If it wasn't buggy, slow and if it would actually be an improvement. I'm using it at my school computer and thanks to the "advanced" settings, I have 33MB of space on my user, so I can't install Firefox. And "new" Internet Explorer hangs up every 5 minutes if I open more than 6 pages.
It's just a terrible, terrible system.
may I recomend Opera?, http://www.opera.com/, check out the marketing blurb, IT MAKES YOU FASTER. SOLD!
Apologies for peddling net ware on an OS thread, I have no contribution, needed to lurkmoar for info.
perfectimo: I just wanted to know because you are only trolling if you are posting an anti-Microsoft view point in a thread solely about Microsoft operating systems.
Well I'm not trying to be an asshole, I just express my point of view on the subject and it happens to be a negative comment. Aaaand, just because I have seen what can this type of conversation (you know, a user that argues with everyone and is being generally unpleasant) lead to, I will stop now :)
If it wasn't buggy, slow and if it would actually be an improvement. I'm using it at my school computer and thanks to the "advanced" settings, I have 33MB of space on my user, so I can't install Firefox. And "new" Internet Explorer hangs up every 5 minutes if I open more than 6 pages.
It's just a terrible, terrible system.
Portable Firefox on a Memory Stick, or in your user Profile.
If it wasn't buggy, slow and if it would actually be an improvement. I'm using it at my school computer and thanks to the "advanced" settings, I have 33MB of space on my user, so I can't install Firefox. And "new" Internet Explorer hangs up every 5 minutes if I open more than 6 pages.
It's just a terrible, terrible system.
Portable Firefox on a Memory Stick, or in your user Profile.
That or use a slightly older version.
that or use the brand new version of opera! HAHA got your number!
corroded: Nah, nah, you miss the point, it's most likely not operating sluggish, but rather sluggish in operation. It feels more difficult and annoying for me to use, basically. I think i could change the menu back to classic style, but frankly i'd always liked XP wide menu but without the search programs sort stuff.
For Joe Average user, running 15 1080p videos means nothing, they run the only one they are watching, end of the day, the advantage of DWM and DX10 isn't actually worthy of upgrade solely by itself.
Most techies stay away from Vista. Techies make the recommendations for other people, as they are knowledgeable in the area. We had three vista machines in the whole company, a dev test bed, the managing directors (and he complained he wanted XP back, which he will get), and a ASP.NET developer.
Granted, i haven't used it lots but it hasn't endeared itself like 98/2K/XP did, it felt like an uphill struggle for me to use it, as quickly and efficiently as i use XP
As a "techie" and someone who knows a lot of and works with other "techies" every day, I haven't met many who "stay away" from Vista.
*shrug*
It's been the best OS experience I've had so far. Not perfect by any means, but it has blown away XP and Tiger/Leopard away in terms of endearment and efficiency.
corroded: Nah, nah, you miss the point, it's most likely not operating sluggish, but rather sluggish in operation. It feels more difficult and annoying for me to use, basically. I think i could change the menu back to classic style, but frankly i'd always liked XP wide menu but without the search programs sort stuff.
For Joe Average user, running 15 1080p videos means nothing, they run the only one they are watching, end of the day, the advantage of DWM and DX10 isn't actually worthy of upgrade solely by itself.
Most techies stay away from Vista. Techies make the recommendations for other people, as they are knowledgeable in the area. We had three vista machines in the whole company, a dev test bed, the managing directors (and he complained he wanted XP back, which he will get), and a ASP.NET developer.
Granted, i haven't used it lots but it hasn't endeared itself like 98/2K/XP did, it felt like an uphill struggle for me to use it, as quickly and efficiently as i use XP
As a "techie" and someone who knows a lot of and works with other "techies" every day, I haven't met many who "stay away" from Vista.
*shrug*
It's been the best OS experience I've had so far. Not perfect by any means, but it has blown away XP and Tiger/Leopard away in terms of endearment and efficiency.
Eggo, Eggo. We never see eye to eye on this. Most people don't like Vista. You do.
We fairly obviously support Vista, it's not liked really here and by the majority of people who i consider to be knowledgeable in IT.
What I hate about vista is the RAM usage and CPU wasting on system processes that it will not let you kill but does do anything for people? Why have the tablet interface when vista could never run on a tablet anyway? So many bad choices, bloated and bad ideas.
thisbymaster: What I hate about vista is the RAM usage and CPU wasting on system processes that it will not let you kill but does do anything for people? Why have the tablet interface when vista could never run on a tablet anyway? So many bad choices, bloated and bad ideas.
This is true. I paid to have 4GB of usable RAM. Not 2 of usable and 2 Vista is using to run programs I don't want/need/use.
While I do tolerate Vista, I don't like it. The start menu annoys the crap out of me, the new display settings menu annoys me. The whole idea of being "innovative" isn't something Vista does well. Bring on Win7, or XP. Anything that isn't Vista.
Assuming it's at least 4 gigs, if you can't get Vista SP1 64bit to run well on that, then you're doing it very wrong. Although I will never understand how someone could spend $250 on a video card and go and get less than 4 gigs of RAM when it's so embarrassingly cheap.
Yes it is cheap for one person. But really times that by thousands for an organisation and 4gb is just a silly amount of cash. Vista just isn't worth the extra cost for anything but those who use their home computers as an entertainment Hub, and have a newer home computer. For any organisation the cost implications of Upgrading the RAM for a blanket vista upgrade is astronomical (even at the minimum RAM). Yes in 5 years when all the computers have the specs of a new computer today it might be worth it, but most companys work with old machines. Upgrading constantly only the worst of them, leading to lower replacement costs but a huge gap in capablities. Added to that the fact that the majority of office users would never need the RAM or extra toys with vista as they only use the office package and maybe a database. Vista was simply not designed for office use,which is why it hasn't had a huge uptake.
Hey, I just had a thought - maybe Microsoft will sabotage Windows 7 (lets face it, they havn't even bothered to give it a real name) in order to make Vista seem all that much better! Actually, judging from Vista's release that wouldn't take much effort, now would it? In fact, that might happen anyway, lol.
Wicky_42: Hey, I just had a thought - maybe Microsoft will sabotage Windows 7 (lets face it, they havn't even bothered to give it a real name) in order to make Vista seem all that much better! Actually, judging from Vista's release that wouldn't take much effort, now would it? In fact, that might happen anyway, lol.
It was named Windows 7 because it is meant to be using the version 7.0 of the NT kernel. As of yet Windows 7 beta is classed as version 6.1.
Wicky_42: Hey, I just had a thought - maybe Microsoft will sabotage Windows 7 (lets face it, they havn't even bothered to give it a real name) in order to make Vista seem all that much better! Actually, judging from Vista's release that wouldn't take much effort, now would it? In fact, that might happen anyway, lol.
It was named Windows 7 because it is meant to be using the version 7.0 of the NT kernel. As of yet Windows 7 beta is classed as version 6.1.
Wait - so it's not actually the 7th Windows? I guess I should have expected such trickery from the company that designated their second console '360'...
Mariena: I don't "hate" vista, and I know you can turn those freaking annoying "ARE YOU REALLY SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS MINOR CHANGE TO YOUR SYSTEM?!" popups, but the navigation is so awkward. Yes, anyone can get used to it. I still find XP's system to be a lot easier.
Also, I still can't find my actual network connections without having to search for it for 5 minutes. XP: Control panel -> network connections. Vista: .. Control panel, I guess. Network center? From then on there are a couple of other items that lead to VPN and stuff I'm not interested in. I just want to find my LAN connection. :(
I find the Vista/Windows 7 opflow to be far more efficient than XP's.
By the way:
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
XP, for me: Windows key control panel network connections
Wicky_42: Wait - so it's not actually the 7th Windows? I guess I should have expected such trickery from the company that designated their second console '360'...
It's not trickery, people just jump to assumptions.
Mariena: XP, for me: Windows key control panel network connections
Less than 10 seconds, no mouse clicks. ;)
Throw in a tab and another down arrow and then you have it at less than 10 seconds, no mouse clicks, and no need to open up the control panel to do something so specific.
Although, if you're doing this often enough where it's a problem, you might want to put this on your quick launch toolbar (then you can just press Windows-1 if it's the first quick launch icon or Windows-2 if it's the second and so on) or pin it to the Start Menu.
Jandau: The thing I'm wondering about is, why would I want Windows 7? Is there any reason for me to upgrade? And I mean a practical reason. Not some technical mumbo-jumbo or promises of a golden future. I mean honest-to-god plain-to-see benefits to my daily activities.
Practical reason? You won't have enough memory in a year or two to run games in XP32 and good luck getting hardware/software support for XP64.
Is that practical enough?
They were saying the same thing about XP when Vista first came out. When they start ACTUALLY MAKING games that can't run on XP, and if those games are good, and not just updates of previous games that only hog memory because they have EVEN SHINIER graphics than the otherwise-completely-identical game I got last year, then I'll consider upgrading.
Mariena: XP, for me: Windows key control panel network connections
Less than 10 seconds, no mouse clicks. ;)
Throw in a tab and another down arrow and then you have it at less than 10 seconds, no mouse clicks, and no need to open up the control panel to do something so specific.
Although, if you're doing this often enough where it's a problem, you might want to put this on your quick launch toolbar (then you can just press Windows-1 if it's the first quick launch icon or Windows-2 if it's the second and so on) or pin it to the Start Menu.
It's all well and good, but it's pretty much futile in the end. Everyone is going to have to switch to Windows 7 someday. Once it's time to build a new computer, I'll consider it.
Though there may not be another computer for me; I might actually have a console. I'm getting so sick of these crappy console ports (check the recently released Saint's Row 2. Abysmal).
If it wasn't buggy, slow and if it would actually be an improvement. I'm using it at my school computer and thanks to the "advanced" settings, I have 33MB of space on my user, so I can't install Firefox. And "new" Internet Explorer hangs up every 5 minutes if I open more than 6 pages.
It's just a terrible, terrible system.
Portable Firefox on a Memory Stick, or in your user Profile.
That or use a slightly older version.
Yeah, now if USB ports weren't disabled... And everything locked with passwords.
Also, there is no real reason to use Vista.
1. Resource hog. 2. Games requiring Vista (in Minimal and won't work on XP) suck. Halo 2 is worse than any 5-year old PC shooter, Shadowrun is crap and it has been cracked to work on XP. 3. Sure, you might say it's a safer OS. But if I wanted to give up on games in favor of security, I would just install Linux. 4. Ctrl+Alt+Delete doesn't open the manager. It asks if you want to log out or switch users...
Besides, did you see when Vista and XP have their support ended? Vista - 2012, XP - 2014.
So anyone with Vista is basically a Windows 7 beta-tester.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Run is in Vista. Just use the little search bar in the Start Menu and search for Run. It'll pop up in a split second. Then create a desktop shortcut for it and pin it in the Start Menu. Easy :)
I remember reading about it. They said "The reason many people didn't like Vista is the compatibility problems. We've fixed that with this version of windows."
I saw that point and I for a second almost believed that this might be something to look forward to. That is, of course, until I read how they intended to fix this problem.
"We've made windows 7 completely backwards compatible with windows Vista..."
.... Really? So you claim to fix compatibility issues by simply porting the issues over the the latest version? I can't stand this company.
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?
If you read the article in the first post, you'd find that the Run command has been integrated into the search interface of the start menu. Although it's much more efficient to launch Firefox by placing it in the Quick Launch toolbar and hitting Windows-1 (or whatever number corresponds to its placement; I have it as the second icon in the QLT and so I just hit Windows-2 to launch Firefox).
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?
If you read the article in the first post, you'd find that the Run command has been integrated into the search interface of the start menu. Although it's much more efficient to launch Firefox by placing it in the Quick Launch toolbar and hitting Windows-1 (or whatever number corresponds to its placement; I have it as the second icon in the QLT and so I just hit Windows-2 to launch Firefox).
Thanks. I kinda skim-read the article and must have missed it.
may I recomend Opera?, http://www.opera.com/, check out the marketing blurb, IT MAKES YOU FASTER. SOLD!
Apologies for peddling net ware on an OS thread, I have no contribution, needed to lurkmoar for info.