- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: Dark Xarin
Posted by: Captiosus
Posted by: Dark Xarin
also i have found some one elses annalisis of vista he has some very good points http://reliancepc.com/reliancepc/menu/tips/xpnotvista/
btw my ram is 1gig ddr2
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-deta ils.asp?EdpNo=2231768&Sku=E145-7874 that is my video card
.... and if it was a problem with me i would be having these same or at least some major issues with xp also, everyone else i know hates vista including sofware engeners....
Not here to bust your chops or anything, just share my 2 cents, as it were.
While I can't argue with a majority of the points made in the linked article, Vista is a lot better off at release than XP was. In my most honest of opinions, the argument that Vista is a bigger resource hog than XP is invalid because every iteration of Windows has taken more resources than the last. 95 was a resource hog compared to 3.1; 98 was a hog compared to 95; ME was a hog compared to 98; 2K was a hog compared to ME and NT4; and XP was a hog compared to 2K.
The problems with Vista are three fold. I'll list them in what I feel is the order of importance:
1. Technology sales have been steadily on the decline. People who bought a new computer within the last 3 or 4 years probably aren't inclined to upgrade, because they are still content with their systems today. It's hard to justify upgrading to a whole new machine just because a new OS is out. In that respect, I think Microsoft overestimated the "desire" of consumers to upgrade. In the same category, tech savvy purchasers (except us crazy 'early adopter' types) tend to stay away from new Microsoft OS's until the first service pack - this also tends to hold true for corporate consumers (other than companies which sell computers, of course).
2. Glaring hardware and software compatibility problems. Admittedly this also plagued XP, but not to the same degree. Because Vista changed the core of how it operates, a lot of so-called "legacy" hardware and software won't run. This is also the predominant reason software engineers loathe Vista. Imagine that, for the last 13 years (NT4-XP), you've had to program for a common system kernel. Now Microsoft completely changes the way the kernel interacts with hardware, requiring a whole new learning curve.
3. Longhorn (now Vista) was, originally, supposed to bring a whole new host of features. For example, from the beginning, Microsoft had announced things like a new file system successor to NTFS called WinFS. However, all of the most anticipated additions other than Aero were pretty much scrapped because Longhorn was taking too long to develop. This drove sales away from tech folks who were looking forward to the new "revolutionary" features.
Anyhoo, that's just my 2 cents. Let me see what I can find out about your issue by looking at your links. Hopefully I'll be posting again soon.
thank you your message was interesting and polite, rather then telling some one to "throw away there computer" etc or puting the person directly at fault.... I beleave vista's bigist problem is its compadability issues thats why on here ppl are saying ooo my comp works fine while others on this sight or others sais it doesnt, like you said this operating system wasn't based off of anouther it was built from scrach hence the 6 years and the scraped feachers. If you look at that first link i put about the other persons view of vista that best discribes my problems sluggish etc i have all the currant drivers for all hardware but if you can find any problems please say
thx
Dark your posts are terribal. They are riddled with terribal spelling mistakes, grammer mistakes, and it is one long run on sentence. This is why no one here takes you serious. You type like a 10 year old, plus you sound like one. If you are going to try and make a point, try and sound intelligent.
[Edited on 06.09.2007 1:40 AM PDT]