista since SP1 (only an idiot would try a new Windows before waiting for at least one SP) and it's been working just fine. Actually it's the best Windows I've ever used (been using since 3.1). Yeah, it requires better hardware, but isn't it quite expected since it's like 5-6 years newer than XP? Besides, hardware is cheaper than ever so that's a poor excuse to me. One of the biggest arguments was the amount of memory required, I bought myself 8GB of DDR2 800 mhz memory for 150 euros. Not bad at all.

As for Windows 7, obviously Microsoft is trying to make people believe that it's somehow different and new whereas it's pretty much the same thing as Vista. It's just that the majority of users haven't even tried Vista and when they hear the name, they automatically think that it's bad and that's why just changing the name might change everything. Just little marketing.

Anyway, people can use ages old OS if they want. I definitely want to have new software that supports my new hardware and I'm not afraid of having to learn something new which is usually just a benefit.

J-Man:
Vista message I recently got:

"To update windows updater, you must download an update for windows updater."

Fuck.me.

I've seen this on Mobile OS X, Mac OS X, Symbian S60, and Maemo Linux (I'm sure Android has this as well).

Other than to possibly demonstrate your ignorance on this issue, what is your point?

Eggo:

J-Man:
Vista message I recently got:

"To update windows updater, you must download an update for windows updater."

Fuck.me.

I've seen this on Mobile OS X, Mac OS X, Symbian S60, and Maemo Linux (I'm sure Android has this as well).

Other than to possibly demonstrate your ignorance on this issue, what is your point?

My point is Windows XP never had this, while vista is a steaming peice of shit.

If you are at all running modern hardware, XP just doesn't cut it anymore. Build a SLI/Crossfire system with anything more than 2GB of RAM and then put XP on it. Watching your system memory drop is just irritating. I skipped over XP64 because it's a dead path and I don't expect it to keep getting supported in the long run. Plus the fact that Vista is now built to really access modern video cards means that UI responsiveness is infinitely better than it ever can be in earlier Windows.

I know I got stalled at trying to get through the new control panel, but after a few minutes that everything was more or less in the same tree it was in 95-XP. You just have to stop and read the links for a sec and it all starts to become familiar again. Also the Audio controls in Vista beats the pants off the XP one.

If you want a good example of the Start Menu/Run being improved, getting into Services is a hell of a lot easier than it was 4 menus deep in XP. Speaking of, there are several more things running in Vista to make give the UI more functionsIf you want to scrap for RAM do a little research (http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm, amongst others) and turn things off. The biggest monster is the Desktop Manager, but disabling that will wipe out most of the Aero functions.

I have to agree with Arach, if you run any Windows OS out of the gate you should expect some degree of quirks. I didn't touch XP until SP1 came out and I didn't get Vista until SP1 came out. People have seemed to forgotten "Win 2K works fine, XP crashes/bad drivers/takes up too much RAM." We all eventually got dragged into XP kicking and screaming and found out it did indeed work better in the long run. A big part of that is just as it is now: People started building machines with increased RAM and XP's features/bloat started to work better than they did in Win2K. The line Vista Needs 2GB Of RAM has been published over and over, and it works.

Also look up the fact that MS & Intel allowed "Vista Compatible" markings on machines that just didn't cut it. There is a nice big lawsuit about the whole thing. A lot of our first glances at Vista (and I'm just as guilty of this as anyone) were of underpowered systems trying to run all the modern conveniences MS as build into Vista.

J-Man:
My point is Windows XP never had this

Uhh...Yes it does?

Nearly all OS's have to update their updating software to comply with new infrastructure modifications and improvements.

while vista is a steaming peice of shit.

You've provided a lot of credible and interesting sources to back up your wonderful perspective. I would like to thank you on behalf of the entire internet. Do you have a blog I may subscribe to?

Eggo:

J-Man:
My point is Windows XP never had this

Uhh...Yes it does?

Nearly all OS's have to update their updating software to comply with new infrastructure modifications and improvements.

while vista is a steaming peice of shit.

You've provided a lot of credible and interesting sources to back up your wonderful perspective. I would like to thank you on behalf of the entire internet. Do you have a blog I may subscribe to?

Indeed I do. Oh, and I never came across that in Windows Xp.

No need to be so fucking hostile.

If it's a definite improvement on Vista which people unanimously shout from the heavens when it's released and not from Beta, I will upgrade.
For all other reasons and purposes, I won't care nor worry about it until I get my next computer.
This argument is the same with any video card or otherwise upgrade which I may need/want for my computer.
And I'll be getting a new computer whenever my current one breaks, or becomes inanely obsolete, whilst coinciding with an influx of spending cash.

Eggo, I would have thought you would understood by now that the majority of people aren't pissed at Vista due to it's user-un/friendlyness but because IT'S TERRIBLY INEFFICIENT.

The minimum requirements for running Windows 7 are a PC with a 1 Ghz processor, 1GB of RAM, 16 GB of disk space, 128MB of video memory and support for DX9 graphics.

And lo' and behold, it doesn't seem like it'll be getting better...

I have XP on my Desktop and Vista on my Laptop. I'm happy with both, and won't be switching to windows 7 unless it will magically turn my computer into a Ferrari.

I don't see a point in upgrading my desktop's OS until it becomes necessary for newer hardware to run, and I don't see a point in upgrading my laptop's OS ever.

If I want a performance increase, I'll spend my money on new hardware.

I don't use Vista because it is a waste of my RAM and CPU, and has some tedious, awkward compatibility issues with older games. I don't want to spend that much money for flashy UI and a few convenient features, at the expense of losing performance and increasing my desire to burn down Microsoft buildings.

That, and I don't think there's anything with XP that needs fixing.

I won't use Windows 7 because it will probably be Vista+, i.e. the advantages will be even better, but the drawbacks far, far worse.

Vista isn't a 'piece of shit', but it is far less efficient than XP.

That said, if it turns out that Windows 7 is the messiah of operating systems, I will gladly eat my words. It's just...that won't happen. It will be both better and worse than Vista.

Eggo:

Other than to possibly demonstrate your ignorance on this issue, what is your point?

...

Wow.

Could you be trying any harder to alienate us?

"OMFG CONTRADICTORY OPINION MUST AD-HOMINEM"

I never upgraded due to the amount of memory vista hogs. Anyone know how to get it to stop being such a memory binger?

Abedeus:

Nifty:

Abedeus:

4. Ctrl+Alt+Delete doesn't open the manager. It asks if you want to log out or switch users...

And open the task manager...

Yeah, but if someone is used to one ctrl+alt+delete = manager after 14 years of using Windows, it gets really annoying. And pointless.

It's only that annoying if you're that dead set on hating Vista. I manage to get by perfectly fine. And on top of that, if a game has locked up sometimes the XP task manager was useless because you couldn't minimise out, the Vista shortcut seems to over ride that.

I just wish Kensington would make proper drivers for my trackball, or better yet I wish Microsoft would make a mouse configuration tool that worked for a mouse with more than two buttons not counting the scroll wheel. Other than that I have no real problem with Vista that I did not have with XP.

I have vista and it works fine. I like it a lot more than XP.

Made by xkcd Randall Mcroe. Truth be told, he hasn't tried the Beta actually. It was just fun to poke fun at a recent news headline.
Made by xkcd Randall Mcroe. Truth be told, he hasn't tried the Beta actually. It was just fun to poke fun at a recent news headline.

maddog015:

asinann:

Failhammer:
The only game I can think of that needs Vista is Halo 2 for PC, everything else works with both.

Shadowrun, unless they gave it a DX9 patch.

Well, if you look hard enough, all the "VISTA ONLY" games have XP and DX9 patches. Some aren't official, of course, but they're out there.

If they aren't official patches, the games are still vista only. Fan patches aren't patches, they're hacks (and in many cases cause bugs or make the game unusable online.)

Since windows 7 is basically everything Vista should've been, I'll most likely upgrade. Not untill after some decent reviews and/or possible fixes of course.
The beta has been running pretty smooth and stable for me, almost like a finished product. This might be the first MS OS I'll pick up before it's first service pack.

Windows key
type in net
hit down arrow twice to select "Network and Sharing center" (for me anyway)
enter
click on "Manage Connections"

that takes less than 10 seconds and only one mouse click; good luck with that and XP

Windows key
mouse over 'connect to'
left click 'show all connections'

less than 3 seconds, only one mouse click and no typing needed at all.

The_root_of_all_evil:

mark_n_b:

God... "New versions of Windows are too hard to learn." My eyes roll.

Not really what I said. I like to have a system that I can mold to my specifications, not Microsoft's.

Hell, I'd still be using MSDOS and .bat files if I had the basic drivers; I like my OS to work for me, not against me.

Why aren't you on a custom Linux distro then?

Laughing Man:

Windows key
type in net
hit down arrow twice to select "Network and Sharing center" (for me anyway)
enter
click on "Manage Connections"

that takes less than 10 seconds and only one mouse click; good luck with that and XP

Windows key
mouse over 'connect to'
left click 'show all connections'

less than 3 seconds, only one mouse click and no typing needed at all.

If you're both finished having a pissing contest...

Windows Vista now runs all the games with no noticeable speed hit over Windows XP, while being the sole means to get DirectX 10. That makes Windows Vista the winner in my book (even though that DirectX 10 thing was clearly being forced to transition or die).

Kinda funny how often Microsoft butts up against this "your old software is good enough, stop changing, damn you" problem. For example, all the excessive pointless features in the latest versions of Microsoft Office, when we probably had everything we would ever need in an office suite 15-20 years ago. Autocorrect is currently my favorite scapegoat towards typos.

J-Man:
Indeed I do. Oh, and I never came across that in Windows Xp.

Then ask whomever takes care of your computer. Or maybe you just don't update. That's cool too.

But it happens. All updater software gets updated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Update#Versions

I think it is so strange you are so adamant about this when there are so many other actual things I could criticize about Vista.

No need to be so fucking hostile.

Aww, I thought I was just trying to post more like you in order to be more relatable to you and your style. After all, you've set such a friendly tone with gems like this:

while vista is a steaming peice of shit.

AuntyEthel:
I still use XP at home, though I've used Vista extensively at other places. Though there isn't really a massive difference, I've still never seen the point of upgrading.

However, one thing I hated with Vista was that I could never find the Run command in the start menu. I'm very used to pressing Windowskey, R, c:/d:/firefox or whatever I need to run, cause its way faster. Is there going to be Run in Win7? Or is it in Vista and I'm just being a dumbass?

Rightclick taskbar, properties, start menu tab, and click classic start menu. Run will be right over shut down. There's also an option in the custimize menu to show the run option, but you won't be able to get to it by pressing R on the new start menu.

teh_gunslinger:

Also, Windows 7 and release cycles. Do people expect Vista to have the same long life as XP? Really? That was an anomaly. Every other OS (or close to) has a much shorter release cycle. Ubuntu is only 6 months for crying out loud.

Yes but Ubuntu is freeware while Windows costs hundreds of $, € or Ł.

From a brief public consensus of the features it's looking like Windows 7 will be a must-buy for me because of one outstanding focus: the performance.

However, methinks I'll let the early adapters endure the pain and suffering of working out the kinks. If Microsoft sticks with their 3-years-after-vista schedule, we won't see it for sale until some time around November.

DragunovHUN:

teh_gunslinger:

Also, Windows 7 and release cycles. Do people expect Vista to have the same long life as XP? Really? That was an anomaly. Every other OS (or close to) has a much shorter release cycle. Ubuntu is only 6 months for crying out loud.

Yes but Ubuntu is freeware while Windows costs hundreds of $, € or Ł.

That's true. I wasn't talking cost so much as the hassle of, if you want to be "cutting edge", upgrading OS or installing from scratch and dealing with a new load of issues. My point was just that Ubuntu perhaps could change the cycle to anual updates without doing any harm.
I realise that Windows, regardless of version costs money but so does OSX. I'm no expert on Mac but as I understood it Leopard (10.5 I think) was just a glorified update of the old one (10.4 Tiger or whatever feline it was). I honestly don't see the problem in Microsft making a new OS.

Apart from that I wanna touch upon the "Are you sure you wanna do that?" feature of Vista. Until now a lot of people have been moaning about lack of secutity in XP and the fact that a lot of users run admin accounts when they really should not be doing so. When Microsoft finally implements some kind of security people bitch and moan about that as well. Come on! People mention Linux when talking about security, but no one seem to mind having to input passwords and use su(do) and what not. The UAC is not excactly bulletproof, but it may prevent some of the less computer minded users putting their head quite as far up their own ass.
Gah, now I got all ranty about an OS. Apologies.

Well after reading the whole thread, I'd like to point out that vista isn't so bad. I was once a guy filled with hate towards vista, then one day my computer died. Actually it was the onboard network chip that was fried on the mobo. I bought a new network car, since I didn't have the spare coin to buy a new motherboard. I was gonna install xp again because it became unstable, adn I had to format my hd. Next thing you know I couldn't install it, it would always stop at the installing network step. I tried my old ubuntu 64 dvd but I couldn't connect to the internet, so I had to try Vista which I got from a friend almost for free. And when I installed it, it worked perfectly. I thought... nah it can't be right I probably won't be able to run any games on my athlon 3500/2 gb ddr2 ram/x1650 256 mb. They worked quite well, crysis worked exceptionally good, far cry 2 was really a surprise, no glitches no low framerates with decent detail. Everything was good. Besides the really long shutdown process (which I solved the day after that), everything worked ok. Yeah it was a bit of a nutter on ram, but so was xp in the old days. Remember everyone saying how it is better to stay on 98 and just improve it? See a pattern here? No?

I was forced on vista, and I discovered that I have no problems with it. I understand some people with performance issues and such. But to tell you the truth I'd go to ubuntu straight away if I could play some honest games on it. I also hated it at the beginning. Now I'm just afraid that I could start liking mac if I tried it...

EDIT: in reference to the post before, if someone can't turn of UAC, they shouldn't. Any power user that has a problem with that can easily turn it off... hell, there are even guides for turning on and off almost anything in vista. The driver signing can also cause some problems, but people already adressed this problem with Ready driver plus.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked