[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catachresis /img/forum/go_quote.gif *Snip*

I think many of us are familiar with the origins. It too had growing pains though is all I was getting at. I'd say XP had more issues out of box than Vista did, but that's mostly anecdotal.


The biggest problem Vista had is people installed it on outdated hardware (or it was preinstalled on insufficient hardware) and were expecting things to go faster. This didn't happen so people would complain to everyone else, and then they would complain without touching it themselves . . . and everything went downhill. This doesn't even mention the people that thought it should look and operate radically different for no reason at all.

Vista was most certainly a step in the right direction, at least for Windows as a whole.

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is funny though is XP had many of the same issues out the door. It had its time of being hated too and now everyone looks back lovingly on it. Funny how that happens.

Couldn't agree more. I was one of those hold outs that held on to 98SE as long as I could have. Looking back, I feel it was stubborn side of me holding me back more than anything else, makes quite a parallel for what's happening with vista today. There were people (lots of them) that were claiming that w2k was soooooo much better faster and lighter

Same thing happened when w2k3 came out, little did they know it already had a bunch of services left to manual by default.

 

[catachresis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think many of us are familiar with the origins. It too had growing pains though is all I was getting at. I'd say XP had more issues out of box than Vista did, but that's mostly anecdotal.

I _will_say one thing for Microsoft (and it hurts a little): one of the big, useless, bloated integrated programs in XP was Windows Media Player, and we know what happened to that media-playing nonsense. When we all read on Voodoo Extreme and Anandtech that XP had the bloat, and it would demand another 512 megs of ddr1 (!!!) to run with speed, we all threw our shoes at Billy Gates. But he was right. The future was much more than video games. We didn't see dvds, and at that distant point, we had only just heard of Creative's mp3 player (I installed ethernet cable in the Dublin office of an ad exec who had just spent $500.00 for one of Creative's 10 meg players. He got my boss to install it on his pc.).

So even if MS didn't make the future happen, it enabled the programs that did propel the future. A thousand years later, some of the XP bloat just makes perfect sense.

And you're right, Shike, that it's foolish to attempt to install a new OS as an update to an old one. It's a guaranteed recipe for heartache.

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your logic doesn't flow true. XP and Vista are entirely different architectures. Just because one driver is extremely flushed out and stable does not mean another is. Vista DID have driver issues out the door, there are few today that would even question that fact. The nForce chipset definitely got the short end of the stick towards the beginning, and video cards from either nVidia or ATI were plagued with issues.

The Windows installer only uses bog-standard SVGA drivers. Optimized drivers are only put in the installed OS image, but not used by the installer itself (or its first stage at least, the one that bombed in my case).

In any case, my point is that the frigging installer had a regression big enough to drive a truck through, on a fairly common system.

Quote:

Also, anything above integrated in a build makes it above "vanilla". It adds more parts to the chain making it harder to troubleshoot.

Certainly, but DIY integration goes with the territory for Windows. Unless you are suggesting Windows should only be purchased integrated by an OEM and never bought direct and installed on a DIY system. It's a valid stance, but lack of choices is something that diehard Windows apologists tend to throw at Apple ("no choice of hardware!" "Bad proprietary systems, bad!" "Overpriced hardware!"). Back when I had priced the configuration, OEM versions cost at least 40% more than DIY.

Quote:

What is funny though is XP had many of the same issues out the door. It had its time of being hated too and now everyone looks back lovingly on it. Funny how that happens.

Actually, I don't like XP either. As I mentioned, I can tolerate Windows 2000 (no activation, no day-glo molten-playskool-set color scheme that you have to immediately replace on pain of bleeding eyeballs), but as I mentioned, many games or the like require XP or higher.

As far as I am concerned, Windows XP is just a legacy support layer to run MS Money. Sort of like Classic and Rosetta in OS X, or IBM 3270 emulators. An unpleasant but necessary evil until you can rid yourself of the legacy apps, which always takes longer than you expect.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid /img/forum/go_quote.gif *snip*

The problem is we don't know what your error is or what caused it. Just saying its Vista's fault with no proof is wrong. For example, are you running your drives off SATA? A search on the net shows that Vista would probably require you to drop a disk in to load nForce SATA drivers since they are touchy. The whole nForce platform to some extent can be described as touchy, but I don't even want to get into that mess.

 

[_Spanky_]

[size=xx-small]Warning: The following post is written by a Windows fanboy who attempted to keep this post non-biased. I post what I feel and have observed, which may not be 100% fact as I don't have the time to spend researching company history and how each os is different from the next.[/size]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now they want us to pay again for 7, an OS whose virtue is (did you guess?) that it runs almost as well as XP!. And everybody will run to buy it. People REALLY deserve micro$oft.

Not hard to spot a Linux fanboy. Typical with adding the $ into Microsoft and/or Windows. Yes, I'm a Windows fanboy but I also understand the needs/uses for other operating systems and can think logically about why they are around. To the fanboy above, I wanted to post some benchmarks I came across. Sorry I don't have the link to the review.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/rv/2009/...tartup_he2.jpg
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/rv/2009/...tartup_le2.jpg

Mac gets hate because it's expensive. I imagine this has a lot to do with R&D. They take a lot of time deciding/making the parts that will go in their computers so the end user gets something very reliable and they get less warranty calls.

Linux gets hate because there are still a lot of things in it that require the use of terminal commands. We're almost in 2010, you would think we could get a little more GUI use in.

Windows gets hate because the infamous BSOD and you gotta pay a pretty price for it, the registry and apparent stealing of ideas.

While I can't comment too much on Mac and Linux, I will say that I've tried Ubuntu a few times in the past and it was alright. The 2nd time I used it, I put in a password when I installed it, a very easy to remember one, and when it started up, it asked for my password and I put it in and it said wrong password. After a dozen attempts or so, I formatted. I'm not blaming this on Linux or Ubuntu but it's these little things that get to people. I would happily dual-boot Ubuntu with Windows 7 but the main problem is syncing data. So I use Ubuntu for browsing the web and chat and then I want to boot up Windows to play a game or something, what if I want to ALT+TAB and google something? It would be a challenge to keep all my browsing history, bookmarks and settings, and chatlogs synced between Ubuntu and Windows. Especially having to use different programs in each OS.

Windows (and I'm not saying other OS's don't) does everything nicely. Windows 7 really redeems Microsoft and has some awesome features that make it much better. Vista wasn't bad at all, one of the big problems was that manufacturers didn't/couldn't make drivers in time for the release. I know, I was one of those people that had enormous problems with Vista on "older" hardware. For everyone that seems to hate Windows (especially because of Vista), seriously, give Windows 7 RTM a try. It's not that hard to find and IMO is legal to download and use for the trial period as long as you don't hack/crack it to activate it. I truly believe Windows is a victim of it's own success. People see a BSOD and think "Windows is crap". In my eyes there's 2 kinds of BSOD. The first and I would imagine most popular would be hardware failure which is obviously not Windows' fault. Personally, I would rather see a BSOD than a hole in my motherboard where the CPU used to be. (Reference to overheating) The other kind of BSOD would be some kind of software level where a driver fails or a critical file isn't found. This kind of BSOD doesn't happen without human interaction. Either a 3rd party program install or 3rd party driver or someone messing about where they shouldn't be. I think I can safely say this for all OS's that the majority of problems is either caused by the user or 3rd party applications, all OS's are stable and work great out of the box.

I see someone talking about nForce... That was my first experience with Vista on the nForce4 platform. That chipset (and several other NVidia chipsets) are sooo problematic. I couldn't run Vista x64 with 4GB of ram without my onboard ethernet crapping out and stalling my computer because of bad implementation by Nvidia. Also using 4GB with x64 would cause major problems with the PCI controller causing my sound card to go nuts in games. I have since boughten a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P and I love it and will never go back to NVidia chipsets.

Eh... this post is getting a bit long and I kinda lost my train of thought. Hope I contributed to this conversation with reasoning

 

[Ech0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Spanky- Linux gets hate because there are still a lot of things in it that require the use of terminal commands. We're almost in 2010, you would think we could get a little more GUI use in.

Not sure I agree w/the "still a lot of things in it require..." comment, but, I'm sure it seems like that coming from windows. You can work / play all day on a nix box and never see a terminal or have to resort to command line. I personally at times (maybe a lot of times) prefer terminal commands. I tend to use whatever's faster when it comes to terminal vs. gui.

Example:

cp *.jpg ~/Pictures/

The above command just copied every .jpg file from the directory it's ran from to the users home Pictures directory. I can type that much faster than I can point and click to get the same result.

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif The problem is we don't know what your error is or what caused it. Just saying its Vista's fault with no proof is wrong. For example, are you running your drives off SATA? A search on the net shows that Vista would probably require you to drop a disk in to load nForce SATA drivers since they are touchy. The whole nForce platform to some extent can be described as touchy, but I don't even want to get into that mess.

You are just making excuses for Microsoft. It wasn't touchy for XP, or for Solaris 10u3, which is as picky an OS you can get for the x86 platform (it usually can't even deal with SATA adapters other than on-board). The fact remains, every single OS I tried installed without a hitch on that machine, except Vista. This makes it Vista's issue, not mine.

It's precisely because Microsoft had the same attitude of denial that there was such a widespread backlash against Vista.

 

[MadMan007]

That's like saying that every XP BSOD was Microsoft's fault which is pure silliness.

NVidia's video card drivers had many problems for a while after Vista's release. Were those 'Vista's fault'? No. NF4 was known to have issues with Vista and at one point iirc NV wasn't even going to make Vista drivers for it at all. So you can probably chalk that one up to NV having driver problems and making mediocre at best chipsets in general.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are just making excuses for Microsoft.

No, it's called actually knowing what the issues are and being logical about them. Without proper drivers the platform doesn't work. The chipset manufacture is responsible for drivers, ergo, if the chipset drivers are causing issues then blame them.

I fail to see why this is so complex for you to understand?

Quote:

It wasn't touchy for XP, or for Solaris 10u3, which is as picky an OS you can get for the x86 platform (it usually can't even deal with SATA adapters other than on-board). The fact remains, every single OS I tried installed without a hitch on that machine, except Vista. This makes it Vista's issue, not mine.

Hardly. Once again, drivers that are flushed out for one OS aren't necessarily well done for another. Look at early gaming performance in Vista if you still don't understand this.

Quote:

It's precisely because Microsoft had the same attitude of denial that there was such a widespread backlash against Vista.

Not really. I think group think and mob mentality were the biggest issues Vista had.

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are just making excuses for Microsoft. It wasn't touchy for XP, or for Solaris 10u3, which is as picky an OS you can get for the x86 platform (it usually can't even deal with SATA adapters other than on-board). The fact remains, every single OS I tried installed without a hitch on that machine, except Vista. This makes it Vista's issue, not mine. It's precisely because Microsoft had the same attitude of denial that there was such a widespread backlash against Vista.

Doesn't the same hold for every new build of linux? It took the ubuntu guys about 2 years to FINALLY get my atheros wi-fi working correctly. I have tried multiple builds of mad-wifi and other solutions at no avail, must have spent enough time to install vista hundred times and over. Granted, linux is free so I can see how they could be more or less exonerated. Still, that doesn't mean linux is a much more reliable alternative to a casual user, when even the linux geeks admit you have to be very specific at picking what parts you put in to build a successful linux machine. BTW, I never got to get my k-world tv tuner on any of the linux build, ever (worked fine in vista, out of the box).

Since we have chosen to rely on isolated, individual anecdotes for proving an OS's worth, here I will say that every single one of the naysayers I came across around me were grossly misinformed about vista from its pre-release days or did not believe in the need of UAC - except they had no idea unix had something equivalent (read: they are only used to XP's dangerously lax ways of managing vital resources).

Quote:

Actually, I don't like XP either. As I mentioned, I can tolerate Windows 2000 (no activation, no day-glo molten-playskool-set color scheme that you have to immediately replace on pain of bleeding eyeballs), but as I mentioned, many games or the like require XP or higher.

While I am not a big fan of activation, unless you are pirating it really isn't that big of a deal. Moving between different builds? Just call them up and they will fix you up no questions asked. I have done this a few times in the past no problems whatsoever. As for the themes, I don't like the default luna either, but there are tons of other themes downloadable from the net. Whether you like the whole idea of themes is strictly of your opinion.

Quote:

Actually, I don't like XP either. As I mentioned, I can tolerate Windows 2000 (no activation, no day-glo molten-playskool-set color scheme that you have to immediately replace on pain of bleeding eyeballs), but as I mentioned, many games or the like require XP or higher.

 

[Bertrand]

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Spanky- /img/forum/go_quote.gif It would be a challenge to keep all my browsing history, bookmarks and settings, and chatlogs synced between Ubuntu and Windows. Especially having to use different programs in each OS.

xmarks. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2410

firefox runs on *nix and windows.

I don't actually know what chatlogs are, though.

 

[Bertrand]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMan007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's like saying that every XP BSOD was Microsoft's fault which is pure silliness. NVidia's video card drivers had many problems for a while after Vista's release. Were those 'Vista's fault'? No. NF4 was known to have issues with Vista and at one point iirc NV wasn't even going to make Vista drivers for it at all. So you can probably chalk that one up to NV having driver problems and making mediocre at best chipsets in general.

+1. according to microsoft's telemetrics, 70% of bsods when vista was first released were nvidia driver bugs. (ati about 10% I think). I haven't bought a nvidia item since.

 

[MikoLayer]

Nvidia should probably spend more time on making properly functioning drivers rather than wasting time on inventing anti-competitive lockouts to disallow PPU/physx use on ati-rigged machines, I might add.

 

[RicHSAD]

I'll take Nvidia's drivers over ATI's anyday. Game profiles + proper game support at release.